< December 19	December 21 >

Guide to deletion

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 per Ceyockey. Nothing encyclopedic to merge. BLACKKITE 21:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combustion Man[edit]

The article is essentially nothing but a plot summary. It lacks any reliable sources, it gives no context for those who don't know what the article is talking about, and lacks links to relevant pages. The article is also poorly formatted and has no external links to assist in giving information. More importantly, the article is about a fictional character who was originally going to be considered for inclusion on the page for the show's Major Secondary Characters but was rejected because they did not meet the criteria. Later, somebody attempted to include them in the page for Minor Recurring Characters but was instantly rejected because they clearly failed the page's very specific criteria. Somebody did not want the information deleted so they made the character their own page even though there was nowhere near enough information on the character and the character was not important enough to the show. Essentially, the character had their own page made just to save the information because the character was rejected from the relevant pages. There was no consensus on making it and it was clearly made based on somebody's personal desire for the information to stay instead of because of logical reasons and a consensus. The page should therefore be deleted. SkepticBanner (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender secondary recurring characters after a hefty trimming and copyedit. -- Whpq (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if anyone can do this, merge appropriately. Absolutely no context to the reader whatsoever.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article can't be merged to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender secondary recurring characters because the character fails the criteria for inclusion there. Also, if we trimmed this article, what would be left? This character has no character, unlike every other character in the series we list. The only logical thing to do seems to be to delete the article because there would be literally nothing left if it were trimmed to meet the quality of other character pages. SkepticBanner (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Avatar: The Last Airbender secondary recurring characters. Arogi Ho (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters, as Combustion Man has only appeared in one season.--Piemanmoo (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't merge it into Major Secondary Characters because the consensus there is that he is not important enough to add at the moment. SkepticBanner (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true since the article in question states that only characters that have been in more than one season are elgable to be listed there and he does not qualify. In short there is no exceptale place to merge this too. --67.71.78.191 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it seems that at this point, merge is out of the question. And this article was never made with a consensus by the community. And it was made purely out of the desire to keep the information. Simply put, we don't have enough on this guy to give him his own article. My opinion on the matter based on the facts would be that delete is the best option, but what does everybody else think now that it seems that there is no place to merge the article to?SkepticBanner (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People put up articles for deletion just for the heck of it, besides he is an important element to the ongoing plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.181.210 (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he does not have enough character nor plot importance to warrant his own page. There simply isn't enough material on him. Not even enough for Major Secondary, according to the consensus there. He has about as much material as a Minor Recurring Character, but due to his failing the criteria there, we can't put him there. I nominated this article for deletion because of a. The reasons why the article was made, namely purely to preserve rejected information b. The lack of material besides plot on him c. The lack of a significant amount of plot information d. The fact that he does not come near in terms of information nor importance to all the other characters with their own pages, and he would be better off on a character listing. Unfortunately, it seems there are no character listings he qualifies for. Finally, the article's quality is terrible and in order to meet the quality of other character pages, including Major Secondary, nearly all the information would have to be trimmed away. So no, I did not nominate this article for deletion just "for the heck of it" like you stated. I still feel that delete is the best option. SkepticBanner (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge any nonduplicate information to the appropiate episode page that the character appeared in. As mentioned above, it does not look like this character is notable enough to have his own page, there are no pages that the character information can specifically be merged into. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any nonduplicate information. Pretty much all of it is already covered elsewhere, as far as I am aware. So it seems the most likely fate for this article is deletion but we should know what the general consensus is come sometime during Christmas, as I believe that is when the discussion period is over (I'm still a bit unfamiliar with the deletion process but I think I have a good idea). After the debate is closed on Christmas, we should see a decision soon (right?). SkepticBanner (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect→List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#Book 3: Fire, tagging with ((R to list entry)). This would be consistent with the status of other minor characters from this work. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject American Animation has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:45, 25 December 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 result was Delete even w/editing still should be considered as a copyright violation from [1]. SkierRMH (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Savvy & Mandy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Savvy & Mandy

Non-notable group of people. Reposted. Note: This could have been deleted through ((db-repost)) and ((db-bio)), but I think the author needs to know why. —B o L @ 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly within reach of notability as per WP:MUSIC someday, but not yet -- their album is still being recorded on a indie label. I cleaned up the article a bit anyway, but it has a serious copyright violation problem, which I marked. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm sorry, but not right now. It's copyright infrigment, anyway. —B o L @ 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Already done so by myself per lack of notability. Jmlk 1 7 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable band, but allow for re-creation when they hit it big. Break a leg, kiddos. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Break a leg, girls. Break a leg. —B o L @ 03:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.Dreadstar † 04:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanraj Bhansali[edit]

Non-notable person —B o L @ 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. —B o L @ 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO. Googling the subject doesn't seem to reveal any sources that would help establish notability either. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EvanCarroll (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability, and no source found that suggests notability Mayalld (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, no sources and no indication of notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for inclusion. Lawrence Cohen 06:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cell (film)[edit]

Film is not yet in production and thus does not meet WP:MOVIE; WP:NOT#CRYSTAL Accounting4Taste:talk 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good story, but not enough data to substantiate anything more than crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough data; since I was the first to create the page back in August, there's been no new information since. The article was deleted, so it is only right that it's deleted again, until further information is confirmed. — MovieJunkie ^Talk! 15:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Was going to go all G4 on the article, but it's been PRODded once and speedied a number of times. Best let it run its course. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I PRODded the article to allow its creator time to move some relevant material into the article about the book, which was done yesterday; I'm satisfied now that this article can be deleted without Wikipedia losing any information that's appropriate. I'll look forward to seeing a film made based on this interesting book and a Wikipedia article at an appropriate future point. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lack of reliable sources and WP is not a crystal ball. Can easily be recreated in the future.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:14, December 26, 2007

African Federation of American Football[edit]

I tried to look around to see if this orgnization actually existed, but I couldn't find anything. The article says that it is not part of the International Federation of American Football and the IFAF site states that Africa is the only region without an organization. [2] I believe it should be deleted since I can't find information that it exists and at the very least it is not notable. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. A google news search turns up no results. A google web search on the organisation name -wikipedia provides only 4 results which consist of a wiki mirror and 3 other wikis. -- Whpq (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V per Whpq unless sources are found.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would love to believe that this actually exists, but I've never heard of it, nor is there any source cited. I would change my "vote" if there was anything, anything at all, that would confirm that this is real. Unlike soccer or basketball or baseball, sports like football and ice hockey have expensive equipment, a low priority in nations with small per capita incomes. Mandsford (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:14, December 26, 2007

Abattoir Blossoms : Dark Poems and Fiendish Delights[edit]

Non notable book by non notable author. The only reference is a vanity-publishing site - [3]. No reliable third party sources found in searches for the book or for the author Dawn bard (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Self-published through Lulu.com, and no evidence of any reviews, critical acclaim or other independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does appear self-published. Maybe later, but not now. Lawrence Cohen 07:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Poetry has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable keep consensus, per changes made after nomination. Non-administrator close. Result was keep. Rt. 16:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carr Manor High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Carr Manor High School

It's a non-notable school. GPAs and grades aside, there seems to be nothing of real significance here. The Great Luffy (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant high school. Searches show sufficient content available and I'll add sourced material in due course. TerriersFan (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High schools are notable (WP:OUTCOMES shows high schools are kept) and this school has been covered by secondary sources. --Oakshade (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY improvements already made, meeting WP:N. Kudos, TerriersFan. Noroton (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCL. -- Loukinho (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is now a lot better, well sourced and seems to pass WP:N. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Spellcast (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo Coletti[edit]

A non-notable autobiography written in an overly promotional tone. There are some claims to notability, including a long unreferenced list of notable clients and a claim to be 'one of less than 500 in the world to achieve "Expert Certification" in Pro Tools'. However, there's no reliable sources listed to back the claims of notability, and I couldn't turn any up via google. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, for the reasons listed above. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promotion. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, pretty much pure advertising. cf38^talk 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising, tagging the article now.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Wizardman 05:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Hannah[edit]

Stub article on a woman claimed to be the fourth-oldest person on record and the oldest African American. However, a google search throws up no sign of substantial coverage in reliable sources, so she fails WP:BIO. The article says that "the case escaped more than local media notice", but no refs are given for any that coverage, so there is no way of assessing how substantial it is. I was going to suggest merger to List of American supercentenarians in case anyone finds more refs, so much the stub appears to original research or speculation that I think deletion would be preferable. She is already listed in List of the oldest people and in U.S. state longevity recordholders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think there will be any refs. She died in 1993 and had no media coverage, and her case was discovered in 2001. Neal (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Reply. Please re-read WP:BIO. I can see no grounds for keeping the article if there was no media coverage of her and hence no refs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Same here. Neal (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - Do you mean that you agree there are no grounds for keeping the article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think what I said pretty much matches your 2nd sentence. Neal (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. If, as mentioned above, there cannot be refs, then this individual does not deserve her own article; rather, notes on the lists will suffice. Cheers, CP 20:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verified as the World's oldest black woman ever. That's notable. 69.14.38.16 (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "the World's oldest black woman ever" is indeed a fact worthy of recording, but it can be noted in a list article. However, there needs to be more substantive coverage before she passes WP:BIO and merits a standalone article. The article as it stands now is simply a pile of unverified assertions: her dates of birth+death are listed at http://www.grg.org/Adams/I.HTM (warning:huge table, may take your browser a long time to render), but I haven't even found anything on the GRG website to confirm that she was an African American. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Under the column 'R' (for race) B is for black. And then the names are color-coded by gender. So black = Black, blue = White, green = Asian. But since there's no biography on her life, there would be no story about her race. Just in the Guinness data and census checks. Neal (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - Neal, thanks for the explanation of her, but but but but but ... if, as I thought and you now say "there's no biography on her life", then how can wikipedia have a biographical article on her which is not original research???? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Simple, someone made it anyways! Neal (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - BTW, the pedant in me insists that I correct something written above: She was "the World's oldest known verifiable black woman ever". Who's to say that someone living in the Ivory Coast in the 1400s didn't outlive her? Grutness...wha? 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Regretful delete~~ - the claims of this article make the lady super super notable. However, I can find no reliable sources whatsoever; the only sources listed may well have taken their info from Wikipedia. The article has been around long enough [4] that there's the possibility this is a hoax; for this type of case and this type of case especially was WP:RS created. We do not want to be posting unreliable info and possible hoaxes on Wikipedia (especially for something of this magnitude of importance). I would think that for sure, this lady would have some kind of coverage for having been the oldest black person ever, and for being the oldest American at the time, and yet there is none. All but one keep !vote seem to have WP:JUSTAVOTE or WP:ITSNOTABLE issues. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per below, not now. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Not a hoax: I found her record in the Social Security Death Index, substantiating the dates of birth and death. The details of her life could use further referencing, but considering that she died in 1993, the lack of ghits may only be indicative of the fact that most media didn't come on line for another few years. See this search for evidence that younger supercentarians are routinely covered today. Deleting this article could be an inadvertent concession to recentism. -- Shunpiker (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a link to the SNN page (if it exists)? We could add it to the article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Security Death Index entry may verify the dates, but as a primary source it cannot establish notability. As to the possibility of references, we can only speculate, but at the moment there is no evidence that any further sources exist. If such sources do become available in the future, then the article can of course be recreated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This article was closed as "keep", but relisted after I queried the closure. The problems with this article remain the same as when it was nominated: that all the references are entries in in lists, which is fine for including this person in lists on wikipedia, but nowhere near enough for a standalone article per WP:BIO.
Neal IRC says above that "she died in 1993 and had no media coverage, and her case was discovered in 2001". If there is no media coverage, then the article can never be expanded beyond a stub without original research - see this edit for what it looks like when the articles is stripped of original research and unreferenced commentary about her place in the longevity tables. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I certify the above. BHG came to me on my talk page, and I revised my decision. Instead of taking it to a DRV, I decided to re-open, considering that an overturn at DRV would partly come to my own view, if that makes any sense. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO, due to the lack of substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. Lists and directory listings are insufficient. The "Gerontology Research Group" is listed as a ref, but I do not see Lucy Hannah in their list of supercentenarians [5]. I also question satisfaction of WP:V since the Social Security Death index reference attribute the info on her birth date to a "family member." Many extremely old people have exaggerated reports of their age, as stated by the US Census Bureau discussion of "false centenarians" [6] and by other authors [7] [8] and I would like to see additional reliable sources who have done investigations to verify the claim. Census record searches often conflate the records of different individuals with the same or similar names. Birth records of Blacks in Alabama in the 1870's were pretty scant. Edison (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering that Hannah died in 1993, she does not show up in Gerontology Research Group's list of *living* supercentenarians. But the reference is to the site and not to that report. She does show up many other places on the site.

There is considerable evidence that many people have come to believe that she was one of the oldest living people. This makes Lucy Hannah notable. With the official social security record attesting to a great lifespan, they have good reason to believe that she lived to a very great age. Wikipedia shouldn't get into the business of trying to decide this question. The reader can make up their own mind based on the available information, which (to my sensibility at least) establishes notability and is adequate for a stub article.

I second BrownHairedGirl's editing down of non-verifiable information in the biography. But I disagree with her insistence that the article be deleted, and I don't think that there is anything wrong with AnonymousDissident's closure of this discussion. BrownHairedGirl makes her arguments thoughtfully and forcefully, but there are ample grounds for other thoughtful people to disagree with her conclusions. -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she is not listed at the Gerontology site (and they have lists of the claimed super-elderly who dies in the past couple of years as well) then it should not be presented as a reference. It gives the false impression, intentionally or not, that it validates her longevity, rather than being about other persons claimed to have lived a long time. The Google search string you cite is also not a "reliable source." Individual reliable and independent sources should be presented. The claim that "lots of people believe she lived a long time" is not what is claimed in the article, which instead asserts that she IN FACT lived to the claimed ripe old age. This is not an article about Bigfoot or some other pop culture urban legend: it is a claimed scientific fact. The Census Bureau and other scholarly studied of claimed super-centenarians note that there was a motivation for people to lie and claim they were older than they were in order to receive better benefits, so Social Security records are not all that convincing, absent other life-long documentation, which some of the claimed super-centenarians actually have. Edison (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Lucy Hannah is listed a number of places on the Gerontology site. I included the google search URL to show that. She is not, however listed among the living supercentenarians, since she died almost 15 years ago. You wrote "I do not see Lucy Hannah in their list of supercentenarians". I just wanted to point out that you were reading an inapplicable list. The reference should cerntainly indicate one of the relevant pages on GRG's site, rather than just pointing you to the home page. -- Shunpiker (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is evidence that Lucy Hannah was one of the oldest living people, and I agree that it's right and proper that wikipedia should record the fact that several sources make that claim. However, all that information is already available in List of the oldest people and in U.S. state longevity recordholders, and there is no suggestion that it should be removed from there (I'd oppose it if it was proposed). So the issue for AfD is not whether wikipedia tries to make a decision on the facts, but simply whether there should a standalone article on her.

I think that one of the difficulties here is that term "notability" ends up being used in two rather different ways. WP:N tries to clarify this by distinguishing "notabiity" from "worthiness", but IMO it doesn't really succeed. I suggest that it might be helpful to think of "notability" as used in WP:N and WP:BIO as referring to "suitability for a standalone article". In this case, there is no evidence that properly-sourced text on her could amount to more than the 26-word sentence in my test edit. That brief sentence is simply not an article, it's a verbose way of representing a single line from a list, and it's misleading and unhelpful to readers to create in lists a link to an "article" which conveys nothing more than they will already have learnt in the list.

This isn't just something which I made up, it's an approach which has community consensus as expressed in WP:N and WP:BIO. My concern with the CfD closure was that it did not address the absence of any reason from the "keep" !voters to make this case an exception and set that principle aside. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the additional explanation. I take your point that that the Notability guideline is difficult to interpret. It seems to me that Lucy Hannah "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in ... her specific field." Because of that, I've been trying to make the case for Notability, rather than pleading for an exception. This case comes down judgment call, and I don't fault anyone for coming to a different conclusion. But I object to the interpretation that the closure was simply a headcount. Valid arguments have been made pro and contra, and it sounds like there may well be more to discuss. -- Shunpiker (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely recognized"? That's why WP:BIO's reuirement for substantial coverage in reliable sources is so important: there is no evidence that Lucy Hannah was "widely recognised", because we have no evidence that anyone has done enough research on her to be able to write anything more about her than a list entry, or even that the listing has been widely published. She has a brief entry in the Guinness Book of Records, and apart from inclusion in the lists published by GRG, that's it.

So I'm sorry, but the "keep" arguments do not seem to me to be at all valid, or that there is any reason to retain an "article" which says nothing more than its entry in an existing list. The case for retaining this article seems to amount solely to "she is in a notable list", a case which is explicitly rejected by WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep just due to being a record-breaker - oldest black person ever, and 4th oldest person ever. The claims that she does not meet WP:BIO are worrying, though, as are the lack of independent sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments in the prior discussion. Relisting is not an alternative to making a decision. Mandsford (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, sufficiently notable as one of the oldest African Americans. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro, California[edit]

This article is based entirely on original research and speculation. Chaz ^Beckett 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is all OR. STORMTRACKER 94 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The history given in the article is pure conjecture, and suggests as much. To me, this appears to be nothing more than an old "rail town" (you know, those city names along rail lines). Add to this that this is nothing more than original research, and you have an article that isn't going to survive. Removed it from thetemplate in the article as well, this one won't survive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kill it. A "fake" geographic location can't possibly have any real relevance. At least I'm assuming its fake, since the page argues with itself.--ShakataGaNai (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to not be genuine. We can always remake it later with sourcing. Lawrence Cohen 07:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samus's equipment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Samus's equipment

Extremely pointless, should be in Samus Aran, which pretty much states this information. Fangz of Blood 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Fangz of Blood 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The same information is already included in Samus Aran, thus making this page unnecessary. Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Midorihana. STORMTRACKER 94 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Midorihana. This page is redundant and unnecessary. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Already covered, not notable by itself. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other above. --Jack Merridew 11:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per everyone.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant since it's covered in Samus Aran. Someone another (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not really "Wikipedia" proper. I have already ported it to another wiki as well to preserve it. --businessman332211 (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Patrick School[edit]

Unnotable middle school, fails ~~WP:SCHOOLS~~Wikipedia:Notability (schools). brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable school, fails WP:SCHOOLS. STORMTRACKER 94 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SCHOOLS Is a disambiguation page that lists 3 project pages with the word school in it, 3 rejected policies, and one proposed policy that at this time has not accepted as consensus. If you meant WP:SCHOOL that's one that's still a work in progress, not a guideline.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't bother checking if it was the correct link. At Wikipedia:Notability (schools) three guidlines are proposed. My point was that under any of the three gudelines this school isn't notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense, I agree that the article as is doesn't show any special notability and general consensus has usually gone against that level of school. Nothing jumps out on a search either. I'll go with delete unless someone comes up with a good case.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable here. --Crusio (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If retained, a placename should be added: there must be hundreds of schools with this or similar names. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Hills Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall in New Jersey. Not only is it far below super-regional status, it's also horribly lacking in reliable sources (perhaps due to the fact that it's been practically a dead mall since the 1990s). Most of the content is simply a listing of stores. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTE. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Yea, I know...) Eusebeus (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability, source is unverifiable. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Rena Morgan[edit]

No Google hits and no sources except 'private interview with Ms. Shelby Rena Morgan'. How can we trust that? Harland1 (^t/_c) 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She has a webpage, though it is just of some of her photos, she does not have a personal webpage which i can use as reference.

