Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 20

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)

[edit] Combustion Man

Combustion Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Merge with List of Avatar: The Last Airbender secondary recurring characters. Arogi Ho (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Note: WikiProject American Animation has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete even w/editing still should be considered as a copyright violation from [1]. SkierRMH (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Savvy & Mandy

Savvy & Mandy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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. —BoL @ 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
• Delete, I'm sorry, but not right now. It's copyright infrigment, anyway. —BoL @ 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Already done so by myself per lack of notability. Jmlk17 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

• Comment Break a leg, girls. Break a leg. —BoL @ 03:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Dhanraj Bhansali

Dhanraj Bhansali (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person —BoL @ 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. —BoL @ 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete. EvanCarroll (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete no assertion of notability, and no source found that suggests notability Mayalld (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete Not notable enough for inclusion. Lawrence Cohen 06:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Cell (film)

Cell (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] African Federation of American Football

African Federation of American Football (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Abattoir Blossoms : Dark Poems and Fiendish Delights

Abattoir Blossoms : Dark Poems and Fiendish Delights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Delete Does appear self-published. Maybe later, but not now. Lawrence Cohen 07:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Poetry has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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.

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

[edit] Carr Manor High School

Carr Manor High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep for now per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep per WP:HEY improvements already made, meeting WP:N. Kudos, TerriersFan. Noroton (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SCL. -- Loukinho (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Article is now a lot better, well sourced and seems to pass WP:N. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Mateo Coletti

Mateo Coletti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Delete as nominator, for the reasons listed above. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promotion. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, pretty much pure advertising. cf38^talk 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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 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 keep. Wizardman 05:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy Hannah

Lucy Hannah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)
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. 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 Same here. Neal (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
      • Do you mean that you agree there are no grounds for keeping the article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I think what I said pretty much matches your 2nd sentence. Neal (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
• 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)

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

• Keep Verified as the World's oldest black woman ever. That's notable. 69.14.38.16 (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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).
      • 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)
        • Simple, someone made it anyways! Neal (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
      • 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)
• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

• 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)
• Keep per comments in the prior discussion. Relisting is not an alternative to making a decision. Mandsford (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above, sufficiently notable as one of the oldest African Americans. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 07:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nitro, California

Nitro, California (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete This is all OR. STORMTRACKER 94 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete Appears to not be genuine. We can always remake it later with sourcing. Lawrence Cohen 07:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 07:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samus's equipment

Samus's equipment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

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

• Delete The same information is already included in Samus Aran, thus making this page unnecessary. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Midorihana. STORMTRACKER 94 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Midorihana. This page is redundant and unnecessary. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Already covered, not notable by itself. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and other above. --Jack Merridew 11:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete Redundant since it's covered in Samus Aran. Someone another (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Patrick School

Saint Patrick School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable middle school, fails WP:SCHOOLSWikipedia:Notability (schools). brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable school, fails WP:SCHOOLS. STORMTRACKER 94 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)

• Delete non-notable --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nothing notable here. --Crusio (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 07:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne Hills Mall

Wayne Hills Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (Yea, I know...) Eusebeus (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Shelby Rena Morgan

Shelby Rena Morgan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

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.

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.

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 keep. Singularity 07:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christofascism

Christofascism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

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)

• Delete - non-notable pov neologism.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable neologism, apparent SPA anti-Huckabee POV pusher. SkierRMH (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Keep, excellent article, well referenced, and well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep Offensive if you're Christian, possibly, but notability trumps sensibilities. Keep. Lawrence Cohen 07:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is notable and well sourced. Badagnani (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

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

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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 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. east.718 at 00:43, December 26, 2007

[edit] Anders B. Johnsson

Anders B. Johnsson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 07:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acoustic Chicago

Acoustic Chicago (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• Delete under WP:MUSIC. --Yamla (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable album. STORMTRACKER 94 21:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room

The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete Nn song, fails WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources. STORMTRACKER 94 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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 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 merge to List of characters from Family Guy. Wizardman 00:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie Swanson

