Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ESkog (talk | contribs) at 02:11, 30 June 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musafir Indian restaurant, Istanbul). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 02:11, 30 June 2007 by ESkog (talk | contribs) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musafir Indian restaurant, Istanbul)
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 23:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable restaurant; tagged for prod a while ago but creator deprodded. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. this is an ad. Kripto 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Kripto. Hirohisat Freedom of Speech 03:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Blatant Advertising! Corpx 05:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy/snowball as blatant advertising.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Carry out It's an ad, and not a very good one at that. Mandsford 14:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete as advert. Chris 20:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advertising. OysterGuitarst 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per advertisement.--JForget 02:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 00:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable constructed language supposedly invented in 2002. Nothing in the article is attributed to reliable sources. Google scholar returns 0 relevant hits. Google returns 12,000 hits for Dousha as a fairly common proper noun, but few of these refer to the language, and scanning through the first few pages yielded no reliable sources. proposed deletion contested by anon IP. Delete Aagtbdfoua 01:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable.OysterGuitarst 03:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not for made up gibberish languages. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a place to publish original research Corpx 05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Translation from the original language was requested in April. From what I can tell, there are more sources in the original article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The source article is on the Portuguese wiki. The references are: the official website, a page on Langmaker (anyone can make one), one japanese and two hungarian grammar articles (that do not mention Dousha), another site that purports to have various materials with examples for helping to learn the language (I get a blank page when I accessed this), a link to an internet forum with 4 registered users, a link to Dousha on another wiki, and a downloadable dictionary from a geocities site. None of these constitute reliable sources. - Aagtbdfoua 12:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For a precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toki Pona.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Toki Pona no longer has a Wikipedia article. Perhaps you meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toki Pona (2nd nomination)? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While Almir U. Junior may someday be a reknowned linguist, he or she isn't there yet. It's nice to see someone who thinks that an international language should be even more complicated than anything that currently exists:
"Verbs are conjugated by tense, voice and mood. Each one has six participle forms, and also six infinitives." Future generations of high school students will be grateful if this becomes this Dousha is disposed of. Mandsford 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of non-self-published sources to establish notability of subject. The original article in Portuguese is not any better in this regard, as Aagtbdfoua explained. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless multiple reliable sources can be found. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete referenced do not assert notability (they in fact serve to tarnish its notability), keep only if some scholarly article can be referenced (any constructed language of note will be mentioned in a scholarly article). Tdmg 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-existant or specific genre. This is simply a mishmash of Bhangra and Reggaeton - justified by providing three examples (OR) of songs that could be classified as Bhangraton, but could just as easily be classified as anything else. Sfacets 01:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No mentions found through google search by independent media. A links are from forums and such Corpx 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.OysterGuitarst
- Delete No ref. Hoax or neologism.Obina 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Boyband (New Zealand band), no sourced information to merge. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable person in a band with dubious notability in and of itelf. Possibly written by subject, no sources Kripto 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Kripto 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The band he is in is clearly notable (charted #1 hit in NZ), though that by itself does not establish his notability. Chubbles 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Smeerge/redirect to article on band which - as Chubbles points out - is clearly notable. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the coverage that he has received is in relation to Boyband. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the individual needs to prove more individual notability, but can be merged with the Boyband article per the discussion above. The individual is not necessarily notable, but Boyband has established itself. Not now. Barkeep 04:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to establish notability. Thruppence 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability. OysterGuitarst 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It wouldn't hurt to delete this, considering it's only a sentence, and someone else (who knows Serbian) can rewrite with sources. Sr13 22:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. There are no references given or that I can find to support SezamPro is notable. Nv8200p talk 00:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - obviously there's nothing to say about it, save what and where it is. So, keeping it seems pointless. Kripto 00:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not established nor even really asserted, no references in secondary sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.OysterGuitarst 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability, nothing showing that it passes WP:CORP, no sources. Indeed could be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of importance). DES (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Thruppence 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. SezamPro is one of biggest Serbian internet providers. Sources (all Serbian though) can be found e.g. from Ekonomist magazine, PC press, PC press (well, disclaimer: PC press is the original founder or the sister magazine of SezamPro, and Dejan Ristanović owns/manages both, but nevertheless...). It even has a few Scholar hits (subtract the ones containing @sezampro.co.yu). That being said, no, I'm not inclined to expand the article as I find the topic boring :-), so I'm indifferent with the destiny of the current sub-sub-stub. Duja► 10:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.