Xaedra (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Singu larity 07:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christofascism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Properly listing 2nd nomination for User:Jmegill. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christofascism is a not a notable term. Furthermore, was the article previously deleted and recently resurrected by offsite coordination. Here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=670726#post670726 The article exists for the purpose of making political attacks on Mike Huckabee. This is far removed from NPOV. Jmegill (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable pov neologism.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism, apparent SPA anti-Huckabee POV pusher. SkierRMH (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that this has to do with Mike Huckabee put forward by several of the above editors doesn't hold water once one actually looks at the sources. The book by Hunsinger does indeed describe Christofascism on the very page given by the citation. That book was published in 2001. Hunsinger doesn't say anything about the U.S. presidential race — He's writing about Karl Barth. — and would have been remarkably prescient to have done so 6 years ahead of time. Let's not let political rhetoric or sides in one particular election come into this. The question is whether a neutral, verifiable, article free from original research can be written on this subject, which is (according to one source) a subject in theology. To that end I note that at least one of the cited sources checks out, although it doesn't say enough about the concept to support a full article by itself. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The user who created the article had posted on Ron Paul's blog "Help define Christofascism (a.k.a. Mike Huckabee)" with a link to the Wikipedia atricle [9]. While the term may not have been coined to attack Huckabee, he does appear to have been the intended target of this specific article. --Tdl1060 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adwads (talk · contribs) was a miserable failure if that was xyr intention (and if you assume good faith you'll believe xem when xe says outright on the article's talk page that it was not) because the article makes no mention at all of Huckabee in any revision, and some of the sources cited were published long before and had authors who were long dead before Huckabee announced his candidacy. As I said: Ignore the election shenanighans, and concentrate upon the actual article. Let it be ironic that those readers who come to Wikipedia to find out what this concept is, thinking it to be a cheap meaningless election jibe, be surprised to receive a decent education in something that theologians have been discussing and debating since the 1970s. Uncle G (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actual, reliable sources dating back to 1986, older than the first instance of islamofascism. Frankly I think both terms are mornonic, and I think anybody that uses either should be locked in a room with someone who uses the other. However, both terms are in common useage. As for it being just an attack on Huckabee, at the present time his name is not mentioned, and if it were added, I would certainly support removing any unsourced references. Regarding the fact that the randroid Ron Paul supporters might have added the article, so what? If kooks can come up with real references, kooks get to edit articles. All of wikipedia is founded on kooks being just as competent to cite the works of others as experts are. Mykej (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I put a few references into the article out of the many available. This is a widely discussed concept. If anyone tries to hijack the article as a WP:COATRACK then that is an editing issue, it doesn't mean that the whole article should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is about meant for political attack. Adwads added the unsourced statement "Huckabee's faith-based campaign has drawn concern about a new wave of christofascism in America." to Mike Huckabee's political position page. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee&curid=12515996&diff=179219647&oldid=179207599 The article in its current form was created by Adwads. Jmegill (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This AfD is about this article. If you see an unsourced contentious statement in another article you are entitled to edit it out, but it doesn't mean you have to delete a whole article about a notable encyclopedic subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, excellent article, well referenced, and well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- my objection was on the notability of the term. I just don't think that it is notable. Jmegill (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its notable if its being used by multiple authors, and at least two sources define the term. Its defined in at least three books, and Google News has it in dozens of current articles.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not based upon your personal opinion. It is based upon people in the world at large thinking that something is notable enough that they create and publish works of their own about it. And as you can see, theologians have thought that this concept is notable enough that they've been both supporting and disagreeing with Sölle about it in print for over 25 years. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a Christian I am offended by this term. As an encyclopedist, I find the page well cited and appropriate. Keep it.--Cberlet (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never heard of the construct—sounds like a made-up, attack pov term. A quick google check shows mainly usage on some fringe blogs, no notable usage in reliable sources. And, the term is supposed to have been made up by a certain Dorothee Sölle, but the article on that person does quote any source whatsoever, so is she really notable? And, even if this person did coin the word (on what page on that book is it supposed to appear?), so what? Anyone can take any two words and string them together, this does not ipso facto make the construct notable, let alone encyclopedic. Turgidson (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes it notable and encyclopaedic are all of the other sources, cited in the article, which you appear to have simply ignored. The World Wide Web is not everything that exists, and Google Web is not the only route to information. Avoid FUTON bias. Moreover: Thinking that (to pick just one) a professor of Christian theology writing in his field of expertise is not a reliable source is patently ludicrous. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "FUTON bias" — is that a WP policy or guideline? On the other hand, I know about WP:FRINGE, and that's definitely a content guideline. I find this article violates it. I don't know who is that prof you are referring to (is that Dorothee Sölle, with no references whatsoever in the article?), but appealing to authority does not cut the mustard in this case. What does "Christofascism" (clearly a made-up neologism, with little or no everyday usage beyond fringe blogs) have to do with Christian theology? (I don't see "Christofascism" mentioned in that article — is that a case of "FUTON bias", again?) Could you please point me to the relevant theology book where the concept is discussed? Thank you. Turgidson (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term has unquestionably gone beyond being a nonce neologism and has entered into vocabulary of both scholarly and op-ed writing. older ≠ wiser 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dorothee Sölle is a notable much published author, there is a reference cited for Christofascism in her article. Paul foord (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- well-cited, not a neologism; appears in a number of scholarly articles going back several years. --Stlemur (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~ ~~or merge the content and cites with some other article(s).~~ keep ~~(1) My thoughts have not changed in two months that this is a neologism, even if it was first coined in 1970, as there is scant evidence that it has been used in the 37 years since.~~ (2) Several of the linked sources do not even use the term. (3) One of the sources claims to be a speech delivered in 2006, in the area I live in, but only has a trivial mention, for a speech I can not confirm even was given. (4) This article is a synthesis of trivia mentions. ~~(5) Is this really notable?~~ Bearian (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading further, and DGG's arguments, has convinced me that the term is, indeed, notable. It still needs more sourcing, but that (by itself) is not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even at the time of the AfD, the extent of documentation was more than adequate--it is now even better. The version AfDs 3 months earlier did look a little like a political attack, but it should have been more carefully investigated at the time. DGG (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dorothee Sölle, per the sourcing arguments given above by User:Bearian. This is not a generally-used term that has floated free of its usage by Sölle and entered the common vocabulary. The requirements of WP:NEO are strict, and I don't believe they have been met. See Bevery Wildung Harrison's 2004 book, Justice in the Making, which is available for searching through Google Books (see page 136). They way she uses the word Christofascism is in one particular sentence that cautiously attributes it as Sölle's word. She uses it in quotes, as though it's not a word in general circulation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the previous incarnations, this one does assert notability and it cites reliable sources. It should also be noted that this term is fairly common in parts of the blogosphere, though it may be difficult to find reliable sources backing that up. What we have now, though, is enough for a valid Wikipedia article. *** Crotalus *** 19:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Offensive if you're Christian, possibly, but notability trumps sensibilities. Keep. Lawrence Cohen 07:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is notable and well sourced. Badagnani (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The blog writers who use this term surely think of it as a new coinage, and I doubt that any of them have heard of Dorothee Sölle. If this article is to be kept based on blog usage of the term, the article will need to be *rewritten* to acknowledge both meanings (the theological meaning from forty years ago, and the current term of American politics). I think WP:NEO will be rolling in its grave, since it assumes there is a single widely-understood meaning. I wonder if either set of writers can point to a single Christofascist, and if there is any general agreement on who those people are. Is there such a thing as an admitted Christofascist, or is it only a term of abuse? EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I say it's the latter: just look at the attempted moral equivalence "justifications" on Talk:Christofascism: "The term itself is constructed much like an already accepted term: islamofascism", "Are we not supposed to have an article about "communism" because people don't like communism?", etc, etc. It all smacks of WP:POINT. Turgidson (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What on earth has this got to do with moral equivalence? It's got to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I had never heard of this term before I came across this article in the proposed deletion category, and checked it out on Google books and Google scholar which revealed loads of reliable sources to demonstrate verifiability and notability, so I removed the prod tag. I also only have a very vague idea of who this Mike Huckabee guy is who seems to get brought into this argument. The fact is that Christofascism is an accepted term in the academic literature, as is shown by the fact that there are far more references from reliable sources in this article than in most others. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "academic literature" on what? Could you please point to me what accepted field of study in Academia studies this so-called phenomenon? Are there endowed chairs, perhaps, or annual grants to study it? Someone above said "a professor of Christian theology writing in his field of expertise" talks about "Christofascism" (whatever that is). I challenged the notion that this has got anything to do with Christian theology, and I still did not get a reply on that. Turgidson (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The answer to your question is where it should be: in the references in the article. Have you actually read it? You seem to be arguing to delete something which is totally unrelated to the article we are supposed to be discussing. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You say "If this article is to be kept based on blog usage of the term...". Who has suggested that? It should be kept based on the academic use of the term. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if anything is indeed notable, merge it as a small detail on the Clerical fascism page. Dahn (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good point—unlike this non-notable neologism made up by some obscure academic, and employed almost exclusively on fringe blogs, Clerical fascism is a well-established neologism, introduced by a clearly notable figure, Luigi Sturzo, employed by widely recognized scholars like Hugh Trevor-Roper, Roger Griffin, and Walter Laqueur, and describing a real, readily identifiable phenomenon (from the Ustaše to Rexism, from Vichy France to the Iron Guard, etc, etc). By contrast, "Christofascism" is a made-up, portmanteau term, designed—from what I can tell—to épater la bourgeoisie, and not much else. Turgidson (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your argument a bit flaccid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I find your response a bit vacuous. Turgidson (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make both of you flatulous?--Cberlet (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, Griffin published my article on Christian Identity as a form of Christian fascism. Keep. Contentious but cited.--Cberlet (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I see nothing credible that shows that this article is a POV attack against Huckabee. The article is neutral, it doesn't even mention him, and the term predates him by a wide margin. Christofascism doesn't apply to Christians generally—as it is antithetical to the teachings of Christ—rather to a minority that ascribe to theocratic authoritarianism and totalitarianism. The term is considered objectionable by some people, but then so is Islamofascism, it's cognate. However, that is an editing issue, not a reason to delete. This term has passed beyond being a non-notable neologism, maybe not by a lot, granted, but a pass nevertheless. It's adequately sourced, as DGG and others have pointed out~~, although it could use more~~. I don't know what the original article was like, but this AfD is about this article, as Uncle G rightly points out. I find the all the keep arguments compelling, and some especially compelling. — Becksguy (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not a question of whether this made-up term is similar to "Islamofascism, it's cognate"—that term pertains to a notable phenomenon, identified for example here and here, and gazillion other instances. To whom does the made-up term "Christofascism" apply, really? Is there someone—preferably alive, preferably with a WP page—who any of those who support this term would like to point out as a "Christofascist", and perhaps even add the term to the respective article, see if it passes WP:BLP? And, please, not a historical figure who already fits into the already widely recognized Clerical fascism category, which is a perfectly valid notion, with a wide range of applicability, as indicated above—but someone specifically identified in a reliable source as being a "Christofascist". Unless there is a recognizable, notable exponent of "Christofascism" (either a specific individual, or a specific organization, or a specific entity—anything with a WP page, let's say), I say the term is void of applicability, with no life of its own except on some fringe blogs—meant to shock the bourgeois, but not much else. Is that congruent with WP:FRINGE, WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, or WP:NEO? Turgidson (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right that it's not about it's relationship to Islamofascism, Turgidson. But have you looked at the article recently? Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Uncle G have done an phenomenal job of adding reliable sources to the article in the four days since the AfD nomination. As of now, there are 14 references, including relevant and serious theological sources, and USA today. And I've got three more to add: First Things The Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life; Michelle Malkin plays the victim card from Salon.com; and Reflections on culture, politics, and religion from an evangelical worldview from Evangelical Outpost. And none of them are fringe blogs. The only criteria for notability is reliable sources. And it doesn't have to be a WP page, as there are an extremely large number of notable WP articles that haven't been written yet. It's possible that the term was coined and/or adopted for your reason, among others, but I think you will agree that none of us will know that for sure (or not), as it's speculation, unless someone writes something reliable about it. Sorry, but I just don't see violations of any of the criteria you mentioned. Granted, it's not in the same class as Islamofascism in terms of usage and penetration (but neither is Clerical fascism as best I can see), but the term Christofascism (or -ist) has been demonstrated to be a notable term and concept. — Becksguy (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm striking my comment that the article could use more references, as it's way more than enough now. I suggest that the AfD be closed as a keep per The Heymann Standard. After all, Bearian changed his !vote. — Becksguy (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. east.718 at 00:43, December 26, 2007

Anders B. Johnsson[edit]

I'm not entirely sure that the claim of importance in the article (which, in fact, is the entire article) is sufficient to meet WP:BIO; but the article is currently rather less than a stub. No sources, or for that matter no material to verify in the article at all. — Coren ^(talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inter-Parliamentary Union. Someone might search for him and that will get them to at least some info. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with no prejudice against a sourced expansion into an article providing non-rudimentary information.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Chicago[edit]

A album that features (to quote the article) "mostly unheard independent musicians." There is no notability for this record as far as I can see. In addition, the user who created this article is Stonecutter Records (talk · contribs) which happens to also be the name of the label who released the album. Metros (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if the artists involved aren't notable, then neither is the album. ~~Someone might want to get that template too.~~ Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually a template? I was trying to figure this out myself. It looks like a template coding inside the actual article but not actually a template. Metros (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! My bad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:MUSIC. --Yamla (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable album. STORMTRACKER 94 21:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. There are lots of things like this that have no third-party sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room[edit]

Non-notable, no sources -Nard 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One line about a song, a couple of quotes from it, and the link? Why is it notable as a song? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nn song, fails WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources. STORMTRACKER 94 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi. I created this article. The song is at least as notable as some of HBO's previous musical duo Tenacious D's songs: Kickapoo (song), Classico, History (Tenacious D song), The Metal (which in my opinion is their worst song ever), or POD (song). Why are those pages not being marked for deletion? The only reason I can think of is because Tenacious D has been around longer. The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room is the first song in the first episode of the first season of Flight of the Conchords which is funny and clever, and the song is hilarious, as are the vast majority of their other songs, although this is just one person's opinion. However, I urge you to try to see the artistic merit this song has (because notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"). This article is not self-promotion. Although the show itself is about struggling artist trying to find exposure in a music industry that survives on pop record sales to brainwashed MTV fans, this song is a poignant look at life and love in New York City. The song also introduces Sally, who becomes a main character later in the show as can be seen from the episode Sally Returns. Finally, even if it is found that this article is not notable, it should not be deleted but should redirect to an article that mentions it such as, Flight of the Conchords (TV series), Sally (Flight of the Conchords) (which uses a picture of the show during the song), or The Distant Future which has been nominated this year for best comedy album.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do apologize if I sound at all perjorative, but it might be best to refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as WP:ILIKEIT. The article itself, last I looked, was a single line about a song - and a song is not unto itself notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't sound especially perjorative, although I take it you mean to sound that way. I think you are confusing the notability of the article itself which is short (a stub) because it was just started, instead of looking at the content to which the article refers, a popular song that gets 22,000 Google hits on a Grammy nominated album. I'm not going to get personal, but maybe you should actually listen to the song before you decide it's not notable. I think this page deserves a chance to develop, and by the way, there are plenty of songs that unto themselves are extremely notable.
Delete. I'm a long-time FoTC fan, but this song (which I like a lot) isn't notable enough for an article. -- Avenue (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of characters from Family Guy. Wizardman 00:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Swanson[edit]

A non-notable character with no real-world significance that can be amply covered at the List of characters from Family Guy. (Cf. this recent AfD. Eusebeus (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in this nomination:

keep Neighbour to the Griffins, a major charecter in the FG episode 'Believe it or not, Joe's walking on air'. I think the son, Kevin Swanson should be merged into this article as well as Joe Swanson's, and as for Jonathan Weed, Keep because he was an almost-major charecter, since Brian accidentely killed him.cf38^talk 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fictional characters with no real-world notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All Major characters on one of cable television's most popular programs. Wikipedia:Notability is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is Wikipedia:Notability (or rather Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)) satisfied if there is not a single reliable source, not to mention third-party sources? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into List of characters from Family Guy as either nonnotable or notability not demonstrated (WP:FICT). – sgeureka ^t•c 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per sgeureka. STORMTRACKER 94 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I agree.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list or to Joe Swanson. Having both Bonnie and Joe together would make sense, and would make for a stronger article. Although it is likely that Joe Swanson needs to be evaluated as well, but it does make justification for the article more likely. -- Ned Scott 17:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - no real-world sources. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, too minor a character. Mbisanz (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also listed three other Family Guy characters for deletion here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fictional characters with no real-world notability. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per sgeureka. Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the notable character Joe Swanson, her fictional husband. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here that can't be covered in the list that the nom provided. Keeper | 76 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was WP:SNOW keep. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont Avenue, Oakland, California[edit]

Reads like an advert with no real content behind it. There is no assertion of why this street is notable and it looks like part of a tourism campaign. If there were sufficient notable and non-advertising content I would have trimmed it down but there is very little to make me think this road is worthy of inclusion here. It is an area of Oakland, California ~~and I would suggest merging any worthwhile content there~~. violet/riga (t) 18:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is more about the neighborhood rather than a street. And you can see from the article that there is a whole bunch of other Oakland neighborhood articles too. The article seems to be reasonably well-developed article. It might be worth toning down some of the descriptions to be more neutral but the article should definitely stay. --Polaron | Talk 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "Business district" section needs to be completely rewritten (or removed entirely), and some of the other references and links to businesses need to be removed, but the article does have actual content and the neighborhood is reasonably notable. For whatever reason, this particular article attracts a lot of booster-types who want to tell everyone about their favorite restaurant or how wonderful the park next to the freeway is, so it probably needs to be watched more carefully... -Nogood (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable along with the city. —B o L @ 04:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable district within Oakland, just needs improved referencing. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (nominator) - while I am unsure of the particular notability of the district I think that the article can work given more effort. violet/riga (t) 23:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:44, December 26, 2007

Montalbano Innovation and Development Inc.[edit]

Non notable company. The article was created by the company's CEO, who freely admits on its talk page that "I am the author of Montalbano Innovation and Development Inc. (MIDI) Article. (...) I own the company, I own all copyrights, and created/own all of the text and information that was used in the article which I leveraged from my companys website www.montalbanoinc.com".
Thus in addition to non notability, in breach of WP:COI and WP:spam/advertising. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete spam, with COI; no evidence of notability --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please, if you're going to !vote Speedy Delete, you need to at least provide the criteria that your basing your decision on (i.e. G 11} and provide some rationale (i.e. the article should be deletd because it reads like an advertisement). AFD is not a vote, it's a discussion. --Cyrus Andiron 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - Cyrus, you are, of course, correct; my apologies to my colleagues. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think the company may have won enough awards to meet WP:CORP, but I'm not able to find sources beyond their own press releases. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation as a real article. There is no part of this article (other than perhaps the very first sentence) that is not spam. One normally simply prunes spam from an article about a notable subject but here there would be nothing left to save. Wikidemo (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"MIDI has received a number of awards for their work, including an Industrial Design Excellence Award." is verifiable, but is it enough to meet WP:CORP and write an article around? --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)</nowiki>[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Trub[edit]

Librarian, highly unlikely to meet criteria for inclusion and no notability asserted. Speedy tag deleted twice, once by original editor, once by another account. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly accomplished, but accomplishment is not notability. Fails WP:BIO, no sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I rolled backed vandalizing edits by an IP, who may have done OR, or may be the subject himself. No comment on the subject's notability. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Singu larity 08:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Youth Girls’ Volleyball Championship[edit]

Not sure if it meets WP:N , also it's a stubcf38^talk 18:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be plenty of references available. Just need to be added. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, also has good refs. STORMTRACKER 94 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an international athletic competition of relative duration, I think it's notable. matt91486 (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Notability not established. Tyrenius (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mere (band)[edit]

Doesn't state notability. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You could at least do a google search before creating an AFD. From the first page of search results --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: seems to fall short based on the article. First page of Google claims it has sold 2000 copies of it's album. It's not really that impressing. Licencing to be used, isn't that crystalballing? Greswik (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of passing WP:MUSIC. Playing a hot club and selling "in excess of 2000 copies" of their first album(myspace) are basic starting points for bands, not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of noteriety if you google "mere band" as opposed to "mere" in google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkopczyn (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:BAND based on sources I just added to the article. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "source" at garageband.com, "where you can influence which artist will become tomorrow's hit," seems to be a user-written review, like all the others at the site, and is seemingly wrong even about the band's home locale. One article in a local newpaper and the band's own Web site are insufficient to establish notability, and I can't find any evidence that their album is anything other than a self-release. In addition, the article is basically a copyvio of their Web site's home page, with some moving around of sentences. Deor (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:14, December 26, 2007

Northeast Regional Library[edit]

Non notable public library. Tagged as such in May 2007; no assertion of notability subsequently added. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, we can't have an article on every minor library in the world so why have one on this one? Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable, nothing in the first few pages of a google search to demonstrate notability. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nn library, fails WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete some. east.718 at 00:15, December 26, 2007

Anastacia Rose[edit]

Non-notable wrestling interviewer. Dav nel 03 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. Dav nel 03 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as of right now, she isn't notable. She didn't win the Pussycat Dolls Search show and all she does on SmackDown! is a few interviews. Nikki311 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, I'm striking my other opinion as other articles have been added to the AfD since then. I, however, still think that they all should be deleted. Anastasia Rose is non-notable for the reason I previously said. Torres isn't notable because although she won the Diva Search, she has yet to debut. Lena Yeda might be notable enough if she was ranked #1 for the tandem surfing, but she isn't, so I digress. The Bella Twins aren't notable together and definitely not separately. Just being in a developmental territory doesn't make someone(s) notable. They might be notable enough if they actually get called up the the main WWE roster, but again, I digress. Nikki311 03:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same for me. Not a really notable person. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm a little neutral on this, because I think that anyone who has a Talent contract with the WWE should be notable. Plus Todd Grisham has an article. Feedback ^☎ 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardyboyz27 (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget that last comment, since new names were added, i'll re-comment. I say keep: Anastasia Rose, Eve Torres, and The Bella Twins. Delete: Lena Yada, Nicole, and Bre. 24.191.218.83 (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to add the following related wrestling diva pages to this AFD as I feel they are also not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia:

Dav nel 03 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to make seperate AFDs for each article. There is no such thing as having an AFD for seperate articles under only one of the article's names. But anyway, I will give you my opinion on those articles:

Eve Torres - Keep Even though she will never debut, she did however win a nation-wide competition broadcasted on national television. All winners of nationwide reality competitions like The Apprentice, American Idol and American Inventor have their own articles.

Lena Yada - Delete Did not win; did not do anything significant on TV or national media

The Bella Twins - Keep Merge all info in Bri Bella and Nicole Bella to this article. Each one doesn't have a notable singles career, but together they are notable. (Similar to The Highlanders (professional wrestling))

Bri Bella and Nicole Bella - Delete Not notable; compromise mentioned above

Feedback ^☎ 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like she is trying to advertise herself. If someone else made it, it doesn't look notable enough. (I love entei (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete all - I concur with Feedback that Eve Torres and The Bella Twins (marginally) meet the WP:BIO criteria, but currently the articles lack sufficient independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:V ... blogs and MySpace pages just don't make the grade ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Multiple-listing deletions take place all the time, like this AfD and this AfD ... there are procedures and templates just for such a situation. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 19:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she is not notable as of yet. Agree with Feedback's ideas for the others, i.e Keep Eve Torres and The Bella Twins (with their separate articles merged into it), and delete Lena Yada, Bri Bella and Nicole Bella. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Anyone up for referencing the article with the sources located by Cyrus?--Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson J210[edit]

Non-notable product. Insufficient substantial references to create a meaningful Wikipedia article. WP is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Wikipedia is not a phone guide. Mikeblas (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if more references can be found, if other Ericsson phones are being listed under their own articles then why shouldn't this be included? Mr Senseless (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Other stuff exists isn't a good enough argument for keeping an article. And in this specific case, plenty of other phones have been deleted, too. If we apply your rationale, we can end up at the result of "delete", too. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It's a pretty well known phone from what I understand. Here are some links that provide some background info on the phone and some technical specifications: tech specs, brief overview, background info, more info. --Cyrus Andiron 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I seriously disagree "every" cellphone is a non-notable product. We should have articles about them. As per above, the article can be properly sourced. Greswik (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Telecommunications has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not notable: at most just one reliable secondary source independent of the subject (WP:N), if that. Major contributors are church members (WP:COI).

Half the article is a quotation of a court case over internet domains. A court case is a primary source and does not establish notability. Other references are:

most just to its own website
many to Seventh-day Adventist sources which don't even mention Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (CSDA)
school - had 3 students and 1 teacher in 2004/05 according to the state of Texas website [10] (XLS format) (see line 148 under "CSDA Christian Academy") [P.S. the school only "existed for just a few months" according to this talk page edit, later claimed by Zahakiel, a member]
one[11] to religioustolerance.org, a site run primarily by one person, with four assistants. Mentions CSDA as a paragraph on the Seventh-day Adventist article. Author is not an "established expert" (WP:SPS), and simply cites back to CSDA's own website.
other obscure references
a single reference to one article in a local newspaper (I haven't checked this source).

Searches reveal:

No results in the Seventh-day Adventist Periodical Index
No results in Google Books
No results in Google Scholar

I have informed its creator and the major contributors I am aware of, as a courtesy measure. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not that well written, but enough sources are given to lead me to believe this article could be improved/expanded more. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The church of Walter McGill a.k.a. Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a church of mirrors that fraudulently masquerades as an association of multiple churches.1. I believe that a careful study of the article Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax exposes the alleged worldwide church and Christian academy of Walter McGill as a shameful exaggeration and a hoax. By hoax, I mean, "something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage." --e.Shubee (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per multiple sources cited from numerous independent publications, (e.g. Waymarks and In His Steps) a detailed article in a well-known newspaper (The Clarion-Ledger), and per the outcome of the last AfD. Nominator's argument that "Major contributors are church members (WP:COI)" is not an argument against the article itself, this is a behavioral guideline, not a content guideline; nor is it unusual regarding other articles about churches in Wikipedia. According to WP:PSTS primary sources may be used: a) to make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and b) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. These sources are so used. Nom. seems to have (as stated) not checked all resources before making the nomination. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Colin MacLaurin. Also because this article was totally based on one person's opinion and Original Research. Readers are led to the interpretation by the editor; the sources are not verifiable nor are they reliable. --Maniwar (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
leaning towards Delete as I can not find any independent 3rd party sources to help claim notability Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, that sums it up very well. STORMTRACKER 94 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nat.utoronto 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nom. Note that Zahakiel (2nd comment above) is a member of the group. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Yes, and that has always been freely disclosed. This does not address the actual argument I have presented. ◄Zahakiel ► 01:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly convinced that the CSDA church is not very notable. Can Zahakiel or other CSDA people provide a statistic to demonstrate that the church is in fact larger than 4 members? If they can, perhaps it could beargued that the article deserves to remain. Tonicthebrown (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I'm not sure what you mean by "statistic," but the Clarion-Ledger article was published quite some years ago, I think 1999, and has interviews with a group of several members that were currently living on a farm in TN. This "four members" nonsense was/is the mental by-product of one very antagonistic Wikipedia editor from early in the history of this article's development. While the C/L publication is paper, and not published online, I can provide you with scans of the article if you would like. I am not convinced at this point it will make a difference, though the nom's argument largely consists of what I would consider to be a viewpoint (i.e., the article can't be accurate because members have contributed, since I happen to be a member my reasoning cannot be objective or should be given less weight, and since it doesn't appear in the mainstream Adventist publications the lawsuit isn't a big deal, even though a number of independent Adventist groups have repeatedly referenced not only the lawsuit, but the group's beliefs, etc.) but for the record I can provide you with an electronic copy of that particular source. It was, I believe, a factor in the article being kept the last time, and nothing's changed since then. ◄Zahakiel ► 01:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you for your response. By "statistic" I simply mean a published, reliable source stating how many members are part of CSDA and how many CSDA congregations exist. A newspaper article containing "interviews with a group of several members" clearly does not qualify. I find it hard to understand why something as basic as a membership statistic or church count cannot be provided in the article. In addition, I agree with the nominator that ultimately this is an issue of notability. Generally I do not think that individual churches or congregations merit Wikipedia articles, unless they are a particularly large or influential church such as Hillsong or Mars Hill Church. Zahakiel, can you tell us: how many congregations are there in CSDA, and what is its approximate membership (i.e. less than or greater than 100? 500?)? If statistics such as this can't be provided, then the notability of CSDA remains in serious question.

