Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 5

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raging safari

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

High school sports club with limited claims of meeting WP:Notability. 32 non-wiki ghits for "Raging safari" + frisbee, none of which show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete asap. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, non-notable group, qualifies for speedy. Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:25, 9 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 - obvious hoax. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Kong Vs. Jaws

King Kong Vs. Jaws (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I believe this article is a hoax. I can't find any information on IMDB, and can't find the information on the site of Universal pictures, to which a link is supplied as a reference either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete and BJAODN: This was speedy deleted earlier today. Flea as voice capture for shark? -Carados (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment it was deleted per: 'A bit of A7, A1 and a dash of WP:IAR. No prejudice to recreation if some facts can be found and referenced.' I wouldn't know how to tag for that. (not that I disagree with deleting this one fast, it seems like a full blown vandalism hoax. but then again, there is some pretty out there stuff, that turns out true (or more importantly, verifiable). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well, that is the exact reason, but it did come about from a speedy deletion tag.-Carados (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, it's a Spielberg produced, Peter Jackson directed, Tom Cruise starring film in pre-production and absolutely no sources or news hits. In the real world, that is a tad unlikely. Ummm, first time I think I have ever said this, but let it snow. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense has been deleted here. --Phirazo 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If you start making up titles for crossover films, you will get to this one fairly quickly. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Whether it's a hoax or not, it fails notability guidelines on films. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, funny as it may be. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I gotta admit, the thought of Andy Serkis and Michael Balzary as the "voices" for King Kong and for Jaws made me laugh. Kind of like a live action Jabberjaw. Mandsford (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Hoax. It's just too unbelievable. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Although the company getting the contract for Kong's waterwings would be made for life. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. JJL (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Althopugh hoaxes are not criteria for speedy, my originaial rationale (above) when I deleted still stands. I'd say speedy, but It's best to let this run it's course. Pedro :  Chat  08:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This is embarrassing. It is articles such as this that bring Wikipedia's reputation for veracity into question. I can't believe this hasn't been speedied. Jeffpw (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although I proposed one, there is no speedy deletion criterion for this kind of articles. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a malicious hoax that was already speedily deleted, and 5VH9 (talk · contribs) should be blocked for continuing to write out lies. Alientraveller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a clear hoax with no verifiable sources and an unfathomable premise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As hoax. From what i can tell, 5VH9 is a big hoax creator--B5JH (talk) 02:04, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion, The Other White Meat

Abortion, The Other White Meat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song by notable band. As much as I love The Mars Volta, is song is not notable. Carados (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete totally non-notable. Played once at a concert as an improv song.--CastAStone|^(talk) 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Unless this article gets seriously beefed up, it should be deleted. I'll change my vote if it's expanded. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as wholly nn. JJL (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, although it's a funny title to a song. Any more cites? Bearian (talk) 20:14, 6 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. Nom withdrawn. PeaceNT (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disc biacuplasty

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

Non-notable alternative treatment, probably written by the owner of the publicity firm of the sole provider. Doc^g 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) withdraw in view of re-write.--Doc^g 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; clear COI [1], and no notability for the "treatment". — Coren ^(talk) 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (amended, see below) — Coren ^(talk)
• Speedy Delete as spam of the worst sort - astroturfing. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Carefully read WP:CSD#G11 and WP:NOT, and see how this fits the bill. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Disc biacuplasty is a procedure that has been developed by Baylis Medical as a safer more efficient alternative to IDET (a patented treatment using heat -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervertebral_disc_annuloplasty ) or surgery. Disc biacuplasty has received (just like IDET) its own reimbursement code and has been approved worldwide by health organizations. As of now, about 300 patients have received the disc biacuplasty treatment. Doctors who performs an IDET procedure (or annuloplasty) uses a proprietary RF probe manufactured by Smith & Nephew and no others; doctors who performs this new procedure, namely "disc biacuplasty", also uses a proprietary RF probe, the TransDiscal system probes manufactured by Baylis Medical.

Several publications have been published in medical journals on the value and efficiency of the disc biacuplasty procedure and signed by world medical pain experts such as DR. Nagy Mekhail, md, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation; Dr Michael Gofeld, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center; Dr Jeffrey D. Petersohn, md, Pain Care Clinic; Dr Paul H. Dreyfuss, Washington Interventional Spine Associates; Dr Steven L. Simmons, University of Texas; etc.

Is IDET astroturfing?

In reference to this link (COI [2]), this site is about my past personal life (it has not been updated for the past 10 years, I think) and in all transparency, I am employed by Baylis Medical as Associate, Communications.--Lucdesaulniers (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and re-write. There is one pubmed hit and some other independent coverage [3], but definitely a re-write using reliable sources. WLU (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I re-wrote the page basically ignoring and deleting everything that was there before except the picture and using the most reliable sources I could find. There's only one pubmed, but there is a conference abstract, an e-publication and a news release by the American College of Radiology. That should get around the COI problems and I think there's enough there to pass notability. WLU (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I commend WLU's work on this. I've heard of this procedure before, even if not with this particular name. I would have said delete if not for WLU's removal of the COI problem. --Nehwyn (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep; the sources make some sort of sense, now, and the marketing technobabble has been excised. I still think this is just not quite notable enough, but it's a decent stub and can stick around for a while. — Coren ^(talk) 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep after WLUs non-biased rewrite. Lucdesaulniers (talk · contribs) is cautioned, together with his employer, to adhere to Wikipedia's WP:COI guidelines. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Has sources and seems to be neutrally presented (now). --Coppertwig (talk) 02:16, 10 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. — Scientizzle 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Davis (coach)

