Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Rooster: Star Trek

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 a7 nonnotable webcontent, likely g3 hoax, article on (14-year-old) director deleted as a7 for lack of assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Rooster: Star Trek[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also the following related pages for the same reasons:

Delete No sources cited. Google searches for all three produce nothing except Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Existence is unverifiable, and there is no evidence of notability if they do exist. The associated article Project Rooster has already been deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project rooster. (Note: the author of the articles has a history of creating articles with no evidence of notability, several of which have been deleted, and others are subject to AfD now. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dreamer (2010 film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call of Duty (2010 film).) Most of these articles (probably all of them) relate to Project Rooster. It looks very much like advertising. In at least one other AfD it has been suggested that we may be dealing with a hoax.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Appears likely to be a hoax. Powers ^T 12:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Project" itself would probably be sued by Star Trek copyright and brand name holders. Wolfview (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll believe it when I see it. Mandsford 14:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: no sources, no indication of notability, WP:CRYSTAL and possible hoax.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No sources given, no sources found.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Totally unsourced, no hits in Google, and the originator of all these pages is now blocked for serial hoaxing.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy Delete just as was done for Project rooster.[1] Even with the best of good faith and in performing a diligent search, there is absolutely nothing to support this article.... not even in blogs or non-rs. It is a speediable G3 hoax... and not even a believable one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:49, 12 November 2010 (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.