Frankly, in my opinion, a single newspaper article and a bunch of WIPO/court rulings does not establish notability. (Tonicthebrown (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment from nom. Nomination is based on notability – subject has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Besides, SDAPI is not "mainstream Adventist publications" – many are well left- or right-of-centre who are quite happy to publish controversial material. Not that it matters, since the burden of sources lies on the contributor (WP:PROVEIT). Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - A lot could have happened since 1999. A group of four members could have dwindled to two. --e.Shubee (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - I disagree that it has not, particularly since you didn't check one of the main sources included in the article. That is completely independent, definitely third-party, and quite significant. By that, in conjunction with the legal documentation (on two counts: the WIPO and the TN District Court, one international and one local to the U.S.), which is a matter of public record, the notability guideline has been met. From WP:PROVEIT: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." It is. As I said to Tonic, you're welcome to the scan if you like; it's appeared in published media. ◄Zahakiel► 02:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Court cases are primary sources and have no bearing on notability. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hence the "in conjunction." Primary sources may be used "with care" and along with other secondary sources, (i.e., newspaper reports, newsletter reports, magazine articles) all of which exist in this case. Contributors are required to cite sources, not provide them as handouts to those who don't have immediate access. That being said, I've made the offer. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Primary sources have no bearing on notability, as mentioned above. WP:N says independent, reliable, SECONDARY sources. sho y 17:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This appears to be a very minor splinter group of a church, which is involved in a litigious war with the parent from whom it split. There appears to be no indication that the church has more than a single congregation. We regularly delete individual churches, and I am not sure whther this one ought to survive. If it does, the order of the sections should be reversed, so that details of its belief come foirst and its fight with the Seventh Day Adventists comes at the end. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no evidence that the worldwide church of Walter McGill has more than four members. --e.Shubee (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to the overwhelming evidence of fraud outlined in the article Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax --e.Shubee (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hasn't this already been done once? I'm not seeing anything new here on the "Delete" side of things, and E.Shubee's O.R. website has had some lengthy treatment already as well, having gone through mediation. --Qinael (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is new is that there are editors that now see that my assessment was correct since the beginning and therefore have changed their minds. --e.Shubee (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom. Breaking of AfD policies on discussion; possibly even stealth canvassing, meat- or sock puppetry

Who is Qinael? Do they have a vested interest? They made 14 edits before arguing "keep" above, with every edit to the CSDA church article, an image upload for it, and doctrines it supports. Are you a church member? "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." (WP:AFD)
User:Zahakiel was informed in the first nomination about disclosure, but omitted to in this discussion.

Policies have also been violated in the previous AFD nomination by users who argued "keep":

User:Camael, the page creator. 24 edits to date, almost all about CSDA. Are they be a member? That the page was created with no sources suggests they are. [P.S. Just noticed: user claims nothing to do with the group; yet still did not disclose they contributed majorly to the article -Col]
(User:RaveenS's user page has been deleted, and account blocked indefinitely for "Harassment/stalking". This editor is not necessarily a CSDA member, but is apparently not reliable, either way)

This is lack of honesty and disclosure at the very best, and stealth canvassing, meat- or sock puppetry at the worst. "Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using 'sock puppets' (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted." (WP:AFD) "For the purposes of dispute resolution... when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." (WP:MEAT) Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty bad violation of WP:AGF. For the record, I have no idea who RaveenS is, and I am not not any of the other individuals voting "Keep." So far as I know they are not each other either. It's possible that some people actually believe that the sources provided are valid, amazing as that appears to be. There has been no lack of disclosure, absolutely no lack of honesty, at least not on my part... and claiming meat puppetry is a fairly heavy accusation. I recomment you take this to an IP check if you wish, but don't pollute this AfD with baseless charges, or by crying foul on the previous, completed discussion. We can keep this civil, but you're going to have to allow for differences in opinion and cool it with the unfounded ad hominems. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Reply - Yes, I am a member of the CSDA Church. I would appreciate an assumption of good faith in your arguments; quite frankly, I am not a common editor to Wikipedia, and was not aware of the requirement that I disclose vested interest. I do not believe you have read your sources correctly in more than one account however - my editing history does not show "every edit to the CSDA Church article", it reveals edits to entries regarding the Antichrist, the Sabbath, and an article on Satanism as well.

Regarding prior discussions, I fail to see how the sources cited from the SDA Independant publishers are to be given less weight because they are "not mainstream". This seems like a point of view from the nom rather than a logical argument as to their validity - the fact is that these papers have a very wide circulation and reputation among Adventist constituency. Is there a rule somewhere I am not aware of that says to be a valid third party source, they must be "mainstream", and then goes on to define what "mainstream" means? Qinael (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Thank-you for your honesty about your vested interest as a group member. We're all still learning the policies. Since your last edit was almost 11 months ago, I was very surprised you even noticed this deletion discussion. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We go by arguments, not by head count. This is a splinter movement, and the article mainly discusses its attempts to establish itself as a part of the general SDA movement. thus saying that it isn't in the SDA index, polemics from the main body such as "Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax," and similar documents produced by one of the party are not evidence that the organisation doesnt exist or isn't notable--they're the very essence on unreliable sources for notability or lack thereof. That a court ruled they were not entitled to use the name doesn't prove they don't exist as a religious movement. I am always a little dubious about attempts to say that a splinter religious group is not notable in the WP sense. DGG (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And what evidence do you have that this group consists of more than four individuals? What number out of an 11 million member denomination constitutes a splinter movement and what makes a four-member group notable? --e.Shubee (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again... you still can't seem to move past that "4-member" statement you badly misquoted so many years ago. Personal dislike has no place in a discussion of articles. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I only asked relevant questions, which you can't answer. --e.Shubee (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been "history" with e.Shubee's editing (see his block log). Incidentally he is most certainly not "main body" (see his website), but please everybody stick to the topic. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why disparage me for asking relevant questions that should be answered? --e.Shubee (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the best book on the church not even mention this breakoff, despite listing a large number of breakoffs and ultra-conservative groups (and liberals too)? Seeking a Sanctuary (2nd edn 2006; Google Books preview), written by ex-Adventists - an Oxford professor and a journalist. Widely regarded as the best book on the church (see reviews in its article, which I wrote incidentally).</ref> The chapter "The Ethics of Schism" describes many breakaway groups - why is csda not mentioned? Why does the chapter "The Self-Supporting Movement" describe many ultra-conservative groups but not mention csda? As I said in the nomination, there is not a single result from Google Books.

Many non-mainstream Adventist articles exist on Wikipedia: liberal,^[1] very conservative^[2] and breakoff groups and individuals,^[3] at least half written by me. Some groups are notable; this one is not. One citation is Pilgrim's Rest, which is apparently the self-published work (hence irrelevant to notability) of a single person, and certainly not "reliable".^[4] There remains a single reliable third-party source (one magazine article), which apparently testifies to a handful of people in one location in 1999. Is that notable? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You certainly have written a lot on Adventism in Wikipedia, and congratulations. It does not, however, make you a one-man jury regarding issues of notability. We have guidelines and policies for that, and not "liking" the resources provided, or thinking that particular ex-Adventists should say something about an SDA offshoot before it's "notable enough" doesn't constitute an argument against their presence and utility. Just because "the best" book on the Church and/or its offshoots (a matter of individual opinion, btw) within Adventism does not mention the CSDA Church certainly does not indicate that the movement has not been noted by other resources over a course of many years. Just because the SDA scholars have not published dissertations on this belief system does not mean it has not been mentioned by independent publications, (it has) well distributed newsletters (it has) and newspaper articles near the main local congregation in TN (it has). You ask, "is that notable?" I say, "Yes." The references make it clear to any semi-informed non-initiate, without any need for interpretation, that such a group exists, such a group has been involved in unique legal disputes with the mainstream body, such a group has beliefs that are unique in Adventism. This seems to upset a lot of people, some (not the nominator, of course) even going so far as to use a lot of effort in making attack sites, and a few of the more enterprising attempting repeatedly, though futilely, to get these irredeemably inaccurate smear pages used as reliable sources in Wikipedia... to the astonishment of this editor. It's true that some ofshoots are noisy enough to have the main body deign to notice them, but degree of notability is not the issue. Having said that, I want to make it clear that I was content just to !vote "Keep," explain my reasoning, and leave it at that. The somewhat contentious conversation that has resulted from this AfD has continued to attract my attention, however... ◄Zahakiel ► 23:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary Please note the following from the Notability guideline: "A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability..." This almost certainly excludes the WIPO and court proceedings from establishing notability. (And these are't even "news coverage". Tonicthebrown (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were the case, and that's conceding a bit, it does not exclude the newsletter articles. None of the references provided were done in a vaccuum, and examining them independently rather than the overall list is not doing justice to the WP:N guideline for presuming notability. I think an objective point of view, which seems sadly lacking here (see the comment just below, for crying out loud... that editor has been blocked for his disruptive and biased attacks on this topic and its contributors) would recognize that. There's a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT involved, just read on. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As noted earlier, a lot could have happened since 1999. A group of four members could have dwindled to two. --e.Shubee (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. What "newsletter articles" are you referring to? Are you talking about that single Clarion-Ledger article? That hardly establishes notability. And it is not "conceding a bit" to consider the WIPO and court rulings as "a short burst" of coverage. That is something that is beyond question. There is absolutely no evidence that there will be "long-term notability" of this topic. Once the naming issue is legally settled, the whole thing will pass into obscurity.

I agree with you the E.Shubee is not involved in this discussion in a rational way, but I think the nominator (Colin) and myself are. So far it does not appear that you have provided any substantial evidence for notability of this topic. could I please ask you to respond to my question above about the membership of CSDA and the number of CSDA churches which exist worldwide? Thank you. Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am referring to Waymarks and In His Steps, newsletters by independent Adventist groups in the United States. "I've never heard of them" appears to be the reply to that one from what I have read so far, nevertheless they are third-party resources entirely independent of the subject of this article. The "single reference" statement is not as unreasonable a casting of the situation as Mr. Shubert's continued soapboxing, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it entirely objective either. The statement that "the whole thing will pass into obscurity" is an opinion without support, since coverage on this group has been around since at least 1999... (The Clarion-Ledger article at least establishes that beyond question) and an opinion is all that is; it's also not helping my opinion that there's some rampant "dontlikitism" involved here colored with some elitism. The nominator's made a big deal about "vested interests" above, but I haven't seen any negative interest in this article except by those involved in Seventh-day Adventism - that door swings both ways. Regarding the membership and number, since unlike the mainstream SDA Church there is congregational vs. centralized government (if that word can even be used) and no creed for formal tests of fellowship (as I believe is explained in the article), the answer I can give to that here is the same as in the earlier discussion on that topic - I don't know. As far as I know, a figure is not required to establish notability. What is has been supplied. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again thank you for taking the time to respond. I would appreciate it if you (or somebody else) could quote a relevant paragraph of the Waymarks and In His Steps newsletters pertaining to CSDA, as well as of the Clarion-Ledger article. That will assist in clarifying the notability of CSDA.

Yes, that it will "pass into obscurity" is my opinion, but this is an opinion strongly supported by the Wikipedia article itself. As far as we can tell, there is a single reference to the church in a 3rd party publication in 1999 (the significance of which, at this point, is unclear -- for all we know it may just be a brief passing reference -- which is why I've requested that you quote a relevant paragraph). Then it all falls silent for the next 7 years, until the WIPO proceeding and lawsuit in 2006. This is hardly long-term notability.

The article informs us that CSDA has a "congregation" (I take this to mean a single church), a pastor called Walter McGill, a website, and an "Academy". That's not very much, as far as notability is concerned. And a visit to the "Academy's" website (http://www.csda.us/school_resources.html) -- which merely consists of a bunch of advertisements which have nothing to do with CSDA -- makes one suspect that this "Academy" is somewhat non-existent. The only thing we have to really substantiate the existence of this rather phantom church are the lawsuits and WIPO ruling, which account for at least 2/3rds of the article's length. And let's be clear that a WIPO ruling and lawsuit are hardly enough to establish notability, since they only bear on the church in a very tangential way. There has to be something about the church itself to establish notability.

I am having difficulty understanding why there has been so much evasiveness regarding the question about membership. I'm not expecting you to produce an exact figure. But you do attend this church every week don't you? So can you at least tell me if the church has more than 10 members? More than 50? More than 100? And is there just one congregation? Or more than one? Does CSDA exist outside of TN? Outside of the USA? Roughly how many children attend the Academy? Less or more than 50? How many people identify as "CSDA" as their religion on the national census? Surely you can supply answers to these sorts of simple questions. You say E. Shubee is wrong in his assertion that the church just has 4 members -- fair enough -- but can you provide evidence to prove otherwise, if nothing else than to shut him up? So far, the evasiveness just strengthens the suspicion that CSDA really is a non-notable entity. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When another user was concerned about the state of the CSDA article in an earlier discussion, he expressed similar concerns and asked to see the information from the newspaper. I was happy to supply them. It deals with the TN congregation's preparations for what was thought by many to be a potential shake-up due to the Y2K problem. It is more, as you can verify by reading it, than a passing mention. As far as the two other newsletters, since I live in Florida, and not TN, I do not have immediate access to those articles. I've read them, and therefore included them during an expansion of the entry some time ago.

About "evasiveness" regarding the numbers and membership - I have explained that as clearly as I can. And no, I do not attend that congregation/church weekly, I live in another state. If you were of that impression, I suppose it might explain why you think I am being evasive or shy about providing you with numbers. I don't have a figure; I live quite a distance away, visiting once or twice a year for camp meetings, when both members and non-members meet together. If you are content with ballparks, there are probably roughly ten that attend just the TN congregation, and this is not the only one. There is also a field in Canada, and there are individuals (such as myself and my wife) living in different places - there is also a scattered member in Kentucky that I remember - that do not have "congregations" per se. There are a number overseas with whom we correspond regularly and consider themselves CSDAs, although I myself haven't gone to their countries to meet them and do a headcount of their Churches, so I can't even ballpark that. I certainly don't know about their national census data.

"Evidence" of more than four members... Yes, Mr. Shubert is wrong about that, and he has always been wrong about that. Well, there are pictures of baptisms, but since we don't register them with the government or anything, I suppose the die-harders on that "four member" stuff could say we paid people to put on robes and get wet. The speculation that "they could have dwindled to two" is pretty indicative of the level of.... well, I'll just let that speak for itself. The Academy I am less sure about; it had its classes suspended for a time when the lawsuit first started, but it was to have been re-opened some time thereafter. This is another issue that I simply don't know about - an honest, and not evasive, answer.

Notability is not the same as fame or importance; that the CSDA Church is a small group is stated in the article. That it has been noted by more than one third-party, independent source is also pointed out by the article. How important or famous that makes them, that's subject to the opinions of editors, sure, but that the guidelines describe just what resources the article supplies is enough for the presumption of notability (according to those guidelines) beyond mere subjective statements. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church article states, "Unlike the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the CSDA constituency has voted the returning of tithes as a test of fellowship." If tithes are required to be sent to the officers of the CSDA, then I suspect that every member is an officer. --e.Shubee (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Is this church notable? This ref [[12]] and the domain dispute just tip it for me. Springnuts (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ e.g. Progressive Adventism, Spectrum (magazine), Adventist Today and many others
^ e.g. Historic Adventism, Hartland Institute, Hope International (Seventh-day Adventist), Standish brothers etc.
^ e.g. Desmond Ford, Dale Ratzlaff, Walter T. Rea, Robert Brinsmead, Good News Unlimited, D. M. Canright and many others. Others like SDA Kinship International; Sabbath-day Adventists etc. are waiting to be written
^ "Walla Walla College Criticized" in Adventist Today. "The Future of Adventism: Where's The Church Headed?" by Alden Thompson. Read about it - that is, if you can find any other mentions at all

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:15, December 26, 2007

Dragonfly CMS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Speedily deleted article was restored because a previous AfD ended in Keep. No visible improvement since then. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established in the article, no sources given. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:V Mr Senseless (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable software. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've noticed something lately, if you start an AFD cause it "doesn't establish notability", shouldn't you try your hardest to prove your point that it isn't notable? Or even better, why judge if an article should be deleted just by that revision alone? We can ADD sources, ADD notability. ViperSnake151 20:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's the point. If something isn't notable, you can't add notability. If sources don't exist, you can't add them. And - in the case of this - if the result of the DRV is to send it to AfD, it must be sent to AfD. --Smashville^BONK! 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nn software. Fails WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N doesnt fail anymore Chris963 (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Singu larity 08:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary DeMoss[edit]

This article was a WP:BLP mess and a WP:COAT for Lisa McPherson. I rewrote it in conformance with WP:BLP but now I am not sure if it belongs. I can go either way (at least as far as this article is concerned) though I l~~ean Delete~~ am neutral following recent additions. Thanks for helping decide this one. JustaHulk (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify my position as ~~weak delete and merge~~ neutral following recent additions. I am no longer a big fan of using merge templates on little-trafficked but potentially controversial articles as you get little discussion (eg. Patter drill) but, likely objection if you then merge. I think it is better to run the AfD and merge from there. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. -- There is some notable sourced material here, so I say merge any relevant information to articles Lisa McPherson and Scientology controversy. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep - based on connections to CCHR and Foundation for Religious Tolerance of Florida, assuming there is evidence that she is mentioned significantly in any of the sources. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Changing to "Weak keep", agree with Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge - Only notability seems to be attached to the Lisa McPherson thing. I'd say merge anything useful from this article with that one or scientology controversy. Elhector (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is NPOV and conforms to BLP. The subject is notable, although not greatly.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Newly added references round out the notability and make it less of a coatrack stub. AndroidCat (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, AC, that was good work on your part. I am almost ready to move to weak keep but this is a good one for the community to decide so I will stay neutral. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable, also plenty of refs. STORMTRACKER 94 22:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, although it would be better if we could cite more than two different publications. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tayport Thistle Boys Club[edit]

Non-notable team. Dudesleeper · Talk 16:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dudesleeper · Talk 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable youth football team. - fchd (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally non-notable, this should have been speedied or prodded. Qwghlm (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. —Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too minor a team. There must be hungreds of thousands accross the globe with comparable claim to notability. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. I'm with Qwghlm, this should have been speedied to begin with. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, CSD nomination, as well as WP:SNOW Mr Senseless (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. Greswik (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth team. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - speedy was declined by an admin, they're going to let the AFD run course. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above comments. STORMTRACKER 94 22:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:15, December 26, 2007

Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Fails WP:VERIFY and WP:FICT. A list of weapons is not notable, and is WP:GAMECRUFT. Fangz of Blood 16:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Fangz of Blood 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki to the Zelda Wikia page. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That is definite game guide material, and it has no place here. The single weapons can be described within the gameplay sections of the games if they warrant even that much. TTN (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's meant to be a discussion of how certain recurring items have evolved throughout the series, which is often mentioned and remarked on in reviews and previews - for example, how ALttP's hookshot morphed into TP's clawshot. It obviously needs more sourcing, and a merge would probably be for the best, but it is easy to verify that the information is indeed notable.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki/Delete with some very distilled summary being included in the main Zelda series page to describe that many common tools/items appear across the series. --MASEM 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with transwiki option per above (the Zelda wikia won't load for me at the moment, so I can't check whether they even need this; probably not). Except for the Master Sword (which has its own article and deserves a mention somewhere, even if only in a merged form), none of these weapons/items here are in anyway notable, and the whole article reads like WP:NOT#GUIDE. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, no referencing per WP:RS Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the apparent consensus above. --Jack Merridew 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a well put together article concerning one of the all time kost notable game series. It just needs more sources, which should not be hard to find as any strategy guide or magazine article could work as a secondary source. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki in theory, the article is a good idea. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. .:Alex:. 15:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has virtually no primary sources and not a single secondary source as evidence of notability. This article basically fails WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nothing encyclopedic. I have already ported it to another wiki as well. --businessman332211 (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - we're trying to merge the items that are important to the storyline to a new "Universe of The Legend of Zelda series" article, with possibly some mention of "mainstay" items. If needed, move this to a sandbox article (I'll take it at User:KrytenKoro/Universe of The Legend of Zelda series/Items).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and necessary to providing comprehensive coverage of this series of games. All the content can be verified, as Le Grand Roi explained. "Cruft" is not an argument. Everyking (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - verification by outside sources is irrelevant if all you are sourcing is game guide information, which does not point to any real world notability that would satisfy WP:FICT. If there are no secondary sources offering any critical commentary on the article's subject, then it should be merged or deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't base my reasoning on guidelines written by deletionists. Everyking (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have no basis for your argument, as I doubt you can assert why we should ignore them here. That and you're showing a lack of good faith towards everyone here and those who wrote those guidelines, nor is it called for in this situation. Again, that it can be verified is irrelevant. I can verify the existence of my house using a reliable source and that does not make it notable enough to have its own article. Provide secondary sources to assert notability or any further discussion on this matter is pointless. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no basis for my argument just because the argument isn't made on the basis of some guideline? My argument is based on core policy. And I am not proposing the creation of an article on your house; there's no need to assault that poor strawman. Everyking (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FICT, WP:NOT#GUIDE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how is it a guide? I can see where it gets crufty in places, but at its core, it is discussing how the items have changed throughout the series. That is the point of the article, and its easy enough to verify notability in hundreds of gaming magazines. I realize that won't stop this article from being removed, though - Admin, please at least copy it to the article in my userspace, link given above, so we can work on getting it merged into a larger universe article.

Seriously, though - everyone here, just look up "Legend of Zelda Hookshot Clawshot review. The first site I found was exactly the type of review I was talking about. The sources pertinent to the scope of this article exist, so all that would be required to satisfy the guidelines would be to source them. To this, I ask your help, since I am quite bad at summarizing and citing secondary sources.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Singu larity 08:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongsville High School[edit]

For a couple of months I've defended this page against vandalism and solicited (on the talk page) people who want this article to remain to help provide references and make this a true encyclopedia article. However, no one has come to help. The article is basically unreferenced, and one reference failed to confirm the article's dubious hold on notability. As things stand, there is no evidence of notability, and even simple things—such as the school's age—cannot credibly be defended from potential vandalism due to the lack of references.

