![]() |
The result was nominator withdrawn. Subject seems to be notable BigPimpinBrah (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization with little or no third-party coverage, article seems to be an advertisement and all of the author's other contribs are links to this article BigPimpinBrah (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some feedback This is all great feedback about the page...I would like to point out a few organizations that support and endorse the IICRC such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)http://webstore.ansi.org/FindStandards.aspx, the Society of Cleaning and Restoration Professionals http://scrt.org/news/36-changes-to-the-iicrc-continuing-education-requirements and the International Sanitary Supply Association http://www.issa.com/?m=articles&event=view&id=1619&lg= . The IICRC is also mentioned in several other wikipedia pages including the page on Carpet cleaning, Hot water extraction and Mold growth, assessment, and remediation. Registrants of the IICRC were also recently featured on the Lifetime TV network and in Real Simple Magazine. Additional feedback would be great. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtneyScharff (talk • contribs) 14:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book the article discusses does not meet WP:BKCRIT. Even then, what little information is available regarding the book comes from what appears to be a primary and likely unreliable source. I am hesitant to call this article a hoax, as you never know with religious topics, but it most definitely has the aspect of one.
The primary contributors to the article have been User:Thefoolonthehill8, the creator, and User:Johnnybgoode100 who has done some mild vandalism by removing tags. They have both been notified of this AfD.
The last addition of content was over a week ago. WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 23:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 10:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. No reliable sources. The Banner talk 16:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 01:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:BLP1E. The whole page seems to be based on a BBC documentary that was picked up by other newspapers. Notability is not established. Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notability, specifically WP:BIO1E. Single event is not justification for stand-alone article. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 19:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This was a difficult close, and I even found myself going back and forth several times as I evaluated the discussion. While the original nomination is indeed a poor (one might almost say invalid) argument, the notability concerns brought up in the discussion are more worrisome. Given that there is only one source, which is not even about Mr. Chmykhalov, there isn't enough verifiable material to support the claims that he is notable. If his list of credits could be verified, then I would agree he meets WP:ENT #1, so no prejudice against re-creation with sources for verifiability. —Darkwind (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable in English-speaking world; no reason for inclusion in English-language Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a1, a3, WP:NAD, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a dictionary WP:WINAD
Move the contents of the article to Wiktionary. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 18:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 01:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient evidence of notability given. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable company. The references in this article are unreliable and I am unable to find any reliable sources in Google News, HighBeam, NewsBank, CNET, JSTOR, Credo and Questia. Fails WP:ORG. - MrX 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21 02:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No announcement of production start date, fails WP:NFF Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Vampire Diaries#Spin-off. J04n(talk page) 18:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon for notability to be established - a TV series that is not released may never be released/notable Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:CRYSTAL. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination, since article has been improved. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:NONPROFIT; only cites the official website. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not properly referenced article, edited by 6 WP:Single-purpose accounts. Seems promotional; WP:NOTABILITY not established. Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is on a game that is not yet released - and so possibly may never be. I can't see how it is notable (yet). Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book fails the notability guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability (books) ♦ Tentinator ♦ 17:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not assert why it is notable. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleled as a hoax.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want this article (List of Philippine monarchs) deleted because this entire article is obviously only one big joke. There is no sense, logic or scientific veracity to any of the people or states listed here. This article is a waste of space. Thank You. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable software startup Staszek Lem (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NCO's like this don't normally meet WP:SOLDIER. I can't see anything in his career to make him notable IMO - including inducted into the Quartermaster Hall of Fame. Gbawden (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warrant Officers's like this don't normally meet WP:SOLDIER. I can't see anything in his career to make him notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 04:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability since June 2010, also an orphan. Lets make a decision either way NCO's like him don't normally meet WP:SOLDIER. I can't see anything in his career to make him notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a Centre bus. It would also be suitable on their companies article. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a National Express West Midlands bus. It would also be suitable on their companies article. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a National Express Dundee bus. It would also be suitable on their companies article. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All list of bus routes in the UK have been deleted except London. Cambridge, Suffolk and Norfolk are redirects which soon will also have been deleted as well therefore there is no longer any need for this page. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 11:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Super Robot Wars. J04n(talk page) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ballery with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If someone would like to continue working to establish notability for this page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 18:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No credible assertion of notability. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 21:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actor only involved in one film, fails WP:NACTOR. Ducknish (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See that is my opinion and the guy is an actor and has also acted in a movie which was a box office grosser in India, so I say Weak Keep. Uncletomwood (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Based on GNG, note that sources provided during discussion were not rebutted j⚛e deckertalk 17:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability; played Halo professionally 9 years ago and retired Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List_of_Bones_characters#Camille_Saroyan. MBisanz talk 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a character who seems to lack any out-of-show notablity. The acticle basically is a very indepth coverage of the characters actions in the TV show. The article is written both from an in-universe perspective and it entirly lacks any references or citations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG. recent AfDs have shown embassies are not inherently notable. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage LibStar (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 04:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company without independent sources. Looks like advertising. The Banner talk 10:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 04:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Challenged PROD. Unfortunately, I can't find any reliable third-party sources for this publication to establish its notability. I've found nothing but passing mentions from Jacksonville's other major papers, the Florida Times-Union,[32] the Financial News and Daily Record,[33] and the Jacksonville Business Journal;[34] from local alt weekly Folio Weekly;[35] or the local news channels[36][37][38] Additionally, as the site appears not to be updated regularly anymore, it seems unlikely that new sources will appear in the future. Cúchullain t/c 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 16:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Highly speculative article about authors father with clear inaccuracies. Sources don't back up what is claimed. WP:OR and fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) The Banner talk 09:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising-like article about a new (or newly relaunched) commercial website, by an apparent COI editor. No independent referenes, no evidence for notability per WP:CORP. HaeB (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 04:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how she meets any of the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as Unambiguous advertising or promotion (non-admin closure). Mangoe (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability_(books) ♦ Tentinator ♦ 08:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Largely WP:POVFORK. j⚛e deckertalk 17:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a POV fork using only in universe sources. The primary author (an WP:SPA, WP:COI, recent ban, etc etc) is contesting deletion. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - there is a consensus to keep, even after discounting the sockpuppetry. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Non-notable stunt double, previously deleted at prod. No WP:RS whatsoever to establish notability per any entertainment guideline or WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prod declined by author because "you can still download it" which is not an assertation of notability. No sourcing found whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is a clear consensus to delete, once the socks are scrapped. It should be noted also that the "keep" votes don't actually present evidence for passing various notability criteria and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG -- no awards etc., no substantial coverage. The article is constructed out of air, using press releases and generic websites -- and the main point is there's nothing else to use. Do have a look at the history -- quite a collection of socks, for an article less than a week old, and obviously an intensive effort by a PR firm. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally coffee pusher has just officially accused me on my talk page of coordinating a campaign, which I am not doing. The admin above helped guide my writing of this article and has stated here that such accusations are underhanded and not true. Ngoesseringer (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that redpenofdoom removed a citation about the amount of people that watched his anthem for the patriots, saying they weren't watching him. But it wasn't the claim of the article. Then a later editor faulted the subjects notability because according to him no one watched the game on live TV. However, if he had seen the page before redpenofdoom subjectively removed the proof that it was seen by an enormous audience, he wouldn't have made his comment and may not have used that criteria to sway his vote. Selmaflora294 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the people claiming he didn't sing live to millions of people are wrong. The above editor is not only uninformed, he is also engaged in outright lies. DirectTV, which I have, broadcasts games during the day. They NEVER broadcast evening games because they are nationally televised. Secondly, the extenuating circumstances that allowed the anthem to be broadcast were the murders in Newton, CT. That was the reason for his performance being televised. He had nothin to do with it being televised, but it 100% was seen across the country because I saw in a bar watching the game with friends. So please, stop th BS and the bias. And don't even think of calling me biased because the truth it was broadcast everywhere that night. Judge George by rules applicable, but do not lie about one if the things that actually make George notable. It's just not fair. Davidblumin (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)— Davidblumin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability."
Does this discussion come down to a bunch of subjective analysis on what is indeed NOTABLE? The two detracting editors believe Komsky is unworthy, while the single issue editors who all like Komsky think that he is worthy, but in need of and capable of becoming more notable. "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." That guideline creates a huge grey zone of what is notable and what isn't, and leads to a digital shouting match!. I think THE verified sources of what he's done are notable enough to warrant this article remain ON wikipedia, it certainly does not hurt wikipedia because none of the contents of the article are without official verification. So why delete? He meets guidelines, then again some he doesn't meet. There is no overwhelming evidence to warrant either position 'winning' this argument.