Dr. Davis (coach) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Come on, we don't even know this guy's name? Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced, uniformative listing. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources have been added. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep in the hope that more information comes to light. There's a whole template of Hokies coaches, so I trust that the author can find a source if we twist his arm a little. Lack of a first name is not a criterion for deletion and is actually a fairly common problem. I think the listing is "informative": it gives his record for the one season which he served as coach. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment sources have been added to the article. The infobox is supposed to provide reference links but isn't for some reason. References for the coaches records. As for the first name of this particular coach, this is as much information as is available. You'll find that sports history from the turn of the century often didn't record first names, that's just the way records were kept then. This one is a bit of an oddity as the first and middle initials of the head coach were generally in the record books but not for Davis for some reason. If anyone has any more information they are encouraged to update this article.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Being the head coach of a major U.S. college football program is sufficient evidence of notability. This is not something that's easily sourced online, but we should avoid bias against older subjects.--Kubigula (talk) 02:26, 10 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 both. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alf's Imperial Army and McGillicuddy Highland Army

These articles appear to be about a hobby reenactment club, but are rather lacking in sourcing other than from their members' home pages. This would appear not to be a notable organization. Perhaps one of the Wikias is a better location. >Radiant< 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep for Alf's; keep for McGillicuddys. Should be very easy to find other sources - these are indeed "hobby reenactment groups", but ones with a very high profile in NZ, especially Alf's. Articles definitely need a rewrite, but they don't need deletion. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Grutness...wha? 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both The short version: lack of outside sources => lack of notability. Is there a claim of notability in the article? Why/how is the group notable? What outside sources do we have to back up those claims of notability? -- Swerdnaneb 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- the article for AIA makes clear claims of notability, which I presume will shortly be sourced, and the MHA are referenced under under McGillicuddy articles (not a plea that this is no worse than others, but one that this is an adjunct to established articles) -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Could you please help me out with one example? I just don't see it. I'm not asking for a claim of notability that is sourced (or source-able). Just a claim of notability. -- Swerdnaneb 15:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've rewritten the opening paragraph to make one or two of its claims to notability a bit clearer. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Well-known NZ organisations. Will provide newspaper citation etc if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Very well know and important. The McGillicuddy Serious Party even got 0.61% of all votes cast in the 1993 general election. - SimonLyall (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep for Alf's; strong keep for McGillicuddys. These should be kept, they are both well-known organisations in NZ with a very-high public profile. I have given sources from newspaper articles to support all the claims about battling a wide range of NZ groups, and to support Alf's notabliity. I will do the same for the McGHA, when I have time. PavillonE —Preceding comment was added at 09:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added references to the McGillicuddy Highland Army page, I think these should prove their notability. PavillonE (talk) 08:30, 11 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. Weight of argument and consensus is for deletion.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodmont Hills Church of Christ

Woodmont Hills Church of Christ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Highly non-notable 20-year-old church in Nashville, a city of over 1,000 churches. The notability claims are: they play music, they have women, they shared their worship space with another church for a year. There is nothing whatsoever notable about this church. Smashville^BONK! 22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as they are using Wikipedia as a webspace provider. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Article needs to be rewritten with references and specific cites. The church is notable among churches of Christ in the area because of its progressiveness and its former minister, Rubel Shelly. --Ichabod (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is not inherited. "Progressiveness" doesn't make a church notable. There are over 300 Churches of Christ in the Nashville metro area. It has not been the independent subject of any secondary sources, it hasn't been around for a long time...and it's in a cluster of 3 churches sitting on the middle of Franklin Road. And for Nashville, there's about 40-50 megachurches...this one isn't anything special. --Smashville^BONK! 04:51, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother 10 (US)

Big Brother 10 (US) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is no need of this page yet. Big Brother 10 has not been confirmed by CBS. This article should be deleted because the confirmed Big Brother 9 (US) will begin to air in Feb. 2008. Yep the ninth edition hasn't even premiered so why have an unsourced, one line article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. 9 hasn't even aired yet, let's hold off a while longer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks Redrocketboy 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The day after season 9 is confirmed and this happens?!?! Pure speculation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.Earthdirt (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete huge CRYSTAL problems. SkierRMH (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article currently consists of two sentences both reporting rumours. It would be better to recreate this when we have some facts. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree it's premature. And even if CBS does announce BB10 it's still too early for an article (a reference can always be added to the main BBUSA article and to BB9. For all we know BB9's ratings could tank and CBS decides to retire the show. You never know. 23skidoo (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing but rumors mentionned here.JForget 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It seems like more less something someone made up to me, so in that case it should be deleted. Plus why would casting be started for the tenth season when they aren't even finished casting season nine. Seth71 (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Big Brother 9 hasn't even started yet, and there are no sources in the article to prove the information. zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 14:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Uh oh, Snowball! Not only rumors, but the user didn't even cite his cousin (or whoever) as a source!Epthorn (talk) 06:36, 10 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) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Smith (illustrator)

Matt Smith (illustrator) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Biographical article on an illustrator that I do not believe meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Specifically, person has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. Contested PROD, so comes here for discussion. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as nominator. — Satori Son 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough. Redrocketboy 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable third party sources are found. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, contributer to numerous children's magazines, independent comic books, and album covers, plus winner of several small awards (one of them referenced), all mentioned in the article. While I do agree that the article needs more references, I think that individual {{fact}} tags or a more general {{refimprove}} tag would be better than deleting the entire article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: While that's an argument that can be entertained for a brand new article, this one has been here for a year and a half. Even when a proposed deletion tag was added, no references were supplied, so how are a couple {{fact}} tags going to help? This article can always be restored if reliable sources are found. — Satori Son 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You added a PROD originally because you felt that there were no "reliable, third-party published sources" in the article. I removed the PROD because I felt that there already were two such references which were both independent of the subject and reliable as far as the claims which were made. It is certainly possible that adding {{fact}} tags may solve nothing, but since they have never been added to this article, there is simply no way to tell. The AfD process page even recommends adding such tags to the article before listing it for AfD. I simply feel that deleting the article at this point is premature, especially since I personally feel that notability has been proven. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 14:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Wyatt Riot. Artw (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. not notable Clubmarx (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now, revisit later. Some sources on page, of questionable value. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:34, 9 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 withdrawn. Deli nk (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chantal Claret