It's better for Wikipedia to not have an article on something rather than to have bogus information on it; therefore, I think it's time for this article to be deleted. Mumia-w-18 (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 2006 Div 1 Baseball Championship (referenced by secondary source) would even meet notability using the strict version of the new school notability proposal as I read it. My opinion deleting notable articles because it's too much work to keep the vandals away is a very dangerous path to tread.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. I checked that reference—it failed.—Mumia-w-18 (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that pdf is for div 3. They're in the div 1 section [13]--Cube lurker (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Division I link is now fixed.[14] • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced WP:OR, and per the nom. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - large high school, significant institution in the community, notability additionally established by multiple state championships. Vandalism is never a reason for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their Marching Mustangs tour the country and do presidential innaugurations [15] and Macy's parades. They also won a state baseball title mentioned above. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources and research suggest, like nearly all high schools, that this school can pass WP:N. The article should not be deleted due to vandalism; if vandalism is an issue please report vandals to WP:AIV, and if vandalism becomes very heavy request page protection at WP:RFPP. If help on improving the article is needed, feel free to contact WP:SCH and assistance is usually given. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I go for the "all high schools are notable" point of view. The amount of vandalism is an argument for protection, (even if it's nice to have some honeypots around...), the lack of info is a serious problem, but has to be solved otherwise. Greswik (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Parts of it being unreferenced is not a reason for deletion. The high school championships themselves establish plenty of notability. Plus, vandalism if definitely not a reason for deletion at all. Basically per everyone else, but it's certainly a speedy I think. Wizardman 19:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Greswik. STORMTRACKER 94 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rescind. The article has much improved over the last few hours, and although I still don't know for certain when the school was founded, I rescind my nomination.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all high schoools are inherantly notable. None should ever be deleted for notability, regardless of the quality or sourcing of the article ATM. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources show this one is notable. Lawrence Cohen 07:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, the sources provided demonstrate notability. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I accidentally cleared out some comments left by others a few hours ago, I'm not sure how that happened but I do apologize. (jarbarf) (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Changed from above.) -- Enough sources given at this point that I can agree with the other "Keep" comments, from above. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.b.m vranken[edit]

Two unsourced bios added by Junwei fu (talk · contribs), who removes cleanup and other maintenance tags without any attempt to fix what's wrong with the article. There is not much assertion of notability, other than being a professor of law, which does not necessarily confer notability. JuJube (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Not much assertion of notability, sources provided don't verify all the claims; inparticluar, "He received an honorary doctorate from Leiden University". Any other claims need to be verified. I'd also suggest sticking a ((Uw-coi)) on the creating user's talk page. Rt. 17:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Rudget (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

needs cleanup, but that's not a valid reason to kill this fast. Given we have a [[nl:Jan Lokin]] , I think that should be kept - as a start for a transwiki on someone notable in another country. The J.b.m vranken is another story, the name of the article alone, allthough the ref http://juridischdagblad.nl/content/view/1732/50/ seems to be a good verification of the honorary doctorate from Leiden? Greswik (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to load properly for me. Does it for anyone else? Rt. 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rudget. STORMTRACKER 94 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I have lmoved the article to J.B.M. Vranken and cleaned it up somewhat. I also added a link to his list of publications. Vranken has many publications (over 300 including many books), was Advocate General at the Dutch Supreme Court, received an honorary doctorate (verified woith an article in the "Nederlands Juridisch Dagblad", and is a member of the Dutch Royal Academy of Sciences. All these things are verifiable by the independent sources provided (that is, if you read Dutch, which I do). Clearly and verifiably notable. --Crusio (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only just now see that this AfD concerns 2 articles (that is not really good procedure, I feel). Lokin apparently is also a member of the KNAW (Dutch Royal Academy of Sciences) and therefore undoubtable also notable. I have no time now to do the same cleanup on Lokin as I didon Vranken, but I vote Keep on that one, too. --Crusio (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keeping: Thanks for your evaluations to the articles I edited.

I have edited two articles, when I saw the article need to be improved or is considering to be deleted. I just followed the suggestions and regulations to change and improve. Actually the information in the article I edited was from the internet, so I added more relevant websites and tried to make the article as neutral as possible. The persons I edited are famous persons in the area of Law. So I think at this moment, the articles should be achieved the requirements.

Moreover, I think the "notable" should not be a standard to the article, as the requirement of "notable" is difficult to define. In my opinion, the persons in the article are famous and notable. Also if we wrote lots of notable information, then perhaps the article would be considered as not neutral.

Nevertheless, the articles nowadays should achieve all the requirements. Please click the relevant websites to check the information. Also the persons in the articles are famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junwei fu (talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vranken per Crusio's improvements; the article now makes a clear and documented case for notability. Weak keep Lokin: the Royal Academy membership may be enough but it's the only thing there. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep! both of them I edited should be kept, there are about 200 members among all the fields in the Royal Academy. No doubtful, there is a very strick selection to all the members and all the 200 members are notable enough. I strongly believe the articles should be kept. And I will edit more articles after christmas. Merry christmas to all of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junwei fu (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep: In the article J.B.M. Vranken, the last sentence needs the citation "he was awarded the Royal Honour in the order of the Dutch Lion", actually the citation is from the reference 4. But I do not know how to edit it. Anybody who could help do it? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junwei fu (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep both per Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom the articles look much better now. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Tritch[edit]

Although this article does cite a reasonably legitimate source, in my opinion, the person the article describes is insufficiently notable for the encyclopedia to require an article about him. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article will develop over time if allowed, there have been a number of stories recently on Eric's development in the Supply Chain management world, features in "The State News", Michigan State University's Engineering Magazine, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritcher (talk • contribs)

Delete not a notable individual by any stretch of the imagination Mayalld (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. —Animum (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't assert notability. Already up for speedy deletion. Rt. 17:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Spot[edit]

The article lacks reliable sources to establish notability, and verifiability. The article itself is written in a promotional tone. The original author appears to be a single purpose account, and also removed a speedy when tagged in October 2007. Whpq (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per extraordinary lack of sources, which would have to verify all those claims. No verifiability is enabled. Rt. 17:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sourced assertion of notability. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. My eyes hurt after trying to read that big lump of text. But it's unsourced, and probably unverifiable. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, no sources, non-notable, no verifiablity. STORMTRACKER 94 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Lawrence Cohen 07:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 08:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfect self-defense[edit]

This article about a legal "doctrine" is flawed at best, as the court opinions cited are incorrect. They both point to the same case, in which the defense did not work (i.e., the murder conviction was affirmed). I think ~~it's a bogus soapbox article, as the appeal was based on ineffective assistence of counsel. If such a doctrine has any merit,~~ it should be included in Self-defense (theory). If I remember my crim-law classes correctly, an "unreasonable" belief does not justify deadly force in Texas. Evb-wiki (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the place for things made up in the defense attorney's restroom one day. (ba-dump-bump!)--WaltCip (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zeta.--WaltCip (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Notability not established, and written poorly in non-enclyclopedic manner. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with heavy editing. It's listed in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, and a Google Books search shows that it's described in the textbook "Criminal Law". The Michigan standard jury instructions mention it as well. ("Imperfect self-defense is a qualified defense that can mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.") The current description appears to be incorrect, but this is a real legal topic. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is most certainly real, and any search on Google or skimming of a criminal law textbook will reveal it was not made up in a day. Tag for rescue, etc. Bearian (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Absolutely real; I found hundreds of mentions using this exact term in case law and legal review in LexisNexis. I am not enough of an expert to write about it contextually, but I added an example with citation to the article. — brighterorange (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On page one of Google results [16], I found cites from three states. More to come. Happy Holidays! Bearian (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a well refernced article. Fosnez (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Law has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Singu larity 09:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NiGHTS[edit]

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered within the main game articles, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established, unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever information might be needed about this character is already contained in the articles about the games the character has appeared in. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep per the recent updates and improvement in the article. But it would be good if the games that this character featured in actually linked to this article, which doesn't yet appear to be the case. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment"No hope for improvement"? Look we know that the Nights: Journey of Dreams has a publicity campain that involes at least some interviews with devolopers and developers tend to like to talk about the characters they create for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said no assertion for improvement, which is much different than no hope. If you can add significant development details that would not easily fit in either of the two main articles, feel free to do so. TTN (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show they are not likely to exist feel free to do so. Of course this would require you to do actual research.Geni 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on those claiming something, not those disputing it. TTN (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming it is imposible to find real world information. I disspute this. Please be provideing some evidences.Geni 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am disputing that the character is notable (the claim was made at the creation of the article), and I am backing this with the fact that there is no current assertion (you seem to be ignoring this) for the existence of real world information. It is up to you or anyone else that believes that it is notable to provide evidence. And as I have told you before, it is impossible to provide evidence that shows that something does not exist or that something does not have a great possibility of existing (at least in cases like these). TTN (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current is not as important as what could be. It is posible to provide evidence that something is not likely to exist if that truely is the case. Please do so.Geni 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is a pointless discussion. The burden of proof lies on those defending the articles. That'll be my last word on that topic. TTN (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting assertion. From Wikipedia:Guide to deletion "first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself". So please be provideing some evidence that you have done so.Geni 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NiGHTS has cameoed in many games, mostly sonic. There used to be a cameo page until it was deleted under WP:TRIVIA. Fangz of Blood 19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia is trivia, so it doesn't really help anything here. TTN (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define real world notability to me? Fangz of Blood 20:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it means that the character has coverage within reliable sources that depict the creation and development of the character (as told by the designers and other related parties like voice actors) and the reception of the character (as told by reviewers). TTN (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, main character from notable game series. Failing that, merge into the game articles. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly what content would be merged? Maybe there is more than my eye sees, but to me I can't imagine how this content would be an effective candidate for merging. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons stated by Stifle. Fangz of Blood 02:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least for now. I think notability may be able to be asserted in the next couple of months. Ursasapien (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable and already covered. --Jack Merridew 11:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added a considerable amount of real world information to establish notability. --Pixelface (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the notability established with sources added since the start of the AfD. (A lot of those quotes could use trimming for balance issues, but that's a cleanup issue.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and the nominator's reasons no longer apply, with Pixelface's improvement. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stiffle, Quasirandom and Tim Q. Wells. JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Dude, unless someone improved the article after the nomination, this article should have never even been nominated because doing so was utterly ridiculous. This article has a good amount of real world material, the subject is notable, and the article isn't really bad, in terms of writing. Ridiculous this was even considered being nominated. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looked like this during nomination. Someone another (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "history" tab is on the top, right of the "article" and "talk" tabs. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article seems to be out of universe, well-sourced. Easy keep. matt91486 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, out of universe info available and cited, nice work Pixelface. Someone another (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the improvement since the article was listed to considered for deletion speaks for itself. Keep.--Alf ^melmac 11:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. Keep, and a major thank-you for Pixelface. It's a pity that many more articles must be lost because a skilled editor didn't happen to be around at that particular time - and on that note, I'm less than impressed by the extremely active nominator's refusal, made above, to do the required research and give the categorical rejection of an article instead of its current state the weight it deserves. --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 12:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - As per the other Keeps. Adam Hillman (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move - To Nights (character) per our guidelines on trademarks and names. See Nights into Dreams.... User:Krator (t c) 19:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep AfD is not for forcing cleanup. Jtrainor (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Deleted as copyvio. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Drive[edit]

This article was tagged as an A7, but the band has appeared on an MTV show. However, they have no label-released work, and the article lacks WP:RS. Hence, delete. Xoloz (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete its a copyvio of [17], also due to failure of WP:V and WP:RS Mr Senseless (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. jj137 ^♠ 22:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Violinmakers[edit]

No citations or other proof provided which establish this product's notability or importance. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines. No sources provided. No ISBN provided, which could cover the quotes. Rt. 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. Google Books search indicates that the book is cited as a reference in other high-quality works on violins and violin-makers, but I couldn't find even a good independent quote about it (e.g. "indispensable reference", that sort of thing) to buttress notability. Probably not much to say about it beyond a library listing unless reviews could be found in offline music publications. --Dhartung | Talk 18:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-notable, possible OR. STORMTRACKER 94 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - A book that has reached its eighth edition is likely to be notable. The article is a stub, and probably a poor one, but that is a reason for improving it, not deleting it. The title is perhaps unsatisfactory, in that oen would expect an article on violin makers, not on a book about them. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Musical Instruments has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe ok to use as a notable source for improving/creating individual violin maker articles like Stradivari, not for its own article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:16, December 26, 2007

Lusternia, Age of Ascension[edit]

No claim to notability or independent coverage; fails to meet any of WP:N, WP:WEB, WP:RPG/N Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the company running Lusterina (Iron Realms Entertainment) seems to be notable, and the game Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands of the same company has some backing in sources, Lusturnia lacks it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, save the solitary cite at the bottom, the rest of the article is unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IGN, Gamezone, Gamespy etc entries are trivial directory entries. A Gamershell press release. Basically a distinct lack of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:16, December 26, 2007

Ramaj Entertainment[edit]

Non notable at all. I visited the site and it tells NOTHING at all. The only rapper featured is Fluid, and there is nothing written on him. There is also no tour dates and some of the catelog pages are "under construction." Delete Metal Head (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - the 'official website' tells us absolutely nothing. Not notable in any way, nor does it make any real claim to be. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encounter (urban street game)[edit]

This article is written like an advertisement. It has no reliable sources and no indication that it is notable. Evb-wiki (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement.Metal Head (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. As it currently stands it might be elegable for speedy deletion per G12, but when that is fixed, there are still no claims of notability, or independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why spam? Why Advertisement? We just started reedit this article. This about real urban game, only game. Many people in all around the World plays in this game, likes geocashing, streetracing etc... We dont invating you, we want to talk you about this new activite. airevegny (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give this user a break on the language part. He obviously doesn't speak English as his first language. If this article survives the vote, we can fix the language. See below for my vote. — Val42 (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?! Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no assertion of notability, no external sources, no Ghits on http://www.google.com/search?as_lq=www.en.cx.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with all of the deletes above. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per all delete-comments above. Greswik (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Doesn't assert notability, doesn't have any reliable sources, etc. Will the closing admin please make sure to nuke the pics too? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tagged them all as disputed-fair-use. I probably should have tagged them more specifically, but that was as close as WP:TWINKLE got, and I thought they looked more like Fair Use anyway.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What wrong with pics ? It's my own pics, and my created logo. And what do you mean about 'external sources' if all they in Russian language. Airevgeny —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Copyright_issues#Copyright_owners_who_submitted_their_own_work_to_Wikipedia. Please also see Wikipedia's guidelines concerning conflicts of interest. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This article could possibly stay if it had actually been noticed by some external source(s). The "sounds like an advertisement" could be cleaned up with this information. Without any notice by reliable sources, these things can't be fixed. — Val42 (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Val42,Evb-wiki and all - thanks a lot for you help and advices! I'll change this artilce. (like I change game's logo information with you help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Encounter.jpg) But unfortunately all external sources of the information on our game are written in Russian (plots of telechannels and clauses in newspapers) because this game was born in Russia. Whether also I do not know it is necessary to add them ?Airevgeny —Preceding comment was added at 11:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- English sources are always preferable, but Russian sources suffice in case the source is not available in English. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck gentry[edit]

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self written article (by User:Chuckgentry) with no verifiability. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as unsourced OR, no notability established. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, as non-notable autobiography. KurtRaschke (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional biography that reads like spam. --Lockley (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Davis (defensive end)[edit]

Seems a non notable football player. As the page points out: No regular season appearances, no notable achievements. Just being a practice squad player doesn't seem to satisfy notability guidelines per WP:BIO Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Player is under contract by an NFL team. All practice squad players in the past have been deemed notable. Additionally, player is a former notable college football player, and most college football player articles have been deemed notable. Pats1 ^T/C 14:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a few pass through newpages, but I have not seen any AfD's, or other discussions that indicated a community consensus on the inherent notability of NFL practice squad players. If you know any, could you point me there? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. Notability of practice squad players is almost never questioned. Pats1 ^T/C 14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no consensus or precedent that says that practice squad players are inherently notable. Also, most college players are not notable until they turn professional. The exception is players who win postseason awards like the Maxwell Award or the Heisman Trophy. This player was certainly not notable during his time at UNC; he was signed as an undrafted free agent. --Cyrus Andiron 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Davis has turned professional. I'd agree with you if Davis graduated and never began an NFL career. Pats1 ^T/C 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other inherently notable subjects are that because it is assumed trivial to come up with reliable independent sources on them. Here, I am having more trouble. Falling back to WP:BIO, this particlar person doesn't seem to satisfy criteria for inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (consolidated due to edit conflicts) - Many, many practice squad player articles have been created and I can't think of any off the top of my head that have been deleted. Therefore there's little or no discussion on the topic. Nowadays, reliable sources for information on practice squad players are easily accessed. In this article's case, the following pages exist: NFL.com Player Profile (or CBS Sports Player Profile which used to be a mirror of the NFL.com profile), Washington Redskins Player Biography, and University of North Carolina Player Biography. This meets the requirements set forth by WP:NOTABLE. Pats1 ^T/C 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The question then, is are they all indepentent sources. The Uni and Redskins sites don't seem to be, the nfl site more so, but the page there doesn't seem to be more then a listing. (which goes for the uni and redskins sites too more or less). I have not gone in to the argumnet that there are plenty of other practice squad players with articles on wikipedia yet. This secition WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS goes in to the argument though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources such as what? Maybe half of all major American professional sports players lack "independent" sources. For example, a Google search of Rashad Baker, a former Buffalo Bills and New England Patriots player who was just claimed by the Oakland Raiders, brings up about 8-10 "listings." If it's an independent newspaper article specifically about that player or something of the ilk, you're only going to find one for perhaps 20-30% of all National Basketball Association, National Football League, Major League Baseball, and National Hockey League players in general. Pats1 ^T/C 15:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is again an argument that boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If those playeres fail to meet WP:BIO aswell, then their inclusion should also be discussed. This is not the place to do that though, this is a place to discuss the possible deletion of the article on Tommy Davis. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIO, "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league" are considered generally notable. This then points back to whether or not the article can be referenced with reliable sources. Which brings me back to my last point, which is most professional athletes have "listing" profiles which sufficiently provide the essential information needed in an article and its infobox - name, birth date (although sometimes not needed), organization, position, etc. The "independent" sources you seek outside of "listing sources" - which to me seem you're looking for a newspaper article that details the player's history, family, etc. First of all, that information is non-essential to an article and to determining its notability. Secondly, the player biography links I provided above (specifically the UNC) provide reliable information regarding the player's history already, independent or not. And finally, such articles or other independent sources exist for a small percentage of all professional sports players, but that does not mean every player who does not have is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, per the guidelines set forth in WP:BIO in regards to professional athletes. Pats1 ^T/C 15:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Baker is definitely notable. The difference between the two is that Baker has played in 52 games during his career. While Davis has yet to see any action in the NFL. --Cyrus Andiron 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments below. Pats1 ^T/C 15:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we are not talking about anyone who has competed in a fully professional league, becasue he hasn't competed yet. I am quite interested myself to see hwo this plays out, and what the communities thoughts are. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Technically, he is a part of the Redskins organization. He has yet to play in a game because he was picked up yesterday. I really could go either way on this one. The player cards do cofirm that he is a member of the team. However, I think precedent dictates that once someone plays in the NFL, he is notable, just like anyone that plays in the MLB, NHL, or Premier League is also notable. As of right now, he has not played in a game. --Cyrus Andiron 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he hasn't played in a game shouldn't be a deciding factor. The sources exist, he is under contract as a member of the Redskins. There shouldn't be any distinction between a player on injured reserve (that probably hasn't appeared in a game), a practice squad player, a player on another reserve list, or a player on the active roster who has been inactive (i.e. not dressed) for all his games when determining notability. Pats1 ^T/C 15:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes it should. Just being signed by a team does not make one notable. He is an employee of an oganization. He does not inherit notability simply because he is a member of the Redskins. Until he participates in a game, his NFL stats are the same as mine. Thus no record of participation. --Cyrus Andiron 16:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your arbitrary cut-off, supported by nothing in WP:NOTABLE or WP:BIO. Davis is a professional athlete, a member of the Washington Redskins. Multiple reliable sources exist in order to provide a referenced article on the subject. The same is the case, for example, for every player on the Redskins' practice squad, the Redskins' reserve lists (injured, physically unable to perform, left squad, non-football injury, did not report, etc.), and the Redskins' active 53-man roster, and the Redskins' gameday active 45-man roster. Pats1 ^T/C 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a grey area. I'm very interested to see what the community thinks about this. The only reliable sources are player cards from different sites that basically mirror each other. Is that enough to satisfy WP:BIO? I don't think that playing in a game is completely arbitrary. It seems to me like a very straightforward criterion for inclusion. I know certain soccer players in the UK are only considered notable once they play in a specific tier in the professional leagues. Granted, that's not the same as American football. But I think the same concept applies. If you actually play at the highest level, you are notable. --Cyrus Andiron 16:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on Pats1's comments. I think all NFL players should be included, because all are candidates to be looked up by fans. It's still a very exclusive club, and I think all are notable enough. They're all one pulled hammy away from being on the active roster, they're still professional athletes.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is great. Chris and I (among a few others) maintain the NFL team roster templates. Each template is housed on its team article, such as Washington Redskins. All players on the team are listed equally on this template, including those on practice squad and reserve lists. This makes for easy access to each player's article. So if a Redskins fan comes along looking at the Redskins roster and wants to know who this Tommy Davis player is, they have this article we are currently discussing. In the past few months, we've brought the amount of redlinked players in these templates down from hundreds to just a handful. These are professional football players on NFL team rosters - having to completely de-link (as redlinking implies notability is present, but the article hasn't been created yet) players that haven't played in a game yet despite having multiple reliable sources is when deletionism is contrary to what Wikipedia stands for. Pats1 ^T/C 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another one of those arguments to avoid, specificly WP:ITSUSEFULL. Apart from that, I doubt that navigating to a new page is more usefull or easy than having a link to a scorecard in a list of players. Arguing that it is a lot of work to change the redlinks in case of deletion is a weak argument aswell. Let's just focus on the criteria of WP:BIO, and the interpetation of being drafted, but not playing satisfies 'competing in a fully profesional league' Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have determined this article meets the requirements set forth in WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO. User:Cyrus Andiron has also seemed to agree with this, but his/her problem was that Davis has not appeared in a regular season game, and thus isn't notable - something outside the spectrum of WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO, as he also mentioned. Therefore Chris and I presented counter-arguments to his that were both also outside the realm of WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO. Pats1 ^T/C 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to differ in interpetation of Cyrus' words. I do think I said enough on the subject for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:BIO:
A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Athletes: Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).