Repeat- "It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability." Seeing as how there are no vague claims in this article, it boils down to a discussion among differing opinions on what is and is not notable. All of us can disagree on that, but none of what is written is false. And some of the sources are MAJOR sources that had journalists decide that they were NOTABLE. Why is that an anonymous band of editors on Wikipedia can claim to ascertain better the grounds of notability then a professional journalist who has to answer to a superior, fact check sources, and satisfy a readership? What gives you or anyone else here the right to make their opinion count any stronger then someone with greater experience in the matter?
Repeat- "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted"
Mikeclark22 (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Wesley Eisold. MBisanz talk 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG criteria. The article is supported by three first-party sources, all of which are deadlinks. Very little of the artists meet WP:BAND criteria. I think it should be merged with the company's founder, Wesley Eisold. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to University of Texas at Dallas academic programs. MBisanz talk 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is not notable and fails WP:GNG, considering it is a local residency program. It also needs more reliable sources because the sources are primary sources affiliated with the subject. ~~JHUbal27 03:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Passes notability guidelines for objects (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be funny, I don't believe that it meets WP:NASTRO. It has never been naked-eye visible, is not in any notable catalogue, has not had any significant coverage (outside of WP), and was not discovered before 1850. Therefore, it fails all WP:NASTRO criteria, and should not be here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sameer Thahir, if the film finally gets some coverage, the article could be restored in one click.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased film, no major coverage to pass WP:GNG either in the article or the web. Case of WP:TOOSOON, unless someone can add reliable Malayalam sources to prove notability now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Bits and Pieces. J04n(talk page) 18:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROD deleted. Non-notable pilot for a TV series that was never picked up and pilot film was never shown. Not notable as an unreleased film WP:NFF as the production is not notable. There was some coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject announcing that a pilot was planned but nothing after that. The actors listed are on other Disney series, Liv & Maddie, so this will never be a series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ~ mazca talk 00:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Musical festival. No sources suggest notability, and neither does my search. Endorsing outstanding notability concern since March 2012. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
July 2009 notability tag. Endorsed upon review, I am not seeing any indication in the article that the subject is notable. The only source is a short bio note on the website of an opera she preformed at. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 04:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails both WP:PROFESSOR and WP:BASIC biographical requirements. Mainly, is neither heavily cited, nor a named chair, nor the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. He doesn't seem to have accomplished anything notable in academia or any other field. JFHJr (㊟) 03:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Per A7 LFaraone 03:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No references, no evidence for notability per WP:CORP. The author (who might have a COI judging from the user name) removed a speedy deletion notice without explanation. HaeB (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed theme park. Prod text was "Missing reliable references, failing to indicate notability". Removed by the creator, I don't feel that anything has been addressed. Still a crystal ballish future commercial project of no present notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Miss Venezuela 2010#Official contestants. MBisanz talk 21:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This stub article has a surprisingly complicated history. It used to be a poorly referenced stub on a Miss Venezuela contestant (this revision) but was redirected two years ago to the Miss Venezuela 2010 article. A year later, the redirect was replaced by another poorly referenced biography of a beauty pageant participant with the same name but from Colombia. The problem is basically the same: complete lack of significant third-party coverage. The Colombian Andrea Escobar also landed an acting gig in a telenovela but despite the claim of the article, IMDb appears to indicate that it's a non-recurring minor part. So what do we do with this mess? One option is to revert to the redirect to Miss Venezuela 2010 since we at least have a redirect target. (We do not have an article for the pageant in which the Colombian Andrea Escobar participated) A second option is to just delete because it's quite unlikely that readers will actively search for a non-notable contestant in a 2010 Venezuelan pageant or for an equally non-notable Colombian model/actress. In some sense, deletion is fair to these two women: we just declare them equally non-notable. The last option, of course, is to create separate articles for the two Andrea Escobars and turn the current article into a disambiguation page. I think deletion is the best of the three options. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
list article with only one article. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE & REDIRECTED New article was merged already, closing by redirecting the original. Non-Admin closure Hasteur (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
short article about chopping wood without any factual or relevant information. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 04:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is completely unreferenced. Would require sourcing per WP:NEOLOGISM to establish notability. Related to recent deletions of other political pejoratives, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Serious People (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) for further rationales. Yworo (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]