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

Withdrawn the afd in favour of a rfc on the unsourced info. --Neon white (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not notable according to WP:MUSIC and suffers from one editor inflating the article with original research. Neon white (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

KEEP'', Chantal Claret has also co-hosted an MTV2 Dew Circuit Showcase without the band http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mtv2-dew-circuit-showcase/1570914601 and had a monthly advice column in Alternative Press, which I believe merits it's own page. Here is a link to the Playboy, NY TIMES, and even a blender article where she is by herself without the band http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=1862 which "no one" could convientiantly find. http://morningwoodrocks.com/images/press/mwplayboy.JPG ,http://morningwoodrocks.com/images/press/mwnytfeat.jpg which is right on the morningwoodrocks.com press page. This is getting ridiculous and NEONWHITE is being totally hypocrytical, when some of his own pages have no references. Give it up and leave it alone.(talk) 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no ownership of articles on wikipedia, i do not own any articles, articles were she speaks primarily about the band don't make her notable as an individual, that has been said many times. There is a lack of non-trivial second party sources which are required if you read WP:BIO. This is why the article remians largely unsourced OR. None of these fit that criteria. --Neon white (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, there's plenty of mentions of her out there, that can be added. Redrocketboy 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I can't find any reliable sources about her seperate from the band. Most of the sources are about the band and therefore more appropriate for that page and there is a lack of second or third party sources. --Neon white (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Maybe neon should read the "Criteria for Musicians and Ensembles page again and learn how to do research on the Net. I'll follow right down the list. 1.) Ms Claret has been the subject of newspaper and magazine interviews from the NY Times on down to Maxim and Playboy Magazine. These are not reviews or group interviews, they are solo interviews with Ms. Claret. 2.) Morningwood has had a #30 chart hit with Nth Degree in 2006. 4.) Morningwood had a national tour in 2006 that included appearances in the US, England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan and other countries. 6.) The group includes Pedro Yanowitz who played drums for the Wallflowers and other groups. 10.) Morningwood has appeared on the Tonight Show, and The David Letterman Show twice among other TV appearances, including hour long performance and interview shows in Spain. 11.)Both Jetsetter and th Degree have been on national rotation lists. This action is merely an amping up of a bullying edit war. He repeatedly deletes the unimportant majority of the article claiming it not to be verified, while he leaves in significant information that has no verification at all. It is just a little power trip. 68.54.15.213 (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Neither playboy, ny times or maxim's website nor google can find any mention of any article in either newspaper or magazine and none of these are used on the page or have been provide depsite requests. Any interviews or articles available relate specifically to the band and she is not the subject of the article as specified in the criteria. Morningwood's notability has absolutely no relevance to this discussion this is about her article not the band's article which is seperate. The article is largely based on original research and current has no sources for notability that is why it is here, no other reason. --Neon white (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Lead in a notable band, plenty of major interviews. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Interviews can't really be used as a source for notability. It's an exception to point 1 on WP:MUSIC other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves and on WP:BIO it specifies secondary source material which is reliable--Neon white (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• CommentPoint 1 of WP:MUSIC does not disqualify those sources. Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. The aforementioned sources are not press releases or adverts, which is what point 1 is concerned with. Blender article (a little on the trivial side),NY times article (which is certainly beyond "trivial") Billboard article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what point 1 excepts, trivia, press releases and promotional interviews. The billboard article is about the band which has been pointed isnt relevant to her notability. The other two are very trivial. --Neon white (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It took seconds to find 75 references to Chantal and the NY Times, including an interview - here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/fashion/sundaystyles/08nite.html and I could drag in references for everything else mentioned above by anonymous, since he/she seems to have read them or about them on the Morningwood message boards. I don't post any so called original research on the Chantal Claret article, I merely try to restore what vandals remove or screw up. Could you tell me why you don't just put back the banner I put up explaining that the article had no references and doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, blah, blah, blah? I inserted it on the weekend and somebody else deleted it. It seems to me that using that disclaimer would solve your particular problems. Or is it that you don't want this issue 'solved'? DrDelos (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Let me add this to the notability list above by anonymous: Wikipedai says a person is considered notable if: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above". Chantal has co-composer credits with the US Copyright office for Nth Degree which, in addition to being a hit for Morningwood, was used in several TV commercials including a series for Mercury automobiles. That alone makes her notable according to Wikipedia's own criteria. DrDelos (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment NY Times article is trivial at best and as the policy says 'non-trivial published works' and it's arguable whether she is the subject of the article and there is very little contained it the article that could practically be used in the article to determine notability. The guidelines mentioned above are for 'composers and lyricists' not for 'musicians and ensembles'. You have restored alot of OR on the article (anything that isn't based on a citation is OR, such as uncited personal interests), but the issue here is whether there is enough notability. I think what you are refering to is a 'refimprove' tag. These in no way allow an article to use unsourced material, they are used to alert editors that the article needs improving which has been done in removing the OR. As i said above the song is notable to Morningwood not to her and is not relevant to her individual notability. If she is only notable as a member of Morningwood and the article is of no great length then the usual practice is to merge them. --Neon white (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• 'Comment' The NYT link was to demonstrate that you are either not capable or not willing to research for yourself the references that back up everything mentioned above. It demonstrated that. It I provided the references for the other statements above, I'm certain you could and would find fault with all of them. I wonder if you look at any articles other than the ones you are fighting with people over. There are hundreds of thousands of pages with millions of unsubstantiated, unverified and unverifiable, off the cuff paragraphs and they stay online unchallenged for years. BTW, Chantal has writing credits for a lot more published music and lyrics than just Nth Degree. She has her own rock group entirely apart from Morningwood with no members of Morningwood participating. She also appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show and had 8 minute or so segment of her talking to the camera by herself. The video is online. And to repeat, all I did to the article is remove your vandalism. I did not post OR and you would know that if you would do the research on the history of the article. DrDelos (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• 'Comment' This page is for discussion about the notability of this article only no other article is relevant, it is not for personal attacks or points scoring. I was aware of the article but considered it trivial and not really about her as the major subject. So far this is the only source for notability provided if you can provide others then do so. It is the job of the editor who includes the material to provide a citation and no-one elses this is specified in policy. Removing unsourced material does not constitute as vandalism , this is a personal attack which you have been warned about several times. --Neon white (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I too was unable to find any reliable sources; this artist gets a lot of ghits, but all of it is either in the context of Morningwood (which is notable) or highly trivial or self-promotional in nature (interviews, fan-pages, short blurbs from NN music webpages). Her one apparent claim to having her own page is her partial songwriting credit on the one song mentioned above. As I see it, by the spirit of the policy, that's just not enough. A separate page would, by necessity, either be a stub containing her one point of notability, or a collection of WP:OR and impossible to reference fancruft. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 05:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have actually questioned that criteria on WP:MUSIC for clarification as to what it actually means, it can't possibly refer to anyone who has a writing credit for a notable band as that would potentially include some people of very little note. My suggestion is to merge with morningwood as i don't believe there will be that much sourced info available to make anything other than a stub after all the unsourced stuff is removed. --Neon white (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• 'Comment' Song writing credits from MP3 version of the CD 'Morningwood' include: - Televisor, Jetsetter, Take Off Your Clothes, Body 21, Easy, Babysitter, Everybody Rules and Ride the Lights. These credits as co-composer are encoded into the commercially distributed, downloadable MP3 files. That is a difficult reference to use, because although it is hard proof, it is also hard to put into a searchable form for anyone wanting to 'see it for themselves'. Performance credits for Ror-Shak's first album 'Deep' mention Chantal Claret as vocalist on 'A Forest' listed on the CD cover and encoded into downloads. I will try to get you some more references, hopefully more conventional if possible. I am just super busy at the moment. DrDelos (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• 'Comment' AMG AllMusic.com has composer credits listed on most of their discographies. Here is the link to Morningwood's entry: http://wm01.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:a9fixqlaldfe~T3 It skips several songs that Chantal wrote and co-wrote, but the six it lists crediting her all got national air play in 2005 and 2006. DrDelos (talk) 21:11, 8 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 to delete, disagreement in discussion exists over whether the sources are sufficient and reliable enough for the article. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox Effect