Davis has competed in four NFL games[18] - even if he never made any regular season appearances, WP:BIO makes no distinction between pre-season and regular season, only that the player competes at the professional level. Davis also competed at the highest level in amateur sports, the NCAA, and was sufficiently covered by secondary sources while there.[19] Torc2 (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, forgot about preseason games. Pats1 ^T/C 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the preseason appearances and appearing on the current roster, I think he meets notability. Moreover, the discussion thus far has been correct - once a player appears on the roster, there are going to be people looking for articles about him. Wikipedia has articles about the 40 man roster of professional baseball teams even when some of those players have not yet appeared in the majors. matt91486 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BIO doesn't distinguish between pre-, post- or regular season games. And he's under contract with a team in the highest football league in the world. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I still agree with User:Cyrus Andiron that WP policy implies that one becomes noted enough for Wikipedia by playing in the NFL, generating stats that are repeated and discussed in various secondary sources, and not just by signing a contract. I think that the guidelines supporting WP policy should specify at least playing in a regular-season or playoff (or Cup tournament) game, not just practice-squad play or preseason cattle-call. But that's a discussion to be pursued on the WP:BIO guideline talkpage. User:Torc2 has made the case that Tommy Davis was sufficiently covered in college to keep an article; so it doesn't matter whether we consider his preseason play good enough in itself. Barno (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn as hasn't played a single first grade game so fails WP:BIO criteria for athletes. Sting_au Talk 10:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the comments here, buddy.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hes a pro football player, theres no more to even say--Yankees10 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject National Football League has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:28, December 26, 2007

Finn (rat)[edit]

Non-notable character. Article is nothing more then a plot summary. I doubt there are enough reliable secondary sources to add real world context to this article. I don't see the need for a separate article for this character. Ridernyc (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obscure fictional character for whom I could find no sources. —Animum (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:28, December 26, 2007

Skinner (rat)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:28, December 26, 2007

Jupiter (cat)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:28, December 26, 2007

Audrey Brown (mouse)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:28, December 26, 2007

Oswald Chitter[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:29, December 26, 2007

Piccadilly (The Deptford Mice)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Septimus Pretorius[edit]

Non-notable film character. Article is nothing more then a plot summary. I doubt there are enough reliable secondary sources to add real world context to this article. I don't see the need for a separate article for this character. Ridernyc (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - There are secondary sources that discuss the character, including Vito Russo's The Celluloid Closet and at least one of the works of horror scholar ~~Donald~~ David J. Skal. Otto4711 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources mentioned, here are additional sources that discuss the psychosexual analysis of the character and his relationship to Frankenstein, casting history, etc. I have a James Whale biography which includes of course a good deal of material about the film and the character. In all, enough to put together a reasonable article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, iconic character from iconic film.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources found by Otto4711 do seem to demonstrate notability. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. jj137 ^♠ 22:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Overlord of the Universe[edit]

Non-notable film character. Article is nothing more then a plot summary. I doubt there are enough reliable secondary sources to add real world context to this article. Ridernyc (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed; suggest redirect to Howard the Duck (film). The article should be focused instead on the title; but being the current incumbent, I would have a conflict of interest were I to try to write it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: At most, this character deserves a paragraph in the movie's article. When I clicked on this link out of curiosity, I assumed the character existed in the comics medium, not just the film. Prgrmr@wrk (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced WP:OR that completely fails WP:FICTION. Should be covered in the film article, which currently has a border-line stub for an article. Collectonian (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Howard the Duck (film) per policy, style and guidance. Hiding T 16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:30, December 26, 2007

Screen connections[edit]

Wikipedia is not a manual. The reference used in the article confirms the rationale for deletion; it's a manual. Cyrus Andiron 13:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, material covered encyclopedically by Digital Visual Interface and Video Graphics Array articles. --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Electronics has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn after article improvements. No delete votes. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Matters[edit]

While the organisation is, perhaps, noteworthy enough to deserve an article, most of this is irrelevant, and what isn't is poorly written. As the edits are almost exclusively made by one person, and most/many of the references point to http://flyingmatters.co.uk , it is conceivable that this is written by the organisation (it certainly reads like it) and not NPOV. Mullet (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first significant single addition to wikipedia. I agree it is poorly written at present, but I have been learning fast about wikipedia and the organisation, and would appreciate some help, time and guidance). The organisation is certainly worthy, and is making a lot of noise in the UK. The article certainly needs proof reading, many mistakes are invisible to my eyes, but I wanted to get the structure together first and was planning to arrange to get that done today. It is certianly wrriten by one person so far, but is only 3 days old and it is not written by the organisation, far from it, I am actually pretty critical of their motives, but have tried to keep it reasonably objective. I have probably failed miserably! The main issue I would appreciate guidance on in the scope. Should this be a 15 line article with the bare bones? or is most of what I have relevant? (probably not - it grew). I would like the content I have written to be available somewhere on the web, but I agree much of it may not belong in wikipedia. Should the article consist of a basic descoption of the organisation with a controvercy section and the key objections? I am certainly guilty of 'not reading the manual'. guidance please, thanks . PeterIto (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reflected on the above criticism and have now re-organised the article. I have moved the members to the top to keep all the factual stuff together and moved all the controvercial stuff in a 'Controversies' section. I am guessing that the 'Activities' section may not fit in Wikipedia at all, but will take guidance on that and move it somewhere else on the web if appropriate. I will get the article proof-read soon if no one else does it firstPeterIto (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nomination does not provide a reason for deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in anticipation of cleanup, which I might end up helping with. Cleanup is not a valid rationale for deletion. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is in desperate need of cleanup, but adequate notability established through the references. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
My reasoning for deletion was that starting from scratch was better than getting into an edit-war. I can see now that, after the reorganisation of the page, there is a lot of useful information there, and that it's not one-sided, as I had thought. The timeline seems a little extraneous but otherwise it looks like a good article, sorry. I vote to keep now, of course.Mullet (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Hagele[edit]

I have thoroughly read the CRSQA article and it covers everything necessary relating to its owner, Glenn Hagele. This seems to be a vanity page and much of the information provided in regards to news references is all redundant information that seems to have been added to add legitimacy, and is all already contained on the CRSQA page. I feel it is completely unnecessary to create a separate article as Glenn Hagele as a Wikipedia entry is not considered encyclopedic. The general importance of Glenn Hagele is his relationship to the CRSQA and anything independant of that appears to be a resume that is not of much use to an encyclopedia any more than it would be another individual. --SirDecius (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This entry as well as the articles regarding the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance and LASIK have been subject to repeated vandalism by a small group of individuals, two of which have been sued for defamation and for publishing my personal identity - including Social Security number - on websites they control. With the exception of outside links to mutually relevant news articles at publications that range from US News & World Report to Oprah's Magazine, there is virtually no overlap and each article has unique information. This request for removal is one more act of vandalism and has no basis in Wikipedia rules, governance, or need.

--Ghagele (talk)

Delete, merging anything relevant to Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance. I agree that Glen Hagele's chief notability relates to the CRSQA and Lasik advocacy. The rest of his CV - various corporate posts in the healthcare industry - doesn't look separately notable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are lots of quotes, there is not much about the subject. He is not notable beyond the average board-certified physician and adjunct college teacher. I don't see how deletion of a bio can be libel; in fact, the contra is true. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 03:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Sorna[edit]

This article appears to have no references or notability, and appears to be just an in-universe plot repetition and thus is just a duplication of the plot section of the various Jurassic Park stories. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna into one article, dunno what we would call it though--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is the setting of a major novel, film, comic, and video game. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and George[edit]

This film article was created by the creator of the film, and lacks any evidence of notability. Prod removed by creator with the comment, "I believe that the page is relevant. This is a forthcoming film that is being created by a local cinema group in Pendle, UK. We have an interview with localpress in a weeks time to discuss the film." FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for not being experienced with Wikipedia. As the filmmaker, am I not allowed to create a page for the film? We are really excited about this as it is our first feature length production and wanted to get lots of things done about it, including a wiki page. If you feel it necesary then obviously I cannot stop you from deleting the page, although I do believe it is relevant to your users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevrobinson (talk • contribs)

Delete. First, because there's no given independent sources, it violates verifiability policy. Second, per conflict of interest. The last reason is that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting your future film. Dekisugi (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Sorry about that, I know now for future reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevrobinson (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons given above by Dekisugi. And to the creator, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional tool or a directory of films. I believe the site you're looking for is called IMDb. If, once the film is released, you can provide reputable, independent sources to prove notability, then you may have valid arguement for a wiki article. Tx17777 (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - film has not been released. Does not meet WP:N and WP is not a crystal ball. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have apologised, and accepted that I am not very experienced in creating wikipedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevrobinson (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn film, coi, violates WP:V. nat.utoronto 13:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per verifiability policy, WP:COI, WP:NN and crystal ball. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by User:Nyttend as a complete lack of assertion of notability. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearden's[edit]

Non notable restaurant. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete JForget 01:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Java applets used for sms[edit]

Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Whispe ring 13:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. cf38^talk 13:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Tx17777 (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO Doc Strange (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kemoy barlow[edit]

Non-notable TV extra. MRSC • Talk 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and, as article was created by Kemoybarlow, also as WP:COI. I hate to use the term "vanity page", but I really don't know what else to call this. Tx17777 (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete work as an extra comes nowhere close to notability, as further evidenced by the lack of any independent coverage. Maralia (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A background artist isn't Wiki material. TGreenburgPR (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Something tells me that this person is not actually known for the background roles played. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography and self-promotional page. --Lockley (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Protoss[edit]

Completely in-universe fan-fiction. Unreferenced original research. Evb-wiki (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing of any encyclopaedic value there at all. Waggers (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRUFT- unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral. Sting_au Talk 12:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sting_au. Unsourced fancruft. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sartman[edit]

Religious cult that does not assert notability. There are no reliable independent sources in the article, and a google search turns up nothing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can not find any sources to help it claim notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass the spaghetti test.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage to establish notability. I will refrain from extemporary commentary on the visual merits of the 'flag'. Maralia (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As with any article on a new religious movement or development, do we have any independent sources commenting on the new movement and verifying that it is notable? If not, agree a delete is required per above. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Songs about clothes[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft and likely copyright violation since there is no reference for the introductory paragraphs (which, if not a reference, are themselves original research). Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unforgivable for leaving out "My Adidas". Oh, and everything above. JuJube (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like a strapless gown, I have my doubts about whether this one can stay up. It appears that the author saw a list somewhere in the Dallas Morning News, but didn't know how to make a reference to it, then worked with a broad definition for clothing that includes what might be called "accesories" -- rings, bows, etc. (I still can't figure out how "Kookie, Lend Me Your Comb" got on here). This would probably be a fun category on Pyramid or Family Feud or even Jeopardy, but I can't see this as a permanent accesory to Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, albeit weakly. It does make for an interesting game: how many songs can you think of that ought to be on the list, and ain't? The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades by Timbuk 3 came immediately to mind, as did Rebel, Rebel by David Bowie and Sharp Dressed Man by ZZ Top. Best fashion advice in a song award, though, goes to Ride a White Swan from T Rex. Some kind of analytical article on clothing and fashion references in popular song might be written, but as a list that doesn't really link to articles, this is not that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a totally unsourced, indiscriminate list full of original research. (And because they didn't include "Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off".) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR. Otto4711 (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Humanity Award[edit]

Delete No natability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's definitely not original research. I've added a few external links.[20] ~~But the award's first annual presentation was held only a few days ago, so I'm not certain of notability.~~ Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Alright it's definitely notable. News items on this have appeared in major Chinese-language newspapers. Ming Pao (明報), Sing Tao Daily (星島日報), World Journal (世界日報), Ta Kung Pao (大公報), and RTHK has a webpage for it[21]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Award's official site can be found here via the Hong Kong Red Cross Society. Luke! (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A humanitarian award with ties to a well known international org like redcross is about as notable as it gets. Benjwong (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by User:Uncle G as copyright violation. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAFE Ltd[edit]

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep all. Tyrenius (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gifted Life[edit]

Non-notable singles by the same group. No chart action, little to nothing in the way of references. All easily fail WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

^{Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username))}

Redirect to the album. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 01:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - non notable per WP:MUSIC (the band is, the songs aren't). Orderinchaos 01:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except Clap Your Hands (Downsyde song) per reasons given by others. Orderinchaos 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain the single Gifted Life was nominated for the 2003 Dance Music Awards and recieved national airplay (I have included references to which in the article). Dan arndt (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Australian Dance Music Awards do not appear to be notable. (The awards listed in WP:MUSIC are all major, national awards like the Grammys, Mercury Prize, and the Juno.) Precious Roy (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep El Questro at least as winner of music video award at 2003 WAMi's.Garrie 01:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The West Australian Music Industry Awards are regional, not national. (The awards listed in WP:MUSIC are all major, national awards like the Grammys, Mercury Prize, and the Juno.) Precious Roy (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment well I think a WAMIs is at least as good as a New Zealand Music Award. WA is much bigger by area! ;) Garrie 10:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WAMI is the peak music body for the main distribution area in which they release, so I don't see a problem. Orderinchaos 23:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Reliable sources have been added to the articles, they've won significant Australian awards, and they're about singles by a rather notable band. Roy, we get your point - there's no need to individually argue with every person who disagrees with you. Rebecca (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's discussing, not arguing. And I don't think you do get my "point" if you're still misinterpreting WP:MUSIC as it pertains to articles about songs/singles. Precious Roy (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - as per Rebecca. Articles have had much needed work done to them since being nominated for AfD. Sting_au Talk 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, meets at least criteria #8 of WP:MUSIC, and quite probably #11 as well (due to Triple J airplay). Lankiveil (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment #8 is "nominated for a major music award such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis"—neither award is anywhere near the same level as the examples given (the Australian equavalent would be the ARIA Music Awards); #11 is "placed in rotation"—while some of the songs received airplay, none of them were in rotation. Precious Roy (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the caribbean the fountain of youth[edit]

Delete - as article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Sting_au Talk 11:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Done some research, and information about the potential film seems to be all rumour based and not confirmed. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR until it is confirmed that there will be such a film and more information is clear. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-balling. Let me draw attention to this sentence: "With many rumours going around it is difficult to know what is true and what is false." So let's wait until the movie is released, so we do know what is true or false? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Pirates of the caribbean page. People might start searching for info on the movie and it seems appropriate to redirect them to the main article where any official information will be quickly updated. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR, the sources are not acceptable. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as blatant crystal balling and original research. --JForget 01:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. For an article to be kept, there must be sufficient verifiable sources to indicate the notability of the subject. These have not been found for this specific aircraft. This is unfortunate, as the article is otherwise well written and informative. Tyrenius (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-APSA[edit]

NOTE closing admin see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Thedc6 for sock/vote stacking issues on this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN aircraft Mayalld (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn I can't see anything notable about that particular aircraft. Nothing cited in the article. Sting_au Talk 11:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Individual aircraft are not generally notable enough for their own article. No references in the article and I have not found anything that suggests this aircraft is notable. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Weak keep~~ - References have been helpfully added to the article by the author, and the article generally presents it case for been kept better than it did. There are many DC-6s still flying; though the fact that this aircraft was one of the last to be in active commercial service, as the references suggest, has given me the impression it has some notability. The article still needs work though, wording needs to be more encyclopedic, and original research needs removing. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge and re-direct to Douglas DC-6 - In fact, merge and re-direct the article, seems to have some notability and not enough for its own entry. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of references here and some interesting history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedc6 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC) — Thedc6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has merit: good references, historical interest and aircraft obviously linked to significant world events. Meets inclusion criteria better than e.g. MSC Armonia article debated in transportation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latto shubtill (talk • contribs) 07:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC) — Latto shubtill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Closing administrator, please note the discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Thedc6. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I gain the impression that this aircraft is being maintained and run as a heritage specimen of its type. Unless there are dozens of DC-3 aircraft to which this applies, I think that makes it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The aircraft is a DC-6, not a DC-3. According to the article Douglas DC-6 There are around a hundred such aircraft still in flying condition. As such, it isn't notable. Mayalld (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The aircraft is indeed a DC-6, which is a very rare breed now. G-ASPA is in fact the only DC-6A operational outside the Americas and the only one operated commercially in Europe. A quick look at the Oldprops reference in the G-APSA article reveals that there are just a dozen or so now in flying condition anywhere in teh world. The Douglas DC-6 article needs updating in this respect. User:thedc6 —Preceding comment was added at 16:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Transwiki~~ and delete - no more notable than thousands upon thousands of other rare aircraft of various types. Should maybe get a mention in the Douglas DC-6 article, but the detailed history of the airframe belongs at still-under-development Airframes, not here. Great article, by the way, just not about an encyclopedic topic. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, it's so good, I've already transwikied] it, regardless of what happens to the article here. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be an advertising vehicle for the current owners. It is already mentioned (including external link) in the DC6 page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Aircraft has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 10:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bears (band)[edit]

Delete NN per WP:BAND Mayalld (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Does not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC). Change to Keep, based on the point below, it was not clear from the article that Izen was a member of another notable band. Lankiveil (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Band does meet at least two criteria in WP:MUSIC including articles 6 and 7. Matthew Izen is a member of Internationally touring band The Velvet Teen. Raccoonunit (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Band meets the two criteria above and likely #4 too. Will sort later - passing out at keyboard now. Torc2 (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. One Napa county newspaper is not enough to assert notability. Cirt (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

How do you get WP:OR out of that? Everything in the Wiki article is in the newspaper article. Torc2 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable even though they took Jules Shear's band name. Mykej (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the three MetroActive articles don't count (which they should), the article states that "a musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria." #6 is covered because guitarist Matthew Izen now plays (and has toured *internationally) with The Velvet Teen. milo56279 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. jj137 ^♠ 21:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skitt's law[edit]

Alleged Internet adage. There are no sources apart the posts themselves, and it does not seem to be in widespread usage today. Big chunks of original research, linking the adage to similar ones and Freudian psychoanalysis. Nydas^(Talk) 10:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's concerns. Also lack of anything truly informative no a first-time reader, and all sections which approach something coherent and meaningful to the subject matter are compromised by weasel words. Pump me up 10:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the widespread use of this term seems to not be verifiable, as per WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep reasonably well attested via Google (discussed, not just used), though no clear WP:RS. JJL (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Only source that is not to a groups discussion appears to be a personal website. Cirt (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep, same reason as JJL . Greswik (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom's concerns; also is simply an internet usage of a cliche already existing in everyday language; nothing new except the word "flames"Sir Rhosis (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyenine[edit]

Might be a big star one day, but for now fails WP:MUSIC sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/delete This is a complex one, but it seems to me a member of 'Eyenine' wrote this article for recognition and since they have not released an article yet etc.... I'm afriad it doesn't meet the standards of WP:MUSIC.cf38^talk 09:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but I would expect this article may go ahead if they become notable (possibly in the near future) Pump me up 10:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete Read it closely. The birthdate. The post-session "snack". Me smells a hoax. WP:BLP or WP:HOAX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.39.228 (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete -this reads "hoax" mixed with ((db-band)). Greswik (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures in Odyssey - Episode Guide[edit]

Other than the issue that this encyclopedia is not a host for fan-produced guides to television/radio programs, this article also fails to establish notability, doesn't provide any references, and appears to be primarily made up of original research. The article describing the show would be fine (and so is this related list), an episode guide of this nature isn't. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That pretty much sums it up - the underlying reason is that it is not an encyclopedic article. Pump me up 10:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a list of episodes would be fine, but an in-depth guide like this is going a little too far. Plus, as mentioned, a lot of this is WP:OR. Lankiveil (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Adventures in Odyssey is a great show on radio and TV, but I agree that this treatment is way too in depth, even by episode guide standards. For that reason, I can't even say "Merge" into the parent article. A single episode guide article is preferable to lots of individual episode articles about a show, although I hope that in 2008, we'll see a lot of that garbage cleared away too. Mandsford (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. One solitary website is not enough to assert notability. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:34, December 26, 2007

Gary Michael Green[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO non-notable, possibly vanity-self promotion page.Meanviews101 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although it is the first edit of the nominator, but I agree with him/her. Unless there is an independent third-party reliable sources given (per WP:BIO), I opt to delete this article. Dekisugi (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above concerns, it's a nightmare to read. I was going to say keep as I believe the subject may scrape through notability, although an article here is really pointless and another place for the name to be plastered Pump me up 10:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at first glance I too thought he might scrape through as notable, but various Google searches for his name turned up press releases, Wikipedia mirrors, LinkedIn, and not much else. One might expect a few more mentions, given the colourful career this article claims he has had. A prolific self-promoter by the looks of it, but not notable. Lankiveil (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I added a few references that help the article meet WP:BIO. Yes the article needs a lot of help but that is what we editors do :) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Poker has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not ready to !vote one way or another. If some of the claims in the article are true, I might be persuaded to say keep.... but as is, without citations for some of the more extreme claims, I would be voting delete. Either way, the article needs cleaned up on both tone and references.Balloonman (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Singu larity 08:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Last AFD this was moved from Wikipedia space to article space, but I don't think it deserves an article - no sources and barely anything of note online aside from an IMDB entry. Whatsmore, I don't think it passes any of the WP:MOVIE criteria. -Halo (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: MFD AFD here, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Truth_in_Numbers:_The_Wikipedia_Story, was unaware of previous AFD which ended in Delete in March 2007 -Halo (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previously deleted per WP:CRYSTAL, but is now in post-production, and the article includes links to articles showing independent coverage. Don't see a problem keeping it.--Michig (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the SF-Gate article is about the only decent indepednent source there, and the amount of content devoted to this film in that article is not huge. The Inquirer is about as reliable as a 1968 Datsun, an IMDB is not really an indicator of notability, and "Pod Tech" seems to be just some random blog, which isn't usually considered a reliable source. None of the other links are to independent sources. It is my opinion that there is insufficient third-party information on this movie to pass either WP:V or WP:N. Lankiveil (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You may be right about the lack of independent coverage. I've added another link to the article, which may help a little. WP:V shouldn't be too much of a problem. The novel approach being taken to the film probably makes it notable to some extent. --Michig (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the San Francisco Chronicle article, The Inquirer article, and the New York Times blog are enough to keep this article. When the film is released, this article is going to be recreated anyway. I'm sure there are going to be several reviews of the film published. --Pixelface (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also I think it would be counter productive to aliminate this article for the next few months as the film is due out in the begining of '08.U5K0 (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Pixelface (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Asserts sufficient notability for a future release and the Datsun 510 was famously reliable. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per WP:SNOW. This has been nominated for deletion a ridiculous amount of times and has been re-created again and again. I didn't know what I started when I created it...--Orthologist (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Al Conti. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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 free market. BLACKKITE 10:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free marketeer[edit]

Sole claim to notability is that the term is "widely used in the Free Talk Live community".

Only search engine hits I could find pointing to reliable sources were simply using the term as a label for advocates of free markets. Although I am prepared to be proven wrong on this, I am sceptical as to whether non-trivial coverage of the topic can be found in independent reliable sources.

