Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenoharbingers


 * 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 speedy delete under WP:CSD G1; obvious sock-supported hoax.  A Train ''take the 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Xenoharbingers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No proof of notability, google turns up zero hits for "xenoharbingers" Diletante 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reliable sources provided, no way to verify the content of this article.  Jkelly 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously not notable, probably a hoax. ...  disco spinster   talk  18:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Looks to be totally bogus. -Nv8200p talk 19:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced figment of the imagination. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Probably a hoax April_I_R_Fooled 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Certain hoax, even more so if google turns up zero.  Primarily the product of two single-purpose vandal accounts which have now been blocked (see Special:Contributions/Adonaiii and Special:Contributions/Kendra_Ardnek), plus a single-purpose IP vandal (Special:Contributions/80.33.103.14).  --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete this, my friend has ego problems. He's just looking to show this to friends to get attention for himself. Please don't satisfy him by allowing this to linger. WP:MADEUP -- febtalk 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A person i knew tried to recruit me once, i don't think it's widespread (just in the netherlands), but real. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.220.75.184 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 March 2007 — 89.220.75.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I know this is real! It's a deffinant keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.19.22 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 March 2007 — 206.255.19.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.159.94 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 March 2007 — 69.76.159.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: These three IP users have, respectively: Only edited this page, Only made a minor edit outside this page, and edited other than this page, but obvious vandalism sock puppet of the above party -- febtalk 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep  The article is legit, i've heard on this cult on a documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.52.203 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 March 2007  — 82.72.52.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * delete not notable--Sefringle 02:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - complete hoax with no truth at all. Jayden54 12:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This cult is real, i know a friend of mine who got an invitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.165.102.114 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 March 2007 — 62.165.102.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep There are some resources on them under the name "Amethwynn society", but this is there real name. I know they have been trying to convert people a while ago. --62.143.138.60 17:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As this is seen as a hoax by established wikipedia users, please provide WP:RS if you wish to be taken seriously -- febtalk 04:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Looks like a hoax. Shindo9 Hikaru  03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, simply violates WP:N and WP:V.  Apple  • •w• •o• •r• •m• •  18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Verifiable, the deventer local newspaper wrote about it a month or three ago. Notable enough. The fact it lacks back-up on the internet does not mean it can't be verified. --82.72.56.88 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment One, we have no reason to beleive this newspaper is a reliable source, two, you're provided no reason to beleive this newspaper has actually published this or anything of the sort, and three, a single newspaper article does not mean notability, in almost all cases -- febtalk 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.RaveenS 21:55, 27 March 2007 (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.