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

The previous AfD had many keep votes, but they seem to reduce to WP:IKNOWIT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Some asked to clean it up and find sources. It has been over a year now, and it still is lacking in non-blog sources. For this reason, I feel that it violates WP:V and WP:RS, and that sources simply won't materialize. Thinboy00 @940, i.e. 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Clarification of reason. I just realized that "is lacking in" could be interpreted as "has no". I actually mean that it does not have enough, and most are in response to blogs and do not serve to explain what the sandbox is, but merely to confirm that some people think it exists. --Thinboy00 @973, i.e. 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Question I was under the understanding that WP:V and WP:RS aren't reasons for deletion. Is there some other policy that says otherwise? 149.159.142.23 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to [emphasis added], ..." --Thinboy00 @201, i.e. 03:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep even if the effect doesn't exist, it could still be notable. Google appears to have denied it in a public forum, and some of the other sources on the page look reputable. They seem to be thoughtful reviews of the existence or not of the effect. A topic such as this will naturally be discussed online, by these kinds of writers. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AnteaterZot's argument amounts to it sounds interesting and is probably notable, even if it can not be verified by any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment(edit conflict) here is a list of all external links that don't have the word "blog" in their URLs or allow user contributed content ("third" means on the original list of all external links):
  • first one
  • third one
  • seventh one

all others either contain the word "blog" in URLs or allow user contribs. Comments were not counted as contribs. For example, if it had been there, slashdot would have failed because its users write the stories, not because it allows comments. The first one is a simple refutation of its existence which only proves that some people got upset and believe in its existence. The third and seventh ones are both instructive, though the third has an intro that might provide enough info for a stub. The seventh is purely instructive. The SEOmoz article is excluded because it currently leads to a 404 error[4]. --Thinboy00 @61, i.e. 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh, does the fact that Google put it on [5] this patent application help? AnteaterZot (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What phrase did they use to describe it? I couldn't find "sandbox" (Case insensitive) on the page. --Thinboy00 @153, i.e. 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • They aren't going to call it that. Anyway, does this source meet with your approval? I'm having a hard time looking through the 25,500 Yahoo hits for "google sandbox effect". AnteaterZot (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment yes that newspaper would meet criteria, I would add it to my list added at 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (after subsequent posts) except that refactoring is discouraged... I don't set requirements, the community does at WP:RS. If you can demonstrate where the effect is referenced (preferably with a quote) on the patent application, that would be nice, since its an awful lot of text to read. --Thinboy00 @166, i.e. 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I think this line in the patent is what is meant: "5. The system of claim 2, wherein the meta attribute comprises one of: an age attribute, a stature attribute, and an importance attribute." AnteaterZot (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• And is webpronews.com a legit site? They have this article on the topic. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The criteria for "legit"imacy is explained at WP:RS. If something is valid, add it to the article, don't just ask here, unless its controversial. --Thinboy00 @168, i.e. 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, I ask because this is not my field of expertise. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• (outdent) Webpronews allows user contributions, so I would discount it as original/self-published per WP:RS
• Comment, important I feel that this article has major WP:V issues, and I feel that it should address the validity of these statements (that does not mean "they have to be true & provable", it means you should be able to prove one way or the other):

1. Google has a list (an actual file) of URLs that are "in the sandbox" and the observed effect is not merely because of age-based Systematic bias.
2. Other websites (Yahoo!, MSN, etc.) use dramatically different sorting algorithms/don't have sandboxes that produce dramatic discrepancies.

