Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kutaism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 - Yomanganitalk 12:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kutaism
Originally tagged for speedy delete (CSD G1) but contested. No relevant ghits. Denni talk 16:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nonsense, and the alleged link on the talk page isn't remotely relevant. Fan-1967 16:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:V, incoherent gibberish. Tubezone 17:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Apparently the article is about Chicago police detective Sgt. Tony Kuta, who is mentioned in the Chicago Sun-Times url noted on the talk page. Still, the word kutaism is a neologism, and doesn't belong here. Sgt. Kuta on his own might be notable. Tubezone 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be. Generates a few dozen hits in local crime reporting, as you would expect for a senior detective, but no indication in any of the reports that he's famous for his philosophy or phrasing. Fan-1967 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, there doesn't seem to be much if any published material on this guy, certainly not enough to make a WP article, so fails PNC on WP:N. 170.215.83.83 01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be. Generates a few dozen hits in local crime reporting, as you would expect for a senior detective, but no indication in any of the reports that he's famous for his philosophy or phrasing. Fan-1967 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Apparently the article is about Chicago police detective Sgt. Tony Kuta, who is mentioned in the Chicago Sun-Times url noted on the talk page. Still, the word kutaism is a neologism, and doesn't belong here. Sgt. Kuta on his own might be notable. Tubezone 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete patent nonsense Danny Lilithborne 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not entirely nonsense, but neither verifiable nor notable. -- Shunpiker 06:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as if it was notable we'd all be trying to fix this mess of an article. It's nn though. --Wizardman 17:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- HOAX. Google gave nothing relevant except Wikipedia article, so per WP:GOOG this is probably not just non-notable but also non-verifiable, and I would add, non-existent. Horribly written, almost nonsense. Delete per nom and Wikipedia deletion policy. 170.215.83.83 01:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
