Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega X
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 copyright violation, deleted. --humblefool® 02:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Omega X[edit]
The prod was removed with the statement "There is currently no official resource to any research on all this But there will be a Omega X website soon". The article is not verifiable and is original research. Google brings up nothing. Wafulz 16:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 17:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom -- Whpq 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Scienter 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NFT. Demiurge 18:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article's primary editor(s) say there are no sources, there is no way to externally verify the contents of this article through the use of reliable, third-party sources. Googling "Omega X" comes up with this page on top, followed by assorted online usernames, mathematical formulae, and bad refs to the X-33. Delete. -- saberwyn 20:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has added external link to page for verifiable and is looking into getting into the Google search engine and Index. 17:15, 27 November 2006
- Which does not solve the problem of being externally unverifiable at this time. Has this organisation received mainstream media coverage, such as newspaper or magazine articles? -- saberwyn 23:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No it did not have any Mainstream Coverage, but it was a Magazine and a Newsletter. But I can see why it was removed because at this time there is no reason for it to be on here till it is published in some outside source. I also do not understand how the page was in Copyright violation if everything submit was but the creator.
- Which does not solve the problem of being externally unverifiable at this time. Has this organisation received mainstream media coverage, such as newspaper or magazine articles? -- saberwyn 23:41, 27 November 2006 (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.