I feel that the article in its current state might be construed as slanderous to Google, as it asserts strange behaviors of google after google has denied them, and without sources to back up statement # 1 especially. We have no proof that google keeps a list of sandbox URLs, and google has denied it. That should be taken into consideration. If we could prove statement 1 false, the article would need a major rewrite to cast it as an urban legend. --Thinboy00 @193, i.e. 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's called the Sandbox "Effect", not the Sandbox "File". I think that most of the sources state that the effect does not exist, but the ~100,000 g-hits or y-hits for "google sandbox effect" means that it topic has traction. Articles that largely debunk rumors are allowable on Wikipedia. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote from article:"The Sandbox Effect is the theory that websites with newly-registered domains or domains with frequent ownership or nameserver changes are placed in a sandbox (holding area) in the indexes of Google until it is deemed appropriate before a ranking can commence." Emphasis added. --Thinboy00 @203, i.e. 03:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh, I did not entirely understand your comment at first, probably because I stopped reading to comment (stupid of me really). We can't say for sure whether it exists, so it is inherently not verifiable, whether we want to debunk or prove it is beside the point until we have proof one way or the other. We might discuss it in a neutral way that makes no assumptions as to its existence, I see few problems there, except that the notability of internet phenomena is disputed, but that does not throw everything out. --Thinboy00 @214, i.e. 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The Taos Hum is unverified, but there's an article. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The hum primarily cites secondary sources to prove that some people feel it, whereas this article primarily cites primary sources. The latter are discouraged (and here also). Of course, we have secondary sources according to you, but right now, the article is a mess. If it can be fixed, now is the time to do it; don't just say "we could ... and fix, so we should keep," but actually do it. --Thinboy00 @881, i.e. 20:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The effect may or may not exist, but the article is about the fact that people think it exists or the theory that it exists. That people think it exists is verified by the first, third and seventh links as pointed out by Thinboy00, the original nom. Mdmkolbe (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is unfounded speculation, and the speculation as such is not notable. The article is a textbook violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is certainly notable and has received significant coverage online. Cleanup and sourcing might be appropriate, but the article shouldn't be deleted just because it needs improvement. Rray (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Someone added the webpronews article as a ref. Given concerns expressed here and on the talk page by myself, it would be nice if someone could tell me how it passes WP:SPS. If it has a moderation process that pre-screens all the stories (for example), that would be a valid reason for inclusion. If it doesn't have one (criteria for membership shouldn't qualify, as the users still self publish with no review), please substantiate it with a non-dead link. --Thinboy00 @917, i.e. 21:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThe sources in general are the appropriate ones for this topic and sufficient to support notability DGG (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, sourcing for this kind of ephermeral effect will be hard to come by, some sources on the page. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:36, 9 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Evelyn Parker

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

Artiucle by Billy Hathorn citing Billy Hathorn's Masters dissertation, and lacking any obvious claim of notability per WP:BIO. Section titles like "A real political player" are not the stuff of encyclopaedias, but of local history sites. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I've seen a lot of this guy's articles so I'm hesitant to all out keep it...I dunno...this person was State Treasurer. But...Billy references himself... --Smashville^BONK! 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The sources should be strengthened, sure. But we don't delete articles for poorly phrased sections, and a state treasurer is notable. — Amcaja (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if we can find a source for Louisiana's first woman treasurer. Found a couple of sources. spryde | talk 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as loath as I am to endorse an article by someone who won't even show up for an RFCU. State treasurers are notable positions. These are the articles we want him to create; we just don't want him using COI sourcing including his own unpublished writing. I am afraid that getting Billy to stop is going to require sterner stuff than just deleting more of his articles. --Dhartung | Talk 00:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, elected state treasurer (19 years), first woman state treasurer in LA, former Democratic national committeewoman, campaign strategist for Governor John McKeithen, in Who's Who in America, member of Louisiana Political Hall of Fame, "Woman of the Year" in Baton Rouge, interesting life story. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notability asserted as first woman state treasurer and by other means as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please explain the basis for considering it a notable position.DGG (talk) 23:27, 8 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. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moon Griffon

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

All the references in this article seem to be either to related facts, not the subject, or are not independent. I don't see any evidence of provable significance. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

...Keep of course. He is the main statewide talk radio host in Louisiana. I could not find out how many listeners he has for his 2-hour morning daily program. There is no other host in the state who can match his audience. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*Analysis, leaning towards keep An editor who I've come across, but is not my friend, told me about this AFD (I presume for a neutral, unbiased analysis). This is a radio announcer which I never heard of but broadcasting is not my expertise. Besides sources which may not be independent, there are 2 independent sources cited in the article, a TV station and a newspaper. The 3 basic criteria seem to be covered [6]. One of the sources lists his broadcast as carried in 10 stations. This increases his notability. AFD discussions tend to shy away from mentioning similar articles that were or were not deleted. However, Michele Marsh is one that I randomly looked up and found to be a WP article. I would favor encouraging improvement of the article, adding information about his background and education. AFD deletes are supposed to be based on notability, not quality of editing, but editing quality can influence decisions. This would be an easier decision if there were more references and more material in the article.Archtransit (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Archtransit, I would have included more material in the article, but I did not have anything else. Whatever else I may have found would have taken a lot of time and involved original research, which causes articles to be rejected. Yes, he is on ten stations, Monroe, Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette, Natchez, MS, but I don't have the other five cities. He is statewide, and his associate, Ruth Ulrich, in 2005 interviewed Secretary of the Treasury John Snow on the program. I will add that info. Apparently, the person rejecting this article thinks he is only on the Monroe station, and even if that were his only station, he would still cover the northeast one-fourth of LA.