I do not believe the use in Free Talk Live context justifies keeping this article rather than simply redirecting it to free market. Skomorokh ^incite 06:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy redirect to free market. For future reference, you don't need to bring this sort of case to AfD. Just redirect it yourself. If someone objects, use ordinary dispute resolution. The exception would be if there were content in the article (say, copyright violations or illegal material) that would be harmful to WP just by being accessible in the history. --Trovatore (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have redirected if there were no constituency that claimed the term as a label for their beliefs, to the extent that they made specific distinctions between it and anarcho-capitalism. Reliable sources aren't always readily apparent and I have been wrong about this sort of thing before. It does no harm to give people a forum to defend the independence and notability of the topic. Skomorokh ^incite 07:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response you can do that on the talk page of the article. AfD is not really the appropriate forum, because you're not actually proposing a deletion. --Trovatore (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect - obviously this term has more currency with Free Market than it does with some obscure radio programme. Is it kosher to just redirect articles like this while an AfD is on? Lankiveil (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment If you wouldn't mind waiting a day or two, at least until WP:SNOWiness becomes apparent, I'd much appreciate it. The Anarchism Task Force has this and related articles under its watchful eye, and there's little risk of anything being overlooked or undeservedly kept. A little due process won't hurt anyone. Skomorokh ^incite 14:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term free marketeer is used not only on the Free Talk Live radio show. The article needs some work but it is not a reason for why it should be deleted. Lord Metroid (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the other use? Is it anything other than "advocate of free markets"? Do you have a source? Skomorokh ^incite 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response, I am not sure where I heard it, I think maybe Marc Stevens have used the term a few times but don't take my word for it. Lord Metroid (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complement, I noticed Samuel Edward Konkin III used marketeer in his essay Copywrongs about copyrights legitimacy. I would speculate that this wouldn't be the only occasion he used that terminology. In conclusion the article needs to be rewritten to represent the concept better. Lord Metroid (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism, with possible original research. Majoreditor (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. east.718 at 06:39, December 20, 2007

Bro Rape[edit]

Seems like WP:NFT, unsourced, as well as maybe a copyvio VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 06:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Hubsher[edit]

Deletion nomination Article is about a girl who appeared in a single episode of the MTV show "My Super Sweet 16" and then had a few small interviews around that appearence. No evidence of notability beyond this. Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cher Hubsher is notable on the basis that multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject exist. Cher has been on numerous tv shows on at least three different television networks. Saying that she had only one appearance is absurd. Cher was on MTV on at least 5 different occasions. Following her episode on My Super Sweet 16, she returned to MTV studios for the season 4 reunion. Also with MTV, she was titled the My Super Sweet 16 "allstar" and was paid to host the My Super Sweet 16 marathon. She also hosted an MTV show which searched for the next super sweet sixteener, in which a teenager would be given a super sweet sixteen party in her honor. She was further paid by MTV to help Stefanie, the winner of the search for the next super sweet sixteener, plan her party. Moreover, in her appearance on The Montel Williams show, she did not speak about her MTV show, but rather about how having money does not mean one has to be spoiled. On the show a psychologist considered Cher to be a good example of how being spoiled does not depend on one's wealth. Cher is a good role model for many children. Although her appearances on television are what she is most notable for, she is also active in the community as she is currently the president of the Clearwater chapter of the United Synagogue Youth. Phattyg3 (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Phattyg[reply]

delete case of WP:BLP1E.cf38^talk 09:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, written as an advertisement for herself and hardly notable as a 15 minutes of fame "star". Just because one got on TV a few times doesn't make one worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia (try MySpace for somewhere to plaster a name). The fact that Phattyg3 is arguing with such gusto in favor of the article and it's subject make me think a conflict of interest is also involved here. Pump me up 10:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Cher put on a great party with music, magic, and dancing". Wow! Staggeringly non-notable person. Delete. Lankiveil (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Seems to be bit part role in one or two places. Maybe self-puffery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.39.228 (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Wikipedia, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There have been multiple reliable secondary sources published about Cher that are independent of the subject. Not only did the St. Petersberg Times write two artciles about Cher, but if you type her name in google, there are over 850 websites mentioning her. I am sure that number is more than some of the people on Wikipedia. Her notability is undeniable. Phattyg3 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)PhattyG3[reply]
- Counting Google Web hits is not research. The actual figure is 189 for M. Hubsher. According to Google Web there are approximately 150 web pages that mention me, by pseudonym alone, and not a single one of them is a source for a biographical article. What constitutes research is actually reading those 189 web pages to see whether any of them are non-trivial published works from independent sources that document this person. Uncle G (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been listed among the Arts and entertainment Announcements for WikiProject Biography. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-Anarchy[edit]

Non-notable anarchist sect apparently created in 2003. No Google News or Google Scholar hits, I couldn't find any reliable sources. I cant' imagine this topic getting an encyclopedia-worthy treatment at this point in time given the dearth of secondary sources.

Article itself is completely unsourced, pov, originally researched personal essay. Skomorokh ^incite 06:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any information on them except for a few references to them on a forum where they were ridiculed. All links to related essays, individuals, or organizations, link to the same defunct address. This article is a lost cause.--Cast (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shiva_eVolved 10:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a fringe (and I mean "fringe") political group, and that's if they even exist. Lankiveil (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per nom, appears to be vanity. Murderbike (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Itzhak Nutzhak"? It's a joke. Iralith (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn’t seem notable enough (i only found 460 google hits for it).--Fang 23 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of dental practice management software[edit]

Uncited and obvious original research TableManners ^U·T·C 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:V and WP:OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I never knew that Dental Management software was such a booming industry, this is quite clearly all original research. Lankiveil (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Article does not follow WP:V or WP:OR. This kind of information can be included in individual software articles if they are notable anyway. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should have been killed long, long ago, before the creator put all that original research into it; totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and frankly, it troubles me that we have any articles on individual software packages for managing a dental practice, as we apparently do. Those need to be examined in themselves, and the chief value of this text would be to find them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This type of information, while useful, is not maintainable on Wikipedia. The check suggested by Smerdis of Tlön above is overdue. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would like to see the article kept around, and developed into a better one. The information that it is trying to convey is very important to a large group of people. Whether it is the dentist, hygienist, dental assistant or the office manager/personal. When all these groups of people are considered the number is quite large. The software is used in tens of thousands of offices around the world. More people use just one of these programs than use little known programs like JMoney or Vbuzzer. What I find troubling is the perceived notability status given to little know programs many listed List of open source healthcare software. I think Ashley Payne statement on the articles discussion board should be considered as well. 160.7.235.153 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep; bad faith nomination by blocked impersonator.

Smile Foundation of Bali[edit]

Non-notable non-profit organization; all references are advertisements; no articles link here. Senang Hati (impersonator) (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep; bad faith nomination by blocked impersonator.

Senang Hati Foundation[edit]

Non-notable non-profit organization, all references are advertisements, only article that links here is Tampaksiring, which was created by the same author of this article. Senang Hati (impersonator) (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 16:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nocatee, Florida[edit]

From the development's own website, it isn't going to be an incorporated town, and is instead part of Ponte Vedra, [22]. Doesn't pass WP:NOTE therefore, plus the article reads like an ad. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 05:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any town is notable, incorporated or not. advert-like info ~~can be fixed~~ has been fixed somewhat. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Geographic Names Information System knows about this place -- see http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:294280 -- and is assigned the 34268 ZIP code, all of which qualifies it as a place with inherent notability. Alansohn (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, as a gazetted locality (or whatever the American equivalent term is). Lankiveil (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep as an established community, not yet the best referenced, but definitely notable and capable of expansion. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per continuously verified consensus that all towns are notable. --Smashville^BONK! 16:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:35, December 26, 2007

MPLS-Experts[edit]

Article is supposedly about a company, but most of the text just describes MPLS in general. There are no third party sources relating to the actual subject of the article (and I couldn't find any on google or google news), and even the claim of notability isn't really clear. (It was deleted before as blatant advertising, but I'm not sure that applies to the current version, it's not as gushing as the previous one.) - Bobet 05:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not convinced that the company is notable, and at least half of the article is wildly off-topic anyway. Lankiveil (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Lankiveil. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:35, December 26, 2007

Tom King (Technologist)[edit]

The notability of the subject of the article is dubious and it is a frequent target of vandals. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - No sources, very little notability, most info seems made up. WP:V. Tiptoety (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for really awful mugshot. Oh yeah, unverifiable too. Lankiveil (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

~~Delete~~ for denying asshattary award. Lankiveil (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.92.3 (talk) [reply]

Note - I changed/moved and the above comment due to the fact that the editor has already once voted, and or was made by a anon IP. Tiptoety (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Being a persistent target of vandals is not a valid deletion rationale, but the lack of notability of the subject renders that point moot. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Also parts read like thinly veiled attacks. Benea (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 as was done previously in Sep 2006. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trond Werner Hansen[edit]

Dubious notability. If someone can scrounge something up, great, but right now it's ready for deletion. --iTocapa ^iChat 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:RS for his unestablished WP:N. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very dubious notability. No sources or anything of that nature either. Lankiveil (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was No-Consensus I'm not seeing a clear consensus to delete this but I'd suggest that someone does some digging and comes up with more independent sources otherwise I can see this being deleted next time round. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Fenner[edit]

TV character profile. No claim to notability given. Nehwyn (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll admit a bias here, I did some of the initial work on this article. The character is possibly the most important single character for a considerable part of the series Bad Girls, either directly or as a malevolent presence who needs to be "worked around" by other characters. The article needs a serious rewrite, from the perspectives of content, grammar, and spelling, but the basis is there for a reasonable article. There's far too much here to successfully merge it into Bad Girls. As far as notability outside the series, FWIW Fenner was listed as one of British television's "Top Ten TV Bastards" in 2002. Whether that counts as notoriety enough, I don't know. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Notability within the fictional world of the series is irrelevant here; the point is real-word notability, i.e. coverage by independent sources. So the point is: can you provide andy reliable sources confirming the article subjects meets the WP:N criteria? That link is really not enough on its own to establish real-world notability. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link is a start towards establishing notability. More like it, showing that people talk about the character or find her notable in some way, are needs. Key word from the guidelines is "multiple." If you do that, this should be an easy keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's just a passing mention, and on a website that I don't think qualifies as reliable source. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, the same programme is mentioned on several other websites - at least one of them is surely a reliable source (how about The Sunday Mirror?) Also, you're forgetting that the real-world notability being pointed out wasn't his mention in passing on a website, but his listing by the television programme mentioned on the website. The fact that the programme was a Channel 4 programme, whereas the series Bad Girls was screened on one of C4's rivals (ITV), is in itself worthy of noting when considering the character's notability. BTW, one possible alternative to either deletion or merging would be to start an article called something like Regular characters in Bad Girls (TV series), as it appears from the main article that two or three others are proposed for merging to the main (already lengthy) article. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 04:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bad Girls, as per other character bios. Shiva_eVolved 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the reason this and the other articles were originally split from the Bad Girls article was that that article was too long. Grutness...wha? 11:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Constant[edit]

No indication of notability outside of the San Jose area. Local politicians generally don't have their own pages. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here is the relevant criterion, which Constant fails:
- Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

--Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 13:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral San Jose isn't just a small town (there's around 70 countries in the world with smaller populations) and the San Jose Mercury has some standards, at least. He seems to get a reasonable amount of news coverage [23]; almost all of it is stuck behind paywalls, but he's clearly the subject of several of them. Though I'm guessing he's friends with a reporter or something as even back when he was just a cop, he got quoted a lot on issues way outside his area of expertise, ranging from real estate [24] to health care coverage [25]. cab (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He's had significant coverage in a notable newspaper, San Jose Mercury News. Epbr123 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all due respect, Mr. Constant seems non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete because a Google search found results only in the San Jose area. But since San Jose is a reasonably large city, I wouldn't push it.--Astroview120mm 05:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted by User:CaliforniaAliBaba, has been the subject of coverage from reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I think there might be a threat of opening a pandora's box regarding bios of local officials. Something like a List of San Jose city council members would be better. Shiva_eVolved 11:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, he's a fairly unremarkable local politician, but in a reasonably large jurisdiction and there seems to be reliable sources available. Lankiveil (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, eh. Happy Holidays from —B o L 00:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While he is not a notable politician, I just don't see what the problem is. The article seems pretty well sourced to me. Chris! _ct 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:47, December 26, 2007

Story of Myth[edit]

Where do I start? Too long. Way too long. We're talking deep in the realm of unnecessary fancruft here. Also, the start of the article says "The information below has been gleaned from the instruction manuals of Myth and Myth II, the flavor text of the individual units, and the information learned during the narration between levels and in the epilogue." That smacks of original research to me. If this article isn't deleted outright, it needs a 90% size reduction. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this one's hopeless in its present state. In-universe fancruft, mostly unsourced, full of original research, etc. etc. I could go on but I won't. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it isn't a copyvio then it's surely either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. JJL (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons and lack of real world notability. Epthorn (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It's either an advertisement (a really really really long one), or a copyright violation off of the game, perhaps copied from some random PDF file that CorenBot didn't catch, or just WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, as mentioned above. It is too long, I mean the length is ridiculous and just too much info in general. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say keep. The argument that it is an advertisement is moot; the franchise has been dead for six years with little chance of revival. Yes, there is a lot of "independent" research here, but it all exists in game, as well as within the manual, as the opening introduction states. Yeah, it's a bit on the "crazy fan" side, but being a crazy fan myself, I can tell you that none of this is speculation, nor is it copied outright (as far as I can tell). Seriously, to assume it's from some random PDF is naive. In this day and age of Google, one could just copy and paste any phrase from this article and track down the alleged copyright violation. Not hard to do. -AfroRyan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.185.97 (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But with heavy modification, and perhaps incorporation into other articles. I am Forrest Cameranesi, the maintainer of the Myth section of the Bungie.org network, a fan site which is well known by and formerly frequented by both Bungie, the original creators of the Myth series, and Mumbo Jumbo, the creators of Myth III. We have on our site the complete texts of all three games in our Journal and Encyclopedia sections, a fact which is well known and unchallenged by both the original and current copyright owners. The Bungie.org network itself only exists by the grace by Bungie, who have allowed us to use their trademarked name in our domain; and the network's head admin, Claude Errera, has frequent close contact with Bungie, having negotiated such community-centered grants of legal permission as the Marathon Trilogy abandonware release. There is also precedent with Bungie's condoning and even support of similar verbatim reproduction of their work in the Marathon Story Page. So I think it's safe to say that while the use of the materials presented in this article may not be fair use, they are certainly sanctioned by the copyright holders and thus legit for use on Wikipedia. That said, the bulk of this material is uncited. How to cite from a video game? Well, if someone would care to undertake the process, the aforementioned sections of Myth.Bungie.Org, especially the Encyclopedia, contain thorough citations of where every piece of verbatim text came from, e.g. Myth TFL, Level 15, "Heart Of The Stone" or Ghol Flavor Text, Myth II, which could be used as citations here; and in the Encyclopedia each section of text fragments on a particular topic is individually linkable via anchor names, e.g. The Tain, if wikiites would like a site with the verbatim text itself to link to for support. As for the argument that this article is synthesis, I'm not sure if our site (Bungie.org) counts as a reputable source or not, but we are the largest source for materials on this topic, and I'm sure most everything in this article that isn't directly from the games but rather a synthetic conclusion drawn from game materials has undoubtedly been written about on our site, so those bits could be changed to citations to our off-wiki articles rather than original research or synthesis here on the wikipedia. (I know it may seem like I'm just fishing for links to our site, but please note that Bungie.org is both completely non-profit to the point of being entirely ad-free, funded solely out of Claude's own pocket; and also that as these games are now very old, the site is pretty much dead. So traffic doesn't mean anything to us). Furthermore, it seems to me that this article would be better served being split up into sections for the three Myth games and incorporated into the text of their articles, perhaps in a more succinct form as it is rather long, and the original texts are available online for further reference if readers are interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.2.176 (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC) — 70.177.2.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Sorry, but who you are and what you have on your site, and the "precedent" you claim for "materials [that are] not... fair use" have nothing to do with what is suitable for Wikipedia. Our policy is to use sources which are independent. The guideline states "an independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective." As you say, bungie.org is a fan site, which immediately disqualifies it as a Wikipedia source. What you describe as "synthetic conclusion[s]" are explicitly disallowed, as has been mentioned by other commenters above. If that were not enough to justify the text's removal, you have suggested that the text is not fair use, which mandates its immediate removal under our license policy. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't mean to comment one way or another on whether or not what's actually in this article is fair use - as far as I can tell it's all paraphrase, nothing verbatim from the games, so I'd imagine there's no copyright violation there one way or another. But others here have suggested that it may be, if it was verbatim text - I was merely pointing out that the copyright holders have condoned wholesale verbatim reproduction, so even if there was verbatim text here, it shouldn't be a problem. And the sections of Bungie.org I refer to are about as independent as you can get, despite the whole site being a fan site, because those sections are *only* verbatim quotes from the games. I'm curious, would a citation to Plato's "Republic", linking to a PDF copy of it hosted on a site propounding Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy, be considered an independent source? You'd cite the Republic, but link to the PDF, which is hosted somewhere biased toward Plato. I was merely suggesting the same situation here: cite the game itself, and link to our reproductions of its text for reference. -Forrest
Keep Seems a pretty straightforward paraphrase of the sources mentioned in the article. It's possible to paraphrase a source without violating copyright, SYNTH, or NOR Orphic (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not seem that this can ever be transformed into an acceptable article. The pro-deletion comments above match my opinions. 18.96.6.79 (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. The article does not have any real world context or what makes the plot summary notable in the real world. I would have to do some checking, but I don't think an entire article is supposed to be dedicated just to tell the summary of a series of games (especially one that had so few entries). Any useful info should be trimmed down and put back in the article on the series. TJ Spyke 12:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more then a massive plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but disagreeing with most of the deletion arguments above - per WP:FICT and WP:GAMECRUFT. Excessive fictional information. I always hate to be in this position. Basically, all of the information here is a direct paraphrase of the bungie.org encyclopaedia. What this means, is that it's certainly not violating WP:SYNTH - there is no "source B" as written in that policy. Nor is it WP:OR. The information is wholly verifiable by the video game itself, which is OK, as self published things can be used in articles about themselves per WP:SELFPUB. That's why we have WP:FICT as a guideline, and WP:GAMECRUFT as a kind of convention describing how things usually go. This deletion argument itself violates WP:WTF.User:Krator (t c) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture". (WP:GAMECRUFT) JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless notability can be established through WP:RS, WP:WAF, WP:FICTION. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability, readibility, and interest, but add additional sources as suggested above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 02:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Todd Mason[edit]

Non-notable, blatant advertising -- Alan Liefting-talk- 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The bulk of the content was copied from the subject's personal marketing website. Notability could not be established as no third-party references could be established. - 20 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.212.130 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attribution of notability to independent sources. Subject links to this article AND linkedin profile from his company's website, suggesting he thinks we're a place to post his resume. We're not. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator repeatedly reverted others edits to reflect their original marketing text, and creator has repeatedly removed administrator's tags and notes, in strict violation to Wikipedia policy. This autobiographical, non-sourced advertising needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.64.68 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. east.718 at 00:37, December 26, 2007

Kate de Brito[edit]

Fluff piece on non-notable blogger. The one source is a society-page listing of her marriage, not a source showing notability. Prod tag removed. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, biographical page with no notability asserted. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete indeed, not worth a biography, not notable, no real assertion of notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable bio. After looking at the talk page, we should probably run this AfD the full 5 days (unless, of course, it starts to get really snowy outside). Singu larity 06:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not based on being a blogger - but on being an author of a number of journalistic works in Australian newspapers (print and online as a staff writer). The article about marriage is for biographical purposes. Aussielocust (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that comment above is from the original page creator, who is probably also the page subject (?).
  - No, I'm not the subject. But yes, I'm the original page creator. Aren't I entitled to have an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not? Aussielocust (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course, you may attest to the notability of the subject. If you can find a source (or two) that calls her a notable journalist, please add it to the article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What criteria would be considered as "a source or two". I've posted a link to the Crikey article, which does note her as a journalist. I'm aware that the listing there is notable on the basis of her family, which generally isn't accepted for Wikipedia notability.I'm basing my assertion of notability on the criteria suggested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uncle_G/On_notability, in as much as there are non-trivial published works (e.g. Newspaper articles) in print media as well as on the web. The secondary notability section states that "We want to include an article on an author that has published widely read books or articles, even if there are no independent published works about that person and the only information about them is the list of what they have published. (Articles on authors comprise both biography and bibliography sections. Even if the former cannot be populated from sources, the latter can.) Therefore our people notability and inclusion criteria comprise secondary criteria that ensure that authors who have published widely read books/articles are included.". So, I could list one or two articles aside from the blog that I'm aware of, if that would help. There's already one cited as a reference 13 on the Christine Bath article. But it wouldn't be a comprehensive list, since most of the print articles don't make it online, and I don't have back issues (and don't live in Sydney). Another option would be to keep the article marked as a stub until more detailed sources can be added. Aussielocust (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.39.228 (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete via CSD-A7 and salt as it appears to have nine lives. Two of the references are incidental mentions of the article subject and the third is a blog written by the subject. This person is not notable by any stretch of the policies or guidelines. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (no consensus reached). jj137 ^♠ 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in the Donkey Konga series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a totally unneeded list of the songs from the Donkey Konga series, as all these songs are already listed in their respective Donkey Konga game articles, and so this is pure duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~WP:NOT#GUIDE~~ WP:N. I can think of plenty of websites on which this may belong, but WP is not one of them. -Verdatum (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll resend the argument that this falls under the context of a game guide, but I still completely fail to see why this needs to be it's own article. It seems quite reasonable to keep the music information in the individual articles. It does not appear to be a large enough bit of information to justify a fork due to WP:SIZE. If you can find and include a reference to a reliable secondary source discussing the signifigance of the "songs in the Donkey Konga series" separate from the game itself. Even if this is the case, the article should probably be modified and renamed Music of the Donky Konga series and expand beyond just a list. -Verdatum (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable outside the game itself. Keep this in the main donkey konga article. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While it is information about a game, it is definitely beyond game guide information. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove the track listing in the main articles. The main reason the article was deleted in the first place was too prevent the unnessicary clutter the song lists were causing in the main articles. Note that there are 96 songs to list for the three regional versions of the first game alone and having that list in the main article just isn't practical. The list is following WP:SUMMARY guidelines.--SeizureDog (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be willing to concede that this doesn't fall within WP:GUIDE, but none of the Donkey Konga articles approach the 32K defined by WP:SIZE. -Verdatum (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Informative, and prevents the articles from getting too big. Maybe we should split this article off like other music games (List of songs in Guitar Hero (2005 video game), List of songs in Guitar Hero II, List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s, List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock). TJ Spyke 06:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1) Per the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA series soundtracks, which applies even more here than there. 2) Appearing as playable song in a music game can be seen as a form of recognition akin to top-100 appearances. There appears to be established consensus that such things are notable, see for example the extremely large series of articles under List of number-one hits (United States). User:Krator (t c) 14:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per previous discussion on soundtracks, "playable" licensed tracks are appropriate as per Guitar Hero/Rock Band-type games. Article could use cleanup/consistency, but should not be deleted. --MASEM 18:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the same reasons that lists of songs from TV shows, etc. have been deleted. Including a song in a video game doesn't make it notable and video games don't gain notability for including certain songs. If the information is already in the individual game articles there's little need for this redundant article anyway. Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as music is a major aspect of this notable game series. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please then explain why this information doesn't simply belong in the game articles themselves? -Verdatum (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to putting this information into the main article and then redirecting without deleting this article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The songs are notable, as is the list, and I can't find any compelling reason not to host them. (jarbarf) (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn after article was rewritten. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The A.M.[edit]

Orphaned, unsourced stub for over a year. Link to official website is broken, and I couldn't find any independent coverage either. Lead singer appears notable for other work, but WP:BAND doesn't seem to be satisfied here. shoeofdeath (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination in light of the completely new article that has been created. shoeofdeath (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Michael Tighe.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Passes WP:MUSIC's Criteria for musicians and ensembles on points (1) subject of multiple non-trivial works, (4) international/national concert tours, and (6) members of other notable band(s). I didn't find it difficult to find independent coverage - just typing "The A.M." into Google brought plenty back. I've expanded the article and added plenty of sources, so would ask that the nomination is reconsidered.--Michig (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 10:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Footlik[edit]

This page reads like an ad, and has been like this for all of its life. It's a blatant advertisement by a campaign, and until it can be written in a biographical way, it should not be here. Keeleysam (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Merely being a candidate for Congress is not notable and there is no other obvious claim. Wikipedia is not an election information resource and has no obligation to provide biographies of all candidates. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per abvoe, but also fails WP:BLP for failing to have NO reliable sources. I might be inclined to vote for the guy if I could, but until he is notable, he's out of WP. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable biography that reads exactly like a campaign ad. --Lockley (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under both CSD-A7 and CSD-G11. He was a presidential staffer under Clinton - that is the most notable thing in the article and that is insufficient for inclusion as a standalone article. Let this person pay for airtime on television in order to educate the public about his campaign position rather than use Wikipedia as a soapbox. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 01:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Ganger[edit]

None of the inline refs/sources provide evidence of notability plus not one of them meets WP:V. The only hard copy ref to Victoria Ganger is Deborah Lipp's book and the content on Ms. Ganger is almost non-existent. Here is a google book search. [26] The book does not source any of the content of the article. She is literally a footnote on Page 226: "14. By Victoria Granger" as a credit to a snippet of a chant on Page 168 "Fire, Water, Air and Earth Lord and Lady, Lord and Lady Lord and Lady, Death, Rebirth Lord and Lady now!14" This is the totality of her mention in the book. Also, as she is a member of ACE, that would make all her ACE tapes self-published. I don't see any evidence of her being on a record label of any sort, except for a song here and there on a compilation. I don't think she's notable. A google search [27] on "Victoria Ganger" -wikipedia -rosencomet came up with 59 hits, none significant as far as I can see. Being active in the SCA and Starwood is not notability. Plus, User:Rosencomet has added multiple mentions of himself (Jeff Rosenbaum), which are only sourced by his group's website and, as he appears to be the main author of it, this makes it COI. Also, as she works in the same group, he probably should not even be writing about her, and certainly not inserting links leading to the website where he sells her tapes/CDs. Pigman☿ 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, largely fails WP:V, no independent attribution of notability. Most "sources" are non-independent, at best. --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 'Victoria Ganger and Revelry' who meet WP:BAND (even thought they are a comedy trio). The content can easily be tweaked to concentrate on the group. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gtstricky, I don't want to seem contentious but could you please be more specific about which criteria they meet of WP:MUSIC? I just don't see it. Also, a Google search on "Victoria Ganger" Revelry -wikipedia -rosencomet [28] has an even poorer return of 18 hits. Pigman☿ 22:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was looking at some of the groups older concert schedule (which I can not even find now) and thought it would make WP:BAND easy. But as you stated they fall short. Changed to 'Delete. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename. Here we go again. ACE has had hundreds of members over the years, and she and I both contribute work on a volunteer basis. She has no monetary connection to either me or ACE.