Bonnie Swanson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

Kevin Swanson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jonathan Weed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• Merge Per sgeureka. STORMTRACKER 94 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete or Merge - no real-world sources. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge, too minor a character. Mbisanz (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have also listed three other Family Guy characters for deletion here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, fictional characters with no real-world notability. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Per sgeureka. Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the notable character Joe Swanson, her fictional husband. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing here that can't be covered in the list that the nom provided. Keeper | 76 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 WP:SNOW keep. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piedmont Avenue, Oakland, California

Piedmont Avenue, Oakland, California (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep Notable along with the city. —BoL @ 04:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable district within Oakland, just needs improved referencing. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Montalbano Innovation and Development Inc.

Montalbano Innovation and Development Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Speedy delete spam, with COI; no evidence of notability --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • comment - Cyrus, you are, of course, correct; my apologies to my colleagues. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

"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)

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

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 08:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Trub

Barry Trub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Delete. Highly accomplished, but accomplishment is not notability. Fails WP:BIO, no sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete due to lack of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 keep. Singularity 08:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Youth Girls’ Volleyball Championship

Asian Youth Girls’ Volleyball Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Mere (band)

Mere (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Northeast Regional Library

Northeast Regional Library (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

• 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)
• Delete Does not appear to be notable, nothing in the first few pages of a google search to demonstrate notability. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nn library, fails WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Anastacia Rose

Anastacia Rose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wrestling interviewer. Davnel03 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. Davnel03 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Delete, same for me. Not a really notable person. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hardyboyz27 (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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:

Eve Torres (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - possibly likely never to debut despite winning Diva Search.

Lena Yada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Bella Twins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bri Bella (Brianna Garcia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nicole Bella (Nicole Garcia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Davnel03 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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))

• Delete all - I concur with Lex 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)
  • 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)

• Delete - she is not notable as of yet. Agree with Lex'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)

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

[edit] Sony Ericsson J210

Sony Ericsson J210 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Telecommunications has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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).

• 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)

• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete Per nom, that sums it up very well. STORMTRACKER 94 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. nat.utoronto 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 - 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)
• 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: 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: 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)

• • • 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)
      • 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 - 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)
      • Court cases are primary sources and have no bearing on notability. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • Primary sources have no bearing on notability, as mentioned above. WP:N says independent, reliable, SECONDARY sources. shoy 17:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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 - 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)

• • • • 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

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

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 - 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

[edit] References

1. ^ e.g. Progressive Adventism, Spectrum (magazine), Adventist Today and many others
2. ^ e.g. Historic Adventism, Hartland Institute, Hope International (Seventh-day Adventist), Standish brothers etc.
3. ^ 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
4. ^ "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 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Dragonfly CMS

Dragonfly CMS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Delete, notability not established in the article, no sources given. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete fails WP:N and WP:V Mr Senseless (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable software. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Delete Nn software. Fails WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:N doesnt fail anymore Chris963 (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 keep. Singularity 08:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary DeMoss

Mary DeMoss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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 lean Delete am neutral following recent additions. Thanks for helping decide this one. JustaHulk (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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).
• 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)
• Weak keep - Changing to "Weak keep", agree with Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• 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)
• Keep - Article is NPOV and conforms to BLP. The subject is notable, although not greatly.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Newly added references round out the notability and make it less of a coatrack stub. AndroidCat (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
• Keep Seems notable, also plenty of refs. STORMTRACKER 94 22:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 08:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tayport Thistle Boys Club

Tayport Thistle Boys Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

• Delete - totally non-notable, this should have been speedied or prodded. Qwghlm (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. —Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete, not notable, unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• 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)
• Delete per above, CSD nomination, as well as WP:SNOW Mr Senseless (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. Greswik (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable youth team. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete Per above comments. STORMTRACKER 94 22:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Fangz of Blood 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• Transwiki to the Zelda Wikia page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable, no referencing per WP:RS Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and the apparent consensus above. --Jack Merridew 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Transwiki in theory, the article is a good idea. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. .:Alex:. 15:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete It's nothing encyclopedic. I have already ported it to another wiki as well. --businessman332211 (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
  • I don't base my reasoning on guidelines written by deletionists. Everyking (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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 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 keep. Singularity 08:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strongsville High School

Strongsville High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced WP:OR, and per the nom. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep per Greswik. STORMTRACKER 94 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep The sources show this one is notable. Lawrence Cohen 07:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above, the sources provided demonstrate notability. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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).