March 4, 2005 Secretary Snow on Social Security US Treasury Secretary John Snow visits with Ruth Ulrich of the Moon Griffon Show, KMLB, Monroe, LA.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep .. The radio stations themselves can be cited. References should not have to be bits of paper. Victuallers (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I have included in the article the ten radio stations on which Moon Griffon is broadcast. The opponent of this article seemed to think that Griffon broadcast only in Monroe.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:42, 10 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. PeaceNT (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Nicholas Catholic Primary School, Jockey Road

St Nicholas Catholic Primary School, Jockey Road (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No information on notability. — Yavoh 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable primary school. A redirect would be pointless since the title is so long. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - this school is one of a small number of primary schools to be assessed Outstanding after an independent inspection by Ofsted who say "This is an outstanding school where pupils are extremely well cared for and achieve very highly.". I am going to source it up but meanwhile editors can read about its notability here. TerriersFan (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per TerriersFan. This article also indicates notability. Noroton (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per TerriersFan. Alternatively, merge with its school district or locality. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I will substantially expand the article tomorrow and include the above sources and also [7], [8], [9] etc TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC) - now cleaned up and expanded. The school has a string of academic achievements including being ranked the best primary school in the Midlands in 2001. TerriersFan (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree with the idea that being "outstanding" (top 5%) on the basis of a gov't inspection allows the retention of articles on individual schools. Why not use the Ofsted report to make one big list page, "outstanding schools in Britain"? What if a school was assesed "horrid" (bottom 5%) by the government? That would be equally as notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. Well done TerriersFan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:12, 9 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 to Honey --JForget 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honey dipper

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

Dictionary def., not notable, unsourced Mdbrownmsw (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Honey, it can be mentioned in the article - no need for a separate article that only consists of a dictionary definition. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect per above. Nom can redirect the article and speedily close if he wishes, as no one has gone for keep or delete yet. The redirect can always be turned into a real article if someone finds more information on this. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect seems the right call, to me, too. I note that the illustration is already at Honey. Tim Ross·^talk 01:16, 8 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. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred C. McClanahan

Fred C. McClanahan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An obituary form a prolific writer of obituaries. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Candidate for senate doesn't make him notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A memorial article about an apparently fine individual who fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Inconsistency Why is this former congressional candidate acceptable, but Mr. McClanahan is not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Williams_Hearn

Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Without even looking at that link, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for "keep" --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. "Memorial". Any article on a deceased person may have some tinge of being a "memorial". The article tells about the man's full career based on the material that I had.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a nice bloke, who had a moderately interesting career, but currently notability is not demonstrated. Happy to amend if multiple non trivial references to him are found in reliable sources. Just drop me a line to my talk page. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 12 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. — Scientizzle 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny D. Scott

Danny D. Scott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another of User:Billy Hathorn's obituaries. Small town publisher, no wider significance. Please can someone help me get through to this user as he has more deleted articles to his name than any other non-vandal I can think of. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A memorial article about an apparently fine individual who fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no apparent significance. Basic claim is the publishing of two local newspapers, neither of which even has a website, although they do appear to be going concerns at least. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and WP:BIO. RMHED (talk) 00:05, 11 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of Mice and Men (song)

Of Mice and Men (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but I can see no reason that this single is notable. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to The System Has Failed per WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. — Satori Son 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Mbisanz (talk) 18:19, 13 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. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Chipinaw

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

Originally nominated for WP:PROD by Stormbay (talk · contribs) for "non notable children's summer camp" 24fan24 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article covers a children's summer camp which, no doubt, does a fine job. However, there is nothing in their activities and body of work that should be considered notable. --Stormbay (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, unsourced. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:02, 6 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. Mr.Z-man 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Die Dead Enough

Die Dead Enough (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but I can see no reason that this single is notable.J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to The System Has Failed per WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. — Satori Son 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources on page, one sentence filler-type article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Totally non-notable Mbisanz (talk) 18:19, 13 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. Mr.Z-man 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moto Psycho

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

Notable band, but I can see no reason that this is a notable single. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources on page, one sentence filler-type article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable single. Mbisanz (talk) 18:20, 13 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. Mr.Z-man 06:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kill the King

Kill the King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but I can see no reason that this is a notable single. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources on page, one sentence filler-type article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable single. Mbisanz (talk) 18:20, 13 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. Mr.Z-man 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crush 'em

Crush 'em (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but I can see no reason that it is a notable single. J Milburn (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Risk (album) per WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. — Satori Son 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources on page, one sentence filler-type article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable single. Mbisanz (talk) 18:20, 13 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of indoor malls in Barrie

List of indoor malls in Barrie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, seemingly orphaned, only one mall has a link. Redundant content, given the templates right below it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable per WP:N, and redundant WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge info into the 3 Mall articles. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge what info? Only one of these malls has an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant mention that they're only 3 malls in the area on each of the mall's articles. I know there's only 1 mall article at the moment, I meant in future. My bad. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge into the Barrie, Ontario article. Perhaps under economy or buildings and structures? vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant Mbisanz (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. 3-item list with nothing to merge. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:57, 14 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. Mr.Z-man 06:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insomnia (Megadeth song)

Insomnia (Megadeth song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but I can't see any reason this is a notable single. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This song is not particularly notable. I would have suggested "Merge", but there's no content worth merging. Axl (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources on page, one sentence filler-type article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable single Mbisanz (talk) 18:22, 13 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. Mr.Z-man 06:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use the Man

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

Notable band, but I can see no reason or sources as to why this is a notable single. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment—A Google news archive search turns up some third-party sources including The Boston Globe and the Chicago Sun-Times that at least mention some aspects of the song's lyric content and musical style. There might be enough there to satisfy WP:N. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources on page, one sentence filler-type article. If anybody cares, they can recreate the article with sources someday. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable single Mbisanz (talk) 18:22, 13 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. Mr.Z-man 06:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Secret Place

A Secret Place (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but does not appear to be a notable single. I can see no sources or claims to fame. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources on page, one sentence filler-type article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable single Mbisanz (talk) 18:22, 13 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. Mr.Z-man 06:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Almost Honest (song)

Almost Honest (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but does not seem to be a notable single. I can see no sources or claims to fame. J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources on page, one sentence filler-type article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable single Mbisanz (talk) 18:22, 13 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. Rigadoun (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreclosure of a Dream

Foreclosure of a Dream (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but does not seem to be a notable single. I can see no real sources. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep According to Countdown to Extinction, this single charted at #30 on the "Mainstream Rock Tracks" Billboard chart. Merging would be another reasonable option until we can find more information about the song, though. JavaTenor (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable single Mbisanz (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JavaTenor. I added the allegation and tagged for fact checking. A Billboard top 40 is enough to keep, but we need a cite. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but a merge is fine. I referenced the chart position. — Scientizzle 19:03, 14 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kids Across America