Foxpaw: a Social Blunder was not produced by ACE; in fact, ACE did not exist at the time. Ganger's first tape, Neandir: Lady of the Flame, was not originally produced by ACE (again, it did not exist yet), just the later re-issues. None of the Revelry CDs, nor Sympathetic Magic, are or were produced by ACE. Be Pagan Once Again! was not originally produced by ACE but by ADF, but re-issued as part of the ACE/ADF Collection. ACE had nothing to do with any of the recordings that post-date 1988, nearly twenty years ago.

The website links, as before, were there only to confirm the fact that she has performed and offered workshops at the events; there are two, and no links to the catalog. She has performed at over two dozen Starwoods and over a dozen WinterStars (for free, BTW), far more than any single other venue, so this is not undue weight. These events were critical in her becoming known in the Neo-Pagan community, and becoming connected to the Church of the SubGenius. However, Ganger is notable on her own, and should not be penalized in deciding her notability by Pigman's ongoing problems with me, just like the Matthew Abelson nomination for deletion.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Abelson

However, the lists of footnotes and references are the same (except for the book by Deborah Lipp), and that may be unnecessary. Rosencomet (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - note - As the executive director of ACE, and the person who produces and sells Ms. Ganger's tapes, Rosencomet has COI on both this article and this AfD. Per Wikipedia:COI#How to avoid COI edits: "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors." - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rosencomet, you are wrong about the Starwood links; there is a navbar link on the left of the page directly to the ACE CyberCatalog.[29] I also note that you personally answer the phone for that catalog. Ms Ganger is not merely one of "hundreds of members over the years" of ACE; her involvement predates the first Starwood in 1981 according to the article. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page linked is not to the catalog. Most of the pages of that website, and many other websites I've visited, have links to the site's catalog on all major pages, and to other parts of the website as well. That listing says you'll "probably" be talking to this man. But not necessarily; others answer that phone, but not as often. And it says that in association with the Big List of items ACE sells that it does NOT produce, not in the section about Ms. Ganger's tapes. Ms. Ganger IS one of hundreds of members, regardless of how long ago she began to be one. Please don't misrepresent the facts. However, if you don't think a citation is needed to support that Ganger performed and offered workshops there, go ahead and delete the citation. However, please don't you or someone working with you follow up by deleting the fact as lacking a citation, or requiring a citation after deleting one. And again, I donate my work as a volunteer to ACE; I make not one penny off the sale of any item or attendence at any event.Rosencomet (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, but fails WP:BAND. I've gone over the article and sources, and googled, and the current title, as well as "Victoria Ganger and Revelry" and "FoxPaw" all fail WP:BAND. Having written one song that was recorded by Lisa Theriot seems to be the closest to a non-self-published recording, but I'm not sure that Lisa Theriot meets WP criteria, either (and the link to the Theriot CD is a commercial one). The article subject may be a wonderful person, and is obviously a friend of the creator of the article (User:Rosencomet), but the article is simply not encyclopedic. Perhaps in the future, if she records more than one song on an actual record label, an article can be written that meets WP criteria, but this article does not. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News Archive has nothing on her so there doesn't seem to be enough sources to base an article on. [30]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no google news archive or scholar results and only a trivial mention in google books Addhoc (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Gallen[edit]

No assertion of notability. Only available sources deal with her short-lived marriage to Verne Troyer. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. Marlith ^T/C 03:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ckessler (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom plus it speculates about a living person "speculation of the marriage interfering with a contract Troyer signed for a reality series." - a contentios statement like this should have a ref at least. Victuallers (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus (film)[edit]

Rumored movie that never progressed beyond the idea stage. Some buzz was built in 2003 but that quickly died and there hasn't been anything since, save some minor rumblings on forums. Unfortunately, this is just another in a long, long list of movie concepts that have fallen by the wayside. Fails to meet WP:MOVIE and also possibly a little bit of WP:CRYSTAL. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete per nom. We can have encyclopedic articles on things that were cancelled (Wank Week is one and amazingly it's a good article, surviving the AfD that I put it for).-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's quite a difference between costliest film ever budgeted and costliest film ever made. That claim of notability is all it has, and it isn't credible because the monies never emerged. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Baptist University[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Louisiana Baptist is an unaccredited college that some people consider to be a diploma mill. This article was originally created by a Jason Gastrich sock. When you google and take out Wikipedia and Jason Gastrich, it gets an astonishingly small number of g-hits - 1050. In 2+ years, nobody has found any independent sources of information about it. It exists and has a physical building, but that's about all we can say about it. Considering that the campus page on their website talks glowingly about the surrounding community, and not at all about the campus, I'm assuming this one building we see is it.

The fundamental notability criterion is that there needs to be external sources of information about a subject. No such sources are available and thus the article should be deleted. B (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a notable college in any way, no reliable sources can be found to verify even that the college exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Diploma mills are notable, if for no reason other than warning people. Keep and expand. Mykej (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Diploma mills, like everything else, have to be notable; and it's notability as a diploma mill hasn't been established either. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the college exists and it notable there must be a legit strong source besides for the peope claiming to have attended it. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Expansion doesn't seem to be possible as there aren't any reliable external sources of information. It isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to warn people about diploma mills. Chaz ^Beckett 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A university established in 1973 has Inherent notability, like a town. We don't require towns to have third party coverage, just that they exist. The primary sources establish most of the information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the dearth of sources here, this is a fairly good example of why "All X are notable." rules are wrongheaded, and why your idea of "inherent notability" failed. Notability is not a blanket. "All X are notable." is always an attempt at a short-cut around actually finding and evaluating what sources exist for an article, and is always wrong. Please actually do the work of finding and evaluating sources. Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The trouble is it's not a university by any reasonable definition of the wordm so there is no "inherent notability". Neıl ☎ 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Above and beyond the long-established inherent notability for such schools are dozens of reliable and verifiable sources which clearly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. I've seen plenty of BS excuses for nominations, but there isn't a single valid justification provided by the nominator that would require deletion under Wikipedia policy, nor have any of our delete votes added any; I don't give a crap who created the article, I don't care about its building, the number of Google hits is meaningless, nor do I care that its an unaccredited diploma mill. If anything, we want to keep article for diploma mills so that anyone checking it can get this information. This school has been the regular subject of media coverage and has been previously judged to have no justification for deletion. The Wikipedia:Notability standard could not be more clearly met. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Media coverage? Where? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read the article. Someone has been abusively gutting the article, so you may have to check earlier versions. One would also assume that the governmental sources referring to the school are also present as non-primary sources. Alansohn (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One would not. Please provide sources rather than asserting they exist. Neıl ☎ 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For the benefit of those who refuse to read the sources:

1. ^ http://www.lbu.edu/macacademic.html

2. ^ a b c d "Academics and Vision", Louisiana Baptist University, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-08-18.

3. ^ "Institutional Accreditation System", United States Department of Education, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-04-11.

4. ^ "List of unrecognized accreditors", Credential Watch, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-08-18.

5. ^ Steve Levicoff. Name It and Frame It?. (3rd edition) Institute on Religion and Law. 1993 (pages 113 and 133

6. ^ "Domain check for the .edu", EduCause.edu, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-05-11.

7. ^ "Eligibility for the .edu Domain FAQ", EduCause.edu, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-05-11.

8. ^ Life Credits and Diploma Mills United States Department of Education

9. ^ Learn the Bible in 24 hours by Chuck Missler

10. ^ Dan Wooding.Learn the Bible in 24 Hours: Chuck Missler releases an extraordinary teaching tool ASSIST News Service. Garden Grove, CA April 3, 2001

11. ^ Koinonia Institute degrees

12. ^ a b "Welcome to LBU!", Louisiana Baptist University (Archived), April 1999. Retrieved on 2007-03-07.

13. ^ "Unlicensed 'colleges' worry state officials: Legislation being prepared to tighten rules for nonprofit schools", The Advocate (Baton Rouge), November 22, 1998. "The Louisiana Baptist University in Shreveport plans to offer a business administration degree. The university doesn't think Regents approval is necessary."

14. ^ "Minutes of Board of Regents December 10, 1998", Louisiana Board of Regents, December 10, 1998. Retrieved on 2007-03-13. Orders LBU to stop admitting students.

15. ^ "Minutes of Board of Regents April 22, 1999", Louisiana Board of Regents, April 22, 1999. Retrieved on 2007-03-13.

16. ^ United States of America, State of Louisiana, Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco Proclamation Signed March 29, 2005.

17. ^ Louisiana Baptist University faculty and staff page

18. ^ "Dissertation Requirements (page 20)", Louisiana Baptist University, 2007-2008. Retrieved on 2006-08-18.

19. ^ "Library of Congress and Copyright Office Sign Landmark Agreement with UMI", Library of Congress, 2007-2008. Retrieved on 2007-08-18.

20. ^ William P. Welty's dissertation on SWANsat for the Ph.D. in communications (2005) signed off by Chuck Missler. LBU has no communications school or prior history of telecommunications research; no published peer-reviewed publications are related to this document, despite peer-reviewed publication being a significant part of Ph.D. research.

21. ^ Tobia, P.J. "Reading, Writing and Jesus: What nearby schools don’t know about the Bible class they soon may be teaching", Nashville Scene, October 19, 2006. Accessed December 19, 2007. "While there are a few reputable legal and theological minds from solid universities associated with the group, they are far outnumbered by the likes of Carl Baugh, who holds a Ph.D. in theology from Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited online school."

22. ^ Perkes, Kim Sue Lia. "Fort Worth school sues to call itself "seminary'", Austin American-Statesman, April 15, 1999. "Tyndale has about 350 seminary students, about two-thirds of them taking courses by correspondence, said Mal Couch, the school's president and founder. He said he holds five degrees, including a doctorate of theology from Louisiana Baptist Seminary..."

23. ^ Murray, Shailagh. "Filibuster Fray Lifts Profile of Minister: Scarborough Has Network and Allies", The Washington Post, May 8, 2005. Accessed December 19, 2007. "After receiving a master's of divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth and a doctorate in ministry from Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary, Scarborough hit the national revival and crusade circuit for 14 years."

24. ^ Rick Scarborough Vision America

25. ^ Wilson, Jennifer. "Is Noah's Ark on mount in Iran? Man scours the world looking for religious artifacts", Deseret Morning News, August 11, 2006. Accessed December 19, 2007. "Bob Cornuke doesn't have a degree in archaeology; he holds a doctorate in Bible and theology from Louisiana Baptist University."

26. ^ Arellano. "Dr. Jihad", OC Weekly, March 2, 2006. Accessed December 19, 2007. "Morey also claims to have received a doctorate from Louisiana Baptist University. Two problems: LBU is unaccredited by the United States government, which means no serious academy would recognize it. Then there’s this: LBU doesn’t offer a Ph.D. in Islamic studies."

27. ^ Guest preacher at revival by Rhonda Morrow, Texarkana Gazette, 12/8/2007

28. ^ Commentary: Integrity biggest loss in baseball scandal by Roland S. Martin (12-19-2007) Retrieved 12/19/2007

29. ^ Commentary: You can't take Christ out of Christmas by Roland S. Martin (12-19-2007)

Tough to just call this "asserting they exist". Alansohn (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has the name 'university', and it's not a hoax. Where I come from, that would make it notable by default.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Whether this is a legitimate religious school with very low standards or a diploma mill (the various sources suggest that it has been some of both over the years), the fact that has gotten a lot of negative media attention but has managed to stay afloat for 34 years indicates to me that it is a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. Like many AfDs for diploma mills and unaccredited religious schools, this nomination seems to have a large component of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like it either, but I (like Alansohn) want Wikipedia to have articles about outfits like this one so that people checking into these outfits can get solid information. Additionally, I'm getting tired of having articles that I have worked on get nominated for deletion on the ad hominem grounds that Jason Gastrich once worked on those articles. The fact that he is interested in a topic does not automatically make the topic nonnotable. --Orlady (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ironic that you suggest nominating the article for deletion is based on ad hominem grounds - that statement is, in itself, ad hominem. Neıl ☎ 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone who says this thing has been getting media attention point to a few sources? Other than having an article about someone and mentioning that he received his degree from there, I haven't seen anything. --B (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can always check out "Unlicensed 'colleges' worry state officials: Legislation being prepared to tighten rules for nonprofit schools", The Advocate (Baton Rouge), November 22, 1998. Accessed December 19, 2007. "The Louisiana Baptist University in Shreveport plans to offer a business administration degree. The university doesn't think Regents approval is necessary.", which is followed by a series of reports from the Louisiana Board of regents on its decision to bar the degree program, and its later about face. All of which seem to be reliable and verifiable independent source. You can take a look at Google News Archive, which has many more sources available to be added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NOTABILITY, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Also from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. After reading each of the 30 footnotes in this article I count the following:
- Seven citations of the university's own website.
- A link to the US Department of Education's website where LBU does not get even trivial mention (it's unaccredited so a site search returns no data).
- Passing mention at "Credential Watch", a Stephen Barrett page.
- Two citations of passing mention in Name It and Frame It?.
- Two links to whois.educase.edu, which would constitute trivial mention even if it weren't original research.
- A U.S. Department of Education statement on diploma mills in general. No specific mention of LBU.
- A link to a book sale at Amazon.com. One sentence mention of LBU in the book description.
- A book review by ASSIST News Service with a one sentence mention of LBU deep in the article.
- A credit transfer statement at the Koinonia Institute website, another unaccredited institution.
- A two sentence mention in the Baton Rouge paper The Advocate about LBU's plans to offer an unaccredited degree.
- A link to meeting minutes of the Louisiana Board of Regents that contains a one sentence statement denying accreditation to LBU.
- A link to different meeting minutes of the Louisiana Board of Regents that contains a one sentence statement granting a religious exemption to LBU.
- A certificate of proclamation (one page) by the governor of Louisiana.
- A Library of Congress announcement that contains no mention of LBU.
- A doctoral dissertation on telecommunications by William P. Welty written in pursuit of a degree at LBU.
- An article in Nashville Scene about Bible study in public schools. One sentence passing mention of LBU near the end of the article.
- A cite of an Austin-American Statesman article that contains a one sentence passing mention of LBU.
- A cite of a Washington Post article that contains a one sentence passing mention of LBU.
- A link to a speaker profile at the Vision America website that contains passing mention of an LBU degree in the bio.
- An article in the Deseret Morning News that contains a one sentence passing mention of LBU.
- An article in OC Weekly about an individual's dubious claim to a university degree. This time LBU gets three sentences: Morey also claims to have received a doctorate from Louisiana Baptist University. Two problems: LBU is unaccredited by the United States government, which means no serious academy would recognize it. Then there’s this: LBU doesn’t offer a Ph.D. in Islamic studies.
- An commentary about baseball at the CNN website. No mention of LBU in the article itself, just a passing mention about LBU in the commentator's bio line.
Among all these citations I find only one that does not constitute trivial or incidental coverage: the governor's proclamation. Unfortunately the article cites the proclamation itself rather than any relevant news coverage. In pursuit of this lead I ran a Google search on Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Louisiana Baptist University and the only returns that related to this proclamation were Wikipedia and its mirrors. From this I conclude that the proclamation (which was a framable certificate rather than a press release) was nothing more than a private courtesy and it would constitute a violation of the no original research policy to construe notability from this. All attempts to establish notability for Louisiana Baptist University either constitute original research or attempt to fabricate notability from any passing mention whatsoever. The rare manstream publications that notice this institution's existence at all do so only in order to affirm its insignificance. Delete. Durova^Charge! 09:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some more information on sources.
Google Scholar: The only mentions of this subject anywhere at all are where people are putting its name next to their academic credentials. A sum total of zero information for writing an article.
Google Books: There are about a page and a half of people, again, putting this name next to their academic credentials. The remainder are occurrences in directories. ISBN 1580084427, for example, just lists the name of the place in appendix C, which is a big list of the names of colleges that will accept homeschooled and GED students. And the titles of University and College Phone Book, 2005 and College Web Address Directory tell one what one will obtain from them on this subject, and what that will garner as an encyclopaedia article.
Google News Archive: Alansohn claims that there are many more sources here. There are not. 28 of the 35 results are, once again, people simply saying that they have, or are working towards, a degree from this place, with no actual information about the place at all. 4 others are mentions that John Ashcroft once went there to receive an honorary degree, simply mentioning it in a long list of stops on a tour of the U.S.. 1 contains exactly 4 words about the subject, "Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited online school", because what it is actually about is the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. 1 is discussing Baptist Christian College and merely says in passing that it is separate from this subject. The final 1 is the one that Alansohn picked as an example. A sum total of exactly one source that even contains a whole sentence about this subject.
Uncle G (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward keep. The short reason... seems boarder line on the [WP:N|notability]] but it also seems that people will see the school in peoples resumes and such and should be able to find some information here on it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Sure, it's utterly nonnotable and unworthy of being in an encyclopedia, but then so are 95% of the articles in Category:Schools. Unfortunately, nonnotability and unencyclopedicity stopped being de-facto reasons to delete articles from Wikipedia a couple of years ago. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That custom doesn't apply to unaccredited institutions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barcelona Business School. Durova^Charge! 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barcelona Business School is singularly uninformative and does not appear to be particularly relevant. (The AfD does not mention accreditation or lack thereof. All AfD participants supported deletion, for reasons encapsulated as "Non-notable organization lacking independent sources of information and article was created by owner.") In contrast, in the case of LBU, several Wikipedians support keeping the article -- largely because of the perception that LBU is a scam that calls itself a university. IMO, saying that the LBU article should be deleted because it is not notable as a university but has not been closed down as a diploma mill is like saying that John Sebastian Larocca should not have an article because he was just a nonnotable coal miner (and small-time felon) and was never convicted for being a Mafia boss. --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is this the best example? He seems to be a lot more notable than this "University". David D. (Talk) 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - John Sebastian Laroca ran a major crime organization. From the handful of credible reports that exist, this is simply a diploma mill. It has never achieved accreditation. Somehow it survived for over three decades, yet it achieved nothing notable, not even a scandal. WP:NOR and WP:NOTABILITY make no provision for the durability of a non-notable institution. Local organizations may exist for 50 years, 100 years, or more without ever attracting enough attention to merit an article. The attempts to establish notability for this organization are clearwater original research. Durova^Charge! 20:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete woefully fails the original research test. May reconsider if someone can edit this down to an article that does not fail OR and still remains notable. I'm not sure that is possible reading the posts above. David D. (Talk) 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Does anybody have access to Lexis? Google news searches will only indicate recent press coverage. LexisNexis will show whether the subject ever had notability, and provide good reliable source material if it did. I think this Afd is premature, we should revisit. The article was under reconstruction at the time of this second Afd. Ra2007 (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT My understanding is that notability does not go away. Consequently, to do this (and other) articles right, Lexis should be consulted to see, more authoritatively than google or web archive services, if LBU is in fact (or ever was) notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ra2007 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And keeping in mind it was previously known as Baptist Christian University. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnotable diploma mill and per the typically well-informed comments by Uncle G. Strong Delete based on the risibly unimportant "sources" adduced by Alansohn to "demonstrate" notability. Brava! Eusebeus (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A strong delete on a school article from someone who has concocted a risibly worthless screed declaring that no school on earth is notable, is truly worth a hearty chuckle. Another pointless effort to try to make a WP:POINT. Alansohn (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please keep the comments focused on content, not editors. Chaz ^Beckett 23:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I note that those claiming this university slash diploma mill is notable are utterly unable to provide any evidence to back this up. Empty claims of notability are just that - empty. The references within the article are garbage, as Durova lists above - many don't even mentione "Louisiana Baptist University", and the rest only mention the name in passing (such as those which mention "X, who holds a degree from Lousiana Baptist University"). I don't think anyone actually believes the place is a real university, and so it has no inherent notability - the article must be assessed on its merits. As it has none, then it needs to be deleted. Neıl ☎ 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have consistently treated as notable any institution of higher education, accredited or unaccredited, as long as it has a real existence. Awarding degrees is real existence. One of the reasons for this is the importance of providing information about this class of institution. We serve as a filter on the web, as Jimbo said in slightly different words back at the start, and abstracting the information here for relative obscure but important topics is one of the things we do best. If if one wants individual demonstration of notability, while most of those "references" are indeed no proof of notability, but just document statements in the article, the newspaper articles are sufficient. In context, so is [31] Such a proclamation for such an institution is notability. The article could use some editing. The explanation of why it is not respectable is considerably over-emphasised beyond necessity. DGG (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the proclamation confers notability, short of a reliable secondary source that claims otherwise (and not a claim by a wikipedian that "my dog got a Fido day proclamation in Idaho once"). Ra2007 (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's excellent reasoning. For similar reasons, we'd want to keep an article on a vanity press that might otherwise be marginally notable -- so that when we see their imprint on a source, we know how reliable of a source it is that we're dealing with. Likewise, we can take any source claiming expertise based on a person's education at this august institution with the requisite grain of salt. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Odd nature (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above.--Filll (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reality may be a bitch, but so is life -- even a fantastic life buried in denial and scientia superstitioni. Jim62sch 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Geez, this again? This University is notable in every respect of the word. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep a well written article with multiple reliable sources backing it up. Miles Naismith (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as DGG shows, the university is notable in WP terms. . .. dave souza, talk 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability and sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has neither actual notability nor actual sources, that's a rather strange reason. --Calton | Talk 10:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious lack of notability and lack of actual sources. --Calton | Talk 10:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is hard to argue with the proclamation as a basis for notability. Couple this with a long list of notable alumni and at least some independent sources then WP:N is met. TerriersFan (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Before determining a vote (call it what you will, we all know it's a vote), I compared LBU to another unaccredited institution, WCBC. Though they are dissimilar in many ways (WCBC has no online program noted on their page), they do have many similarities that I feel bear comparison. LBU shows more than 1000 students and 44 staff, whereas WCBC shows 700 students and 32 staff (meaning LBU is larger in institution size and body size). Both schools are unaccredited and both use essentially the same logic to justify themselves as being unaccredited. Both have multiple sections, and while LBU's sections are larger, WCBC's are better organized. WCBC has only six references, and three of those are the WCBC website, while LBU has a somewhat overwhelming 29 references (as shown above). While I agree that many of the references in LBU are minimal, in reading (assuming that they do back up the statements on which they are used, I was not doing verifications) I see that the page is appropriately referenced as narrow comments have references that would only require a passing reference to use as a source. As for notability, perhaps the university's physical size (buildings, acreage, etc.) is not as large as the college's, but the overall notability seems to be very similar. NOW, I KNOW That This Seems to rely on an "Other Stuff Exists" paradigm, and I am not meaning to assert that "because WCBC has a page LBU must also have a page", but I think the comparison is at least relevant and can give insight in the matter. This is in no way a "keep both or delete both", but a comparison of the notabilities of two similar organizations. I think that LBU's article's problem is not so much lack of notability as it is massive need of clean-up and reorganizing/formatting (grouping accredidation and controversy in the same section is probably a poor format choice, especially in the first section). Thusly, while I agree with many of the delete voters' points, I believe that those have the ability to be (slowly?) remedied and the article is "worthy" of remaining on Wikipedia. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC) BTW: Please forgive my use of narrative logic instead of listing an incessant littany of acronyms![reply]