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 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 Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J.b.m vranken

J.b.m vranken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

J.H.A. Lokin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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)

• 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)
• Delete, as per Rudget (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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

• Delete per Rudget. STORMTRACKER 94 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Eric Tritch

Eric Tritch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

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)
• Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable. —Animum (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't assert notability. Already up for speedy deletion. Rt. 17:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 08:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tha Spot

Tha Spot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete - no sourced assertion of notability. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• 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)
• Delete Spam, no sources, non-notable, no verifiablity. STORMTRACKER 94 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Lawrence Cohen 07:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 08:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperfect self-defense

Imperfect self-defense (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

*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)

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

• Delete, per nom. Notability not established, and written poorly in non-enclyclopedic manner. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep Seems to be a well refernced article. Fosnez (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Law has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 keep. Singularity 09:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NiGHTS

NiGHTS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

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

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

• 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. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

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)

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

• 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. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: for the reasons stated by Stifle. Fangz of Blood 02:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete — Non-notable and already covered. --Jack Merridew 11:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I've added a considerable amount of real world information to establish notability. --Pixelface (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep, and the nominator's reasons no longer apply, with Pixelface's improvement. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Stiffle, Quasirandom and Tim Q. Wells. JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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

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

• Keep - Article seems to be out of universe, well-sourced. Easy keep. matt91486 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, out of universe info available and cited, nice work Pixelface. Someone another (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the improvement since the article was listed to considered for deletion speaks for itself. Keep.--Alf ^melmac 11:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  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)

• KEEP - As per the other Keeps. Adam Hillman (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Final Drive

Final Drive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Italian Violinmakers

Italian Violinmakers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails notability guidelines. No sources provided. No ISBN provided, which could cover the quotes. Rt. 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• 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)
• Delete Unsourced, non-notable, possible OR. STORMTRACKER 94 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Note: WikiProject Musical Instruments has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Lusternia, Age of Ascension

Lusternia, Age of Ascension (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)
• Delete, save the solitary cite at the bottom, the rest of the article is unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• Note: WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Ramaj Entertainment

Ramaj Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Delete, as unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• 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)
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 09:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encounter (urban street game)

Encounter (urban street game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Delete Advertisement.Metal Head (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Blatant spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

• What?! Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete, agree with all of the deletes above. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per all delete-comments above. Greswik (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 09:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck gentry

Chuck gentry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Davis (defensive end)

Tommy Davis (defensive end) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Finn (rat)

Finn (rat) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Skinner (rat)

Skinner (rat) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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) 14:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Jupiter (cat)

Jupiter (cat) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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) 14:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Audrey Brown (mouse)

Audrey Brown (mouse) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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) 14:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Oswald Chitter

Oswald Chitter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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) 14:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Piccadilly (The Deptford Mice)

Piccadilly (The Deptford Mice) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Septimus Pretorius

Doctor Septimus Pretorius (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• 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)

• 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)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Dark Overlord of the Universe

Dark Overlord of the Universe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)
• 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)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Screen connections

Screen connections (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Flying Matters

Flying_Matters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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

• Speedy Keep Nomination does not provide a reason for deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep, article is in desperate need of cleanup, but adequate notability established through the references. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• 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)

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Glenn Hagele

Glenn_Hagele (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

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)

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

• 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)
• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 no consensus. W.marsh 03:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isla Sorna

Isla Sorna (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

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

• Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 09:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack and George

Jack and George (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Bearden's

Bearden's (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Java applets used for sms

Java applets used for sms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Whispering 13:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 09:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kemoy barlow

Kemoy barlow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

• 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)
• 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)
• Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A background artist isn't Wiki material. TGreenburgPR (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Something tells me that this person is not actually known for the background roles played. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography and self-promotional page. --Lockley (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 09:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rogue Protoss

Rogue Protoss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

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