Kids Across America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization using no references. Article is also promotional in its tone. D-rew (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources on page, spam. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SPAM Mbisanz (talk) 18:28, 13 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 01:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petezza

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

Not surprisingly, I couldn't find any reliable sources on either of the given spellings of this "holiday" to verify the notability of this unsourced article, created by a single purpose account. neologism, things made up one day, either seems to apply. Challenged PROD, also by a SPA. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Delete - Article appears to be nonsense and something made up one day. The only possible source suggested by the text of the article is an unreliable forum. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT, only sources are unreliable forums. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I prod'd this article because it looked like a hoax. Authors now claim that it is a real holiday, but it still appears to be something made up over a beer one day. In any case, it seems to be notable only on one message board about Maryland. —Travis^talk 20:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom, as nonsense. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT, not that this really quite passes the nonsense test either. --Dhartung | Talk 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Some made-up holidays do have articles (one could argue Father's Day is "made up"), but they have reliable, secondary sources, and this doesn't. Besides, it is a borderline copyvio of [10]. This article violates WP:V, and WP:OR.--Phirazo 23:51, 6 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. Mr.Z-man 06:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liar (Megadeth song)

Liar (Megadeth song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but is it a notable single? I see no sources or reason it could be considered notable, but the article does contain original research and a potential BLP violation.J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not proven. Considering the lyrics of the song and the reference to a living person it does have BLP problem.--Sandahl 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep aren't released singles notable? JuJube (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If they satisfy WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure this does, based on the article content alone.—RJH (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources on page, two sentence article. One sentence is OR. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable single. Notability doesn't transfer automatically. Mbisanz (talk) 18:29, 13 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. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coral Springs Christian Academy

Coral Springs Christian Academy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no sources Loonymonkey (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES but definitely cleanup. --Smashville^BONK! 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a sufficiently notable high school, sufficiently documented. DGG (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Current article needs a cleanup and relies on primary sources, however a search reveals a variety of secondary sources on the school which can establish notability. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - article needs work but the school is notable and plenty of sources are available for expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:03, 11 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. Just saying "Its notable, sources exist" is not the same as actually providing sources to prove notability. Mr.Z-man 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sokker Manager

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

Not notable, no third party sources, orphan Mdbrownmsw (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I know this isn't the best argument but... seems about as notable as anything else in Category:Browser-based games and indeed List of text-based MMORPGs. External sources are not easy to find but do exist - reliable external sources even less easy and appear to be in Polish. the game appears on several online games directory websites and seems to have a following on each. --carelesshx _talk 20:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "about as notable as anything else in Category:Browser-based games and indeed List of text-based MMORPGs." = WP:WAX —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbrownmsw (talk • contribs) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per carelesshx, assuming sources can be added. And fixing the orphanage should be easy enough. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sources were requested 3 months ago as none could be found. We still have nothing but the game's website. I would not be surprised if there were sources in Polish. I would be surprised, though, if they were reliable sources. I have been unable to find any. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 14:19, 7 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. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rope Trick

The Rope Trick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film with no claims of notability and no sources to indicate that it might be notable. It does have an entry at imdb, but there's not much there but that this is a short. Corvus cornix_talk 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio http://italy.imdb.com/title/tt0383604/plotsummary --carelesshx _talk 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless somebody can produce verification that the film meets Wikipedia:Notability (films). My google search of the title & the director's last name provided 12 unique hits, none of which meet the notability threshold. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:52, 6 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. — Scientizzle 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Jane (Megadeth song)

Mary Jane (Megadeth song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but does not appear ot be a notable single. I can see no reason to consider it notable, and can find no sources that talk of it in depth. Article contains original research. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable single Mbisanz (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable, non-charting single. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 14 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 Anarchy in the U.K.. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchy in the U.K. (Megadeth song)

Anarchy in the U.K. (Megadeth song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Despite being a single from a notable band, I cannot see why it should have its own article. I can find no reliable sources which talk about it in depth, and it does not appear to be particuarly notable in any way. Also, as a cover, is it not common practice to merge into the article about the original song anyway? J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Anarchy in the U.K.. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Anarchy in the U.K.. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Anarchy in the U.K.. If you want to Merge then do it or discuss at the article talk page not at AfD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if it is merged it should be merged into a Megadeath article and not into the song article. Ridernyc (talk) 10:40, 6 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 and redirect to List of Charmed episodes. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary Fiends

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

This is an article on a single episode of the notable television program Charmed. It is typical of all of the articles in Category:Charmed episodes:

• It contains no lede (most articles have a perfunctory lede, but a few are missing one altogether).
• It consists primarily of plot summary and trivia, with very little (if any) real-world context.
• The plot summary, lacking context, is useless to anyone not familiar with the program and with previous episodes.
• It references zero sources, let alone reliable third-party sources.

This AfD applies only to this single article; per Template:AfD footer (multiple), "...for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group." There was little point in going to the trouble of a mass nomination before seeing if deletion was feasible. Powers ^T 19:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One more note: most of these articles don't have talk pages, and those that do lack any WikiProject notices; I assume then that there is no WikiProject under whose jurisdiction these articles fall. If that is incorrect, I would be happy to notify the relevant WikiProject. Powers ^T 19:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT, very lacking in context, contains only trivia and plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:EPISODE. Contains nothing on critical reception or evidence of notability in the real world. Once trivia section and in-universe information is removed, the remaining infobox and plot summary do not really warrant an entire article. I would suggest expanding List of Charmed episodes into a separate list for each season and making each entry in the list more detailed (the information on guest stars, for example, is probably of some interest). --carelesshx _talk 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or Delete per nom. It's common practise to redirect non-notable episode articles, but since the articles are in such a poor state, there isn't much for possible later merging or transwikiing. Might as well be deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and/or redirect to List of Charmed episodes, per WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles, which says the solution to articles like this is to "consider merging or redirecting them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)" and to "avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research." Missing a lead section is not a deletion reason, as such a problem can be fixed, amazingly enough, by adding a lead section! Lack of context is solved by merging with articles which provide that context (or by providing such context in the lead section). Lack of sources is solved by providing sources, which undoubtedly exist: The Book of Shadows: The Unofficial Charmed Companion, The Book of Three, Totally Charmed: Demons, Whitelighters and the Power of Three, would certainly be places to look for detailed information about the series, in addition to primary sources such as the show itself and DVD commentary. DHowell (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Charmed episodes. There looks to be a sentence or two worth merging but probably not more than that. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as noted above. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connor Lee