The result was I'm not seeing a clear consensus to delete this and decisions on whether to merge/redirect are an editing decision that doesn't need AFD to dictate for an article about an album released less then 10 days ago. Lets see how this develops and we can then merge or retain the article as circumstances suggest. Default to no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street Deluxe Complete Edition[edit]

((la|Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street Deluxe Complete Edition|View AfD]])

This belongs in the main article, I believe. This seems to be unnecessary and an non-notable score. The original score, by Sondheim, was definitely notable. However the film uses the same score as the musical, thus this article is redundant to other articles. Mayhaps a Merge? Marlith ^T/C 01:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too soon for this to be WP:N. JJL (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe that the content was part of the film article and spun off by Alientraveller so the article would not be lengthened by a track listing. Perhaps it's best to exclude track listings altogether from film articles, as they can be found on any website that has the soundtrack to purchase. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film). The film article isn't long enough to warrant splitting. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYT had a 2000 word story last Sunday interviewing Sondheim about all the changes in the score for the movie. Mykej (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, we can use that in the main article. Marlith ^T/C 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but was it about the score itself as opposed to this 'Deluxe Complete Edition' of it? If the score changes are notable, then they deserve an article, or mention at the film's page. Unless the story covered the 'Deluxe Complete Edition' of the score rather than how what is on it differs from what was in the original musical, I don't see this as very relevant. JJL (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge at the moment due to length. If editors wish to expand it (reviews, detail about compositions, etc), that's different. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (to generate consensus) per the above. Unnecessary and unnotable. Eusebeus (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more information is added, otherwise Merge into movie article. FallenWings47 17:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability and verifiability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable soundtrack of a notable film Hektor (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film). At the moment it's just a track listing with a cast list that can already be found in the film's main page, not enough to establish notability. •97198 talk 10:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The scores of major motion picture musicals have their own articles. Cool Hand Luke 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree that the album is somewhat notable, but not outside the subject of the film (at least for now, but we're not a crystal ball either.) Even if a subject is notable and verifiable it does not need a separate article, it may have a stand-alone article. If there are arguments towards keeping it separate, users should give suggestions on how it can be expanded. Otherwise, we should merge small articles with little information into broader topics wherever possible; after all, we're not out to creating thousands of permanent stub articles but rather complete and comprehensive articles. Our own notability guidelines on music albums establishes that: Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting. With the article in its current state, I suggest we do just that. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - lack of substantial content. Addhoc (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. BLACKKITE 01:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dadnapped[edit]

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination—article version: Outcome of initial AFD was 'delete'; article was recreated about 3 months later by someone who might not have been involved in editing the original article. Current article content is very similar to that deleted previously with one key difference ... the current version contains an IMDB link that the first lacked, which indicates the film is in production. If that were missing, I would have deleted this speedily as improper re-creation. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it seems a couple sources do exist. I added one, and here are two more. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. for now. Notability is limited in reliable sources but it will likely be written about when the film is eventually shown and will get reception and critical sources as that time. I found one other article where the movie was not just mentioned in passing http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272617550.shtml but I am unsure whether this source counts as being reliable. Other news articles from a quick google search were either primary sources or mentioned the movie in passing. NrDg (talk • contribs) 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it does seem to actually be in production and such a large economic incentive is notable (even more so if it never airs :P). I've ripped out the plot, though, cause it appears to be lifted straight from IMDB. Found another source [32] and added the TV.com link which lists the actual premiere date. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, I found that ABC source first... :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I didn't even check that. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it's good enough for the cryogenically frozen head of Walt Disney, it's good enough for me. Mykej (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real movie, just because it isn't released yet, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Tavix (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Crystalballing, but there are some sources for a stub and as it starts to exist, we can have an article here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once it airs it can have a page. Until then we violate crystal ball. It might never air... actors die on set, movies suck and are never released or aired, funding can be pulled, there can be writer strikes... I could buy a redirect to List of Disney live-action films until it is released. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—I think the current prevailing notion is that films that have entered production and are documented to have done so are eligible for retention. The reasoning behind this is $$$; once production starts, you've committed money and people and if it flops or terminates, there are significant repercussions for studios (e.g. need to write off un-recovered outlays, maybe in the millions of $$$) and careers (e.g. missed better roles). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:38, December 26, 2007

Shinigami eyes[edit]

Non-notable aspect of a fictional universe with no real-world context or significance. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete nn. Can be put at the anime/manga's article. JJL (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT and is unsourced and probably OR. Any relevance to plot should be addressed in a much more compact form in the main article. Collectonian (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brewcrewer --Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FICT. Unnecessary for an entire article to address a very specific in-universe concept. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as OR and lacking third-party sources as an independent topic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect sourceable material to Shinigami (Death Note). sho y 08:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' (partially per Shoy). Major plot points to the Death Note manga/anime/movies, but I'm convinced it'd make more sense in an article on shinigami or the Death Note itself. --Gwern (contribs) 04:51 22 December 2007 (GMT)

Redirect to Death Note. Jtrainor (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 10:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ellen Wohl[edit]

~~Non-notable hospital administrator. COI violation. Corvus cornix_talk 00:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete This is a not notable person. Tavix (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomKeep - thanks to some serious work by lquilter and others, the article has clearly established notability. I'd advise changing the lede to emphasize her role as a research scientist rather than an administrator; adding a bit more about her more widely-cited papers; and some general tidying/citing. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 03:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Papers with many (e.g. 218,182,97,89,79,77,72,70) citations...not a "hopital administrator", Wohl MEB has an h-index of 21 on ISI, some of her papers seem to be Wohl ME, so the count may be higher than that. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - raw assertions of notability without proper sourcing, linking, etc. leaves the editor unmoved. If she is a research scientist, why does the article describe her as an administrator. What are these papers? Where are the citations? Where are the properly-formatted references for the reader? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably because a lot of editors don't know how to write articles. Those things are good reasons to flag an article with warnings & encouragements to fix it, but do not provide a reason to delete for lack of notability. --Lquilter (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - btw -- you said "raw assertions" ; perhaps you missed the ISI reference? In looking at scientists it is typical to look at ISI and see what their citation index is; it's a very good proxy for notability. For biomedical research also one would typically check on PubMed. I just did that and she has around 40 last-author papers, and is on over 80 papers altogether. In conjunction with high citation rates for those individual papers, she is clearly notable. --Lquilter (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many important papers as per Pete Hurd, major awards, what more do we need? --Crusio (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd pulled this one up on a tab yesterday and went looking for it today, and came back here to report that google scholar showed numerous papers including some very highly cited ones. But Pete.Hurd has already covered it with more authoritative source, so this is just confirmation. This bio profile @ NLM's exhibition on women physicians is one of several references that should be added. Also I'd like to note that, in general, directors at teaching hospitals are also often (usually?) research positions and are not usually handed out except to people with very strong (one might say "notable") CVs. --Lquilter (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Web of Knowledge search indicates she has co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed journal articles, some of which have themselves been cited over 300 times. (Cannot cite WoK in artucle as it is a subscription only site). Article has been revised to add references to notable professional awards. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see why WoK cannot be cited in the article. We cite books, too, don't we? And usually we cannot link to a book either and you'd have to buy it (or pay a library subscription) to read it. So citation seems fine, you just cannot link through to it. --Crusio (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - plenty of verified assertion of notability. the COI matters are nearly unimportant right now, the starter of the article has only made a couple of edits after it was started. Is there any real point in keeping this open the full time? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI isn't a reason to delete anyway. --Lquilter (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is snowing. --Crusio (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not quite, I requested the nominator and early delete !voters consider re-thinking, and apparently, they remain unswayed. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, as I said on your Talk page, if people will put the supposed links to prove her notability as a writer and award winner into the article, then I'll change my mind. Corvus cornix_talk 03:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not unswayed? Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as the article is so poorly formatted and the sources are not all linked properly. An expert opinion from another medical doctor Wikipedian might help. Bearian (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Pump me up 10:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, apparently it is thawing and the snow is gone, people still vote delete. I have added a reference for one award and added info on that reference to the article, which actually is another major award in itself (being included in a list of people that have changed the face of medicine by the National Library of Medicine, now how could that not confer notability?) --Crusio (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the changes that have been made to the article, I'll change my opinion to keep. Corvus cornix_talk 19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, I believe that this person meets our WP:BIO criteria for inclusion. (jarbarf) (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. The poet is notable and the poem is notable. No point piling on. Tyrenius (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Am (poem)[edit]

No indication as to what makes this poem particularly notable. It's just a poem. Corvus cornix_talk 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or transwiki to WikiSource); non-notable --Orange Mike | Talk 00:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just a poem? "Monsieur, à quoi peut bien servir l'enfant qui vient de naître ?" Mykej (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, yeah. And what does the article say that makes this poem notable? Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big fan of our culture are you Corvus? The quote in French means 'what use is a newborn baby?' but was actually made by like this American type dude. Ben Franklin was in Paris and witnessed the first manned ballon flight by two Frenchmen in the Montgolfier brothers balloon. Some skeptics asked what the use of flying in the air might be, and Franklin's quip answered them perfectly. The point, made so ably by Mykej, is that this article has the potential to grow into something special if it's only given enough time to mature and isn't strangled at birth. Of course you knew that, I could tell by the way you said 'Um yeah'. Nick mallory (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't discuss your not-so-subtle digs at me, but only to respond that this "newborn baby" has been here since May without any indication as to why it's notable. Corvus cornix_talk 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't understand the subtle point made so elegently by Mykej, so that's why I took the time to explain it in "not so subtle" terms for you. It's not a "dig", writing an encyclopedia should be all about a keeness to learn new things shouldn't it? Be it about balloons, Ben Franklin or John Clare. As for why it's notable, I refer you to the many sources which other people including myself, have noted below. You are supposed to search for such sources yourself before nominating an article for AfD, and these sources clearly indicate notability, as everyone else here is telling you. What exactly did you 'looup' on Google to miss every single one of them? You have not acknowledged the point that such sources obviously show notability, indeed the quality of your counter arguments, by comparing the article on this famous poem to a raft of articles, which don't exist, on 'limerick's for instance, are less than compelling. I'm sorry if you think I'm merely making 'digs' but other contributers have asked if you're 'joking' by this nomination or said that it 'defies reason'. Do you still think you're right and nearly everyone else is wrong? Nick mallory (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'll cite WP:BOOKS due to lack of notability guidelines for poetry (hence, the weak keep.)The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources. According to the John Clare article it seems that the subject is a historically significant poet so it should be assumed that his works should be notable. I'm not familiar with English poetry so I cannot evaluate how significant this poet is.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the most famous of English poems, but Clare's best known work. In 1998 Slate published a reading by Robert Pinsky, then U.S. Poet Laureate. --Dhartung | Talk 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. So every limerick by Edward Lear would rate an article? Corvus cornix_talk 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe poem has been listed in several anthologies and textbooks ([33], [34], [35], [36]) and the first line of the poem is included in a book of familiar quotations ([37]). That's good enough for me. Zagalejo^^^ 06:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You're joking. This is probably Clare's most famous single poem. --Folantin (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say that, prior to the AfD? Corvus cornix_talk 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepJohn Clare is a major English poet and this poem has been discussed by innumberable critics, writers and other sources. Even if we're just doing internet sources, how about the BBC [38] or Slate [39]? Essays like this [40] focussing on the poem are not uncommon. The New York Times calls it 'Clare's most famous poem' [41]. Did the nominator do any research at all before nominating this for deletion? Are the Masque of Anarchy or Fern Hill just poems too? Clare had enough strife in his life not to be treated like this now. Nick mallory (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some looups, but the common words in the title made anything meaningful difficult to find. Corvus cornix_talk 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did some 'looups'? I just put "I am" "John Clare" into google and came up with 25,000 hits and any of the hits on the first ten pages would show you that the poem is obviously worthy of note. What exactly did you try to 'looup'? Nick mallory (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to pounce on someone's typo. Zagalejo^^^ 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good way to research a poem with a title like that is to take a line from the poem and run a Google search. For example: 221 Google Book hits for ""My friends forsake me like a memory lost". Zagalejo^^^ 00:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Clare, along with his works, is one of the most well-known of 19th-century poets. Quite why we should delete his magnum opus on the grounds of being just a poem, defies reason. Chris.B (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did the article say that prior to the AfD? Corvus cornix_talk 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable poem, by a notable author. Even a much maligned google search comes up with sources. If the article didn't say it was notable, then edit it. We are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even deletionists. Once again, AfD is not cleanup. Woody (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:41, December 26, 2007

Mañana Será Otro Día[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mañana Será Otro Dia

Articles for deletion/Mañana Será Otro Día

There is no assertion of importance here, but since this previously passed an AFD with a resounding keep (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mañana Será Otro Dia, under the formerly misspelled title), I'm listing it here. It is basically a disambiguation page with external links, mentioning a film and telenovela of this title, and the directors of each (redlinked). I don't know if these works are notable; for what it's worth neither the title nor the directors have pages on the Spanish Wikipedia. If somebody improves this article in such a way that demonstrates notability, I will withdraw this nomination. Currently the only mainspace oncoming link is from List of soap operas. The previous debate included many votes that it was notable in its home country, but I don't see evidence of that given in the article. The debate also included many votes for "keep and expand," which hasn't been done in the two years since then. Rigadoun (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You can't have a dab page with no internal links. Google didn't come up with anything prominent. I have to agree with what the nom is saying here. Singu larity 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless dab page, contains no internal links. I, too, could not find any reliable sources reporting on either the film or the TV series. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, and pointless article. Probably in a different language anyway. Tavix (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but don't salt if anyone wants to make articles on these films if they really are notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swivel Sweeper[edit]

Purely advertising, see users other articles for more info. Pharmboy (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 00:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like it could be copied from an ad somewhere. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 02:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable product from a non-notable company. A lot of the brand names in cleaning, household, electrical etcetera appliances are non-notable, or only borderline notable, let alone individual products by these companies (often the manufacturers of these products are part of a parent group). Vileda, Micromark, Scot Young Research, Beko, Hotpoint, Rowenta, Wicksteed, Yale lock.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep. I wrote it all myself, and I can remove the image, and the "advertising" part to make it better. (I love entei (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The product is notable. (I love entei (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment "I worked hard on it" is a non-arguement as there is no policy to keep based on amount of work, and this is a very short article anyway. Pharmboy (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just delete it then.....(I love entei (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The result was Redirect to West_Chester_University#Marching_Band. BLACKKITE 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Chester University Golden Rams Marching Band[edit]

Non-notable college marching band vanity page; editors insist on inserting self-sourced material from unpublished archives Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West_Chester_University#Marching_Band. Corvus cornix_talk 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect, or merge what's salvageable). This is a vanity page, basically a content fork from West Chester University, on a non-notable entity. Turgidson (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with West Chester University#Marching Band. It looks like an unreferenced vanity page. No sources are provided. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Corvus Cornix above. There is already an adequate summary at that page which like this article is entirely unreferenced. Nothing presented shows that the band meets either WP:N, WP:BAND or WP:ORG.Ga rr ie 02:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sentences like "[...] renowned for their excellence in spinning flags and rifles" indicates that it is indeed a vanity page. Note that some of the images are also copyvios. Chris.B (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Sandahl 02:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon Dynasty[edit]

advertising for a website with no notability. User seems to be starting a few pages that look like different ads, using "under construction" tags which don't solve the primary issue. Pharmboy (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think it is speedy material, but user has already removed speedy tags on other articles, and I'm not up for a fight. Also, is BlackWarGreymon#BlackWarGreymon a kosher link in how it links externally?? Pharmboy (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 00:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 as a website with no notability asserted. So tagged (again, it seems). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note a day or so ago to the user who created the article, User talk:I love entei#Digimon Dynasty. They went ahead and created the article on the external wiki I told them about, so hopefully it won't get recreated for a third time. -- Ned Scott 02:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 03:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technodrome[edit]

I really hate to do this, but the Technodrome asserts no notability, has no referencing, and appears to be simply a big in-universe plot repetition of its various appearances in the TMNT stories. As such, it is just pure duplication of that material and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not notable. It should be redirected to TMNT. As for deleting first, I don't have a particular opinion. I (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Technodrome is one of the first things I think of when I think of the show, so I don't think it should be deleted.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite as notable as the hypnotoad, and certainly no where near as entertaining. Pharmboy (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Would favor keeping if article was cleaned up to meet WP:V and WP:NOR. --Goobergunch|? 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there can be some references, especially for the statistics and such, I'd have a strong keep, because I'm not sure how well the information would work in an article merger. But as such, without any references, I'll remain neutral. matt91486 (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main TMNT article for now. For a subject with well over 100,000 Google hits, I suspect there are reliable sources somewhere, but I'm not sure where to look. Do the DVD sets have any bonus features, like maybe interviews with the creators, that could be used as sources for this? *** Crotalus *** 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Technodrome is a very notable part of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the earlier seasons and certainly worth having information about. If any cleanups need to be done however do this. Bhowden (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. The Technodrome is very important in the 1987 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. When I think of a season in the series, I often think of the Technodrome's location. / J 1982) 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - couldn't find any reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Hurricane Chris. jj137 ^♠ 04:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louisi-animal[edit]

Non-notable download. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't notable at the moment, so it should be redirected to Hurricane Chris. I (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to episode list. BLACKKITE 22:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light Duties[edit]

non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable episode, so redirect it to List of The Bill episodes/4. Although those pages need some serious work as well. I (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion (crew)[edit]

Unreferenced and non-notable hip-hop "crew" (not an actual group, mind you, just members of different groups that purportedly associate with each other). Fails WP:NOTE. Precious Roy (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 18.96.6.79 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom- no notability, doesn't meet WP:NOTEcf38^talk 09:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombegalu[edit]

Non notable and non important. Delete. Metal Head (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable, non important, incomprehensible. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if anything's useful here, it belongs in the Navaratri or Dasara articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dasara or Navaratri. Otherwise, definition appears to be verifiable.[42] • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - What's the purpose of this? Doesn't make sense. Turgidson (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT unless anyone can explain the significance of this. I find that India-related articles are quite common at newpages, many of which are dicdef-ish stubs that give little context - probably due to India's huge population and the fact that a significant number there can speak English, especially those in that country with Internet access.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Really borderline. Needs improvement. BLACKKITE 01:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number One Fan (band)[edit]

Delete fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:MUSIC. Playing with other bands (which I presume means as an opening act) isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having been on the Vans Warped Tour satisfies WP:BAND, so long as it wasn't just one or two stops. Corvus cornix_talk 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band has toured a lot and released 2 albums. The article needs a few more sources, though.--Michig (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then go find them!--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time I will, but in the meantime, feel free to go look for yourself.--Michig (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not the one !voting "keep" on this. If you believe this article is notable, go out and prove it if so inclined.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for your contribution. I've added a couple of sources by the way.--Michig (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References provided are not reliable. The article relating to the Vans Warped Tour states "Number One Fan [one of the unknown bands Zambito met] was so friendly ..." --WaltCip (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ref demonstrates they played the Warped tour. The fact that they were unknown to 'Zambito' doesn't seem important. There are two refs to show they did the tour and an external link to an interview the band did while on the tour. Which of the other references are 'unreliable'?--Michig (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a good article about a band. As an inclusionist, I find deleting articles that are not self-promotional appalling and objectionable.--Jeff (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is as may be, but it doesn't satisfy WP:N. Corvus cornix_talk 21:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fate X[edit]

Non-notable AOL hacking software. External links are very questionable. No evidence that this software package was ever discussed in mainstream sources. Thus, the article fails verifiability standards. *** Crotalus *** 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. Alice^✉ 07:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the two of us had reached a unanimous consensus (are you forgetting the "silent majority" - huge grin?) Alice^✉ 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, same as the first time. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination as well. --Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 03:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale again. Alice^✉ 04:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an absolute shame. These so called "proggies" were a large part of the turbulent upbringing of our modern day "technology era." I like how one user called it "non-notable," he obviously wasn't around. Soon enough, none of this information will be around anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.220.4 (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 09:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CATWatch01[edit]

Fails notability and verifiability standards. Sourcing is very sketchy: one mailing list post and one dead link. There's no evidence that this was ever discussed in anything approaching a mainstream source, or even a well-known niche source like 2600: The Hacker Quarterly or Cult of the Dead Cow. *** Crotalus *** 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to be a program of any importance. Websearch brings up little; certainly no coverage from reliable sources. shoeofdeath (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, same as the first time. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, too, was unable to find any significant support for this article. Tim Ross·^talk 00:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hy Lit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hy Lit

non notable? no reliable sources provided. Eulogy masquerading as article. ZayZayEM (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNon notable. No sources.Metal Head (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic and unsourced. The subject may be notable, but we need sources to establish that. Otherwise, it reads as an obituary, and there are far better places to post such things than Wikipedia. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His death made the front of the local page of the Philadelphia Inquirer. It needs a lot of help, but I have no doubt he can be sourced as notable. Choess (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that the main autghor of the article, Hy's son, didn't know a thing about wiki policy. If you look at previous versions you will see some refs, which I added back. Anyway, Hy was an important figue in the minds of Philadelphians and I am shockedthat the legendary Hy is nominated for deletion. December 21, 2012 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources, and the main source describes this person as a radio legend. I'm inclined to agree. (jarbarf) (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If your want a source to verify the information in this article, go to www.broadcastpioneers.com. This site has a great deal of information on Philadelphia radio & TV personalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.202.109 (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]