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

British child actor, but not yet notable unfortunately, per: [11] Delete at this time. Lawrence Cohen 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable - no coverage outside of Emmrdale. --carelesshx _talk 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete at this time. Might be notable once he has more credits. TGreenburgPR (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, cute kid, but simply not notable enough at this time. Perhaps, as stated above, when he gets a few more credits under his belt. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 23:35, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Braden Walkes

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

Child actor, but not notable yet. See: [12]. Delete at this time. Lawrence Cohen 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom (see also http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2577886/ for lack of anything). --carelesshx _talk 19:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now. He'll be notable once he has more credits to his name. TGreenburgPR (talk) 05:10, 8 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bacchus-D

Bacchus-D (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article contains no assertion of notability to distinguish the page from any other generic energy drink. Does not pass WP:CORP, does not have sources independent of the subject. WLU (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:45, 5 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. Davewild (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy Webb (British actor)

Lucy Webb (British actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A young actor, who unfortunately is not notable enough for inclusion. See: [13] . Thanks, Delete. Lawrence Cohen 19:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as per nom. 3 years old!! Good grief. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nonnotable as a biographical figure, mainly because of her youth. Perhaps a brief mention at Jon Dingle would compensate for the deletion of this page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:18, 6 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 JoshuaZ (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layla and Logan Wheeler

Layla and Logan Wheeler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Young actors, not notable enough for inclusion. See: [14] and [15] - note that on the Logan Wheeler, there are a lot of hits, as its apparently a common name. Ignore all the bits related to World War I veterans, obviously. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 19:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Mbisanz (talk) 18:33, 13 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 JoshuaZ (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alyssa & Hannah Yadrick

Alyssa & Hannah Yadrick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Young actors, not notable enough for inclusion. See: [16] and [17]. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 18:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Mbisanz (talk) 18:35, 13 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Perrett

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

Not notable. Mdbrownmsw (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well represented in the popular press, including one story about his peers rating him as one of the top ten British psychologists. I added some references to the article. And his Google scholar citation results are very impressive. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: How prestigious are those awards that he received? --Smashville^BONK! 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Equally strong citation record in Web of Science: More than 100 journal articles garnering over 8000 citations in total, and an h-index of 46! Very impressive. The clearest case of "keep" that I have seen in any AfD debate. Article needs expansion, not deleting. --Crusio (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Fully meets WP:PROFTEST, the article just needs work to bring it out. ==Paularblaster (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. His 1994 article was major national news at the time. Far more than trivial passing coverage. If it were borderline, the quality of the article might be a concern and suggest merging, but he's had too much press to consider doing that. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. By the way, we have two articles, not connected to each other, closely related to the subject of Perrett's research: Koinophilia and Averageness. I've tagged them for a possible merge but would welcome more informed opinions. I mention it here in part because I think Perrett's article should link to one or both of them but in their disconnected state I'm not sure what the best way to link them would be. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep, obvious, per Crusio. (FWIW, against the merge suggestion, for reasons I will discuss elsewhere) Suggest link to Averageness, not Koinophilia. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:34, 6 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. With multiple appearances, and a young age at which to get a contract, they meet WP:BIO. 17:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olivia and Ava White

Olivia and Ava White (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unfortunately, these twins simply are not notable yet. Searches for each of their names return no substantial notability evidence. See: [18] and [19]. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as per nom and common sense. RMHED (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I did a google search and got several results. They have starred in several television shows which has met keep criteria for other AfD's. [20]. Olivia and Ava are currently contract players on Days of our Lives which is far more notable than what "kept" the Ashlee Holland article. CelticGreen (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you share the links and evidence of notability you found? Being contracted to a TV show isn't evidence of notability. Lawrence Cohen 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what has been decided in the past. Ashlee Holland was kept because of that. Her win on IWBASS gave her a contract and she got to keep her page. As for Olivia and Ava, you have to google them together. Here's the search results I got [21] CelticGreen (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional links that prove notability [22] Quote: Ava, along with her twin sister Olivia, is part of the youngest set of twins to be offered a contract for a daytime soap opera. Out of all the young children on soaps, they hold the distinction of being the youngest ever offered a contract. That's notable if you ask me. Yes, the article needs expansion, but it meets requirements to keep. CelticGreen (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is still awfully short on being notable, given their age and lack of additional independent coverage. Lawrence Cohen 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There were 300,000 hits on Google. Just because the article needs expanding doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. I found external links using the correct search terms. They starred in What about Brian, star currently on contract on Days of our Lives, and have other credits including Veronica Mars and Ghost Whisperer. Your search was limited which caused you to erroneously assume they were not notable. A search of their names without limitations yield a far larger result.CelticGreen (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Searching for their names without "quotes" yields a tremendous number of unrelated hits. Lawrence Cohen 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I search my way, you search yours. Regardless, I've stated my case and this is getting redundant. Their (google's) first pages include solely references to Olivia and Ava, together like the Olsen Twins, not individual. The article is also not about the individuals but the pair. Your search was flawed searching only one name and adding Days of our Lives. My search yielded what it did. Either way, I've said the last of this as at this time anything more will only be redundancy upon redundancy. CelticGreen (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep they have multiple television roles, a noted distinction of being on contract at a very young age, and a search does pull information to external sources including IMDB. IrishLass (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - They're notable. Tiptopper (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)