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 just as AfD was made, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maytableinc[edit]

Maytableinc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Youtube channel, no reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Coredesat 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rezon8 Living[edit]

Rezon8 Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet WP:Notability guideline. Appears to be vanity article. Definite WP:COI issues and questions. No hits on Google Book[1], Finance[2], News[3], searches. Yet when you do a Google Web search[4] I see a spam-like pattern PR campaign. I conclude that this Wikipedia article is part of that PR campaign. SaltyBoatr 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jonathan 01:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Mukadderat 21:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom, above. Bearian 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the references provided in the article are unconvincing, and in fact can't be pulled up. No references found in searching. Only opened in 2007, and does not appear to mee WP:CORP. -- Whpq 17:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete - company is subsidiary of Inzane LLC, all information provided is factual and relevent. rezon8living 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.71.146 (talk) [reply]

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

The 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. Coredesat 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Tronstad[edit]

Ole Tronstad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mayor of small place (pop 5,938), no big achievements outside of the field, so fails notability (see WP:AFDP). Punkmorten 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jonathan 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. 6,000 is quite a crowd. And longtime mayor, too. This encyclopedia has articles about rabbis with several dozen disciples. Mukadderat 21:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, please avoid it, it adds nothing to the debate. Opinions should always be founded in a relevant policy or guideline. In case you didn't read the link in the nomination, here's the relevant part: "Mayors of major cities have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty". Let's look at WP:BIO as well: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." - he fails. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." - no coverage shown. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone." - no such other reasons shown. Punkmorten 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All info here could be included in Inderøy article. Merge if there is a volunteer, but delete this unreferenced and therefore unprovable notable article Victuallers 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, WP:BIO. Bearian 00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable politician that fulfills all three base criteria (notablility expressed, followed lining people criteria and included non-trival coverage by reliable, third-party source). It further satisfies the criteria "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." This is because Tronstad has been a Mayor of Inderøy (a place of notable size) elected inn for a period that will total 12 years. A serch on among other places Sesam shows that Tronstad has been "written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Due to both his position as Mayor and as Chairman in Nord-Trøndelag Centre Party he receives multiple press coverage from a range of regional media, including articles concerned soley about him and his position (including winning the election in Inderøy and appointance of Chairman) and these articles are non-trivial, feature articles. Thus, Ole Tronstad fulfills all relevant criteria for in WP:Bio. Arsenikk 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Are you kidding? Mayor of a town of 6,000, good grief. WP:BIO. Are we now to have an article on every mayor of every small town. Inderøy is not "a place of notable size". Merge with Inderøy would maybe be OK. Herostratus 18:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Coredesat 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured music[edit]

Manufactured music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Manufactured bands" does get some ghits and seems to be a term that is close to emerging from being a neologism. But I don't think it's there yet, not to WP's standards at least. Otherwise, this article is completely a work of original research, and the best I can do to remove the OR is to scale this back to a dictdef. hateless 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like a series of interrelated neologisms with no clue as to where any of these come from. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This has been tagged for months and has seen no improvement. "Manufactured music" could mean a lot of things, from Muzak to Algorithmic composition. I agree that this is OR, and the details of how each of these bands were formed is a subject best left to the artists' individual articles.Torc2 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Blanchardb Jonathan 01:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 11:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the current article is unsubstantiated original research -- Whpq 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 pending discussion. Coredesat 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin (emulator)[edit]

Dolphin (emulator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable piece of software that does not have coverage in reliable sources, and will most likely never have anything besides self references to its official site. TTN 22:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN 02:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Anyone who knows anything about Game Cube emulators will instantly recognize Dolphin. As for notability see http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/gamecube/dolphin.html and http://www.vtemulation.net/emulators/ngc.php. Mdmkolbe 07:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I used to be quite big into the emulator scene. I did minor help on many of the more notable ones. Dolphin was instrumental in alot of the homebrew scene. NGEMU, a reputable next-gen emu news-source, has alot of info on this emulator. Smile Lee 12:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as well-known GC emulator. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - What reliable third party sources are published about this subject? RFerreira 08:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can find a few reviews on most emulator sites.. Therefore:

• Keep Since its the only good NGC emulator around Yzmo ^talk 13:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Close without comment Emulator articles in general are currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Video game emulator articles - proposed deletions. I see no particular reason for this AfD to be continued at this time while that discussion is in progress. Anomie⚔ 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I think the references given above show that the article passes WP:N so it can still be closed keep independent of how the discussion you reference turns out. Mdmkolbe 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Close without comment per Anomie. The status of emulator articles, including a possible merge or other change in the topic is under discussion at the moment. The two sides that have to be weighed against each other here are the obvious notability of the whole scene and topic, and many of the biggest players there, including Dolphin, to the dubious reliability of some sources involved. User:Krator (t c) 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - May as well let the project discussion deal with it. I'll let someone else close it. TTN 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Coredesat 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon balance[edit]

Weapon balance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Complete and utter original research by the looks of it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, seems to be entirely original research. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unreferenced, although the topic does seem important in gaming. Mukadderat 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Coredesat 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big_Hairy_Object[edit]

Big_Hairy_Object (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:Neologism WP:RS Stub category since April. A Google search reveals only a few pages, most of which are references to Wikipedia. Verdatum 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. However, if adequate sources are found, then merge with God object. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jonathan 02:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Minimal notability and no reliable sources. Does seem to be a neologism. Tim Ross·^talk 18:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into God object. Bearian 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Could you give some support for why you feel this way? -Verdatum 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as totally redundant to God object and introducing neologism without any sourcing to suggest it meets the notability guideline or to satisfy verifiability/no original research policies. If a good source could be found, then perhaps a brief mention on the God object page. Other than that, there's no new information here that you can't find anywhere else on the Wikipedia. mike4ty4 —Preceding comment was added at 09:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. delldot talk 07:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odyssey (herb strain)[edit]

In the interest of being thorough, we ought to consider this article as well which details an unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis like the others mentioned today. Delete. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced, notability unclear. Mukadderat 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. Waht i found is an eassy called 'A Cannabis Odyssey'.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced, single-line article about a non-notable strain of cannabis. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Based on a careful analysis of the arguments presented, I felt few of the reasons for deletion were compelling from a policy or guideline perspective, and many of the keep arguments were. Many brief comments citing a lack of notability for the article were unaware of the scope of coverage (local vs. national). Although an interesting comment was raised concerning International vs. United States bias, the fundamental question from this argument is: Do we remove content to counteract this bias, or do we attempt to improve coverage in other areas? It is an interesting question, but the location for this discussion is elsewhere. Coverage on a national level remains sufficient for WP:BIO.

Other notabilty concerns revolve around the notability of the target versus the event. As W.Marsh mentions, this can be solved by renaming.

Other arguments for deletion revolve around WP:NOT, particularly that Wikipedia is not a memorial or a news source. These arguments are compellingly refuted by John254's thoughtful commentary. The article does not function as a memorial to individual victims of a larger scale tragedy (cf. Virginia Tech Massacre). Contrast effects are important here when considering the scope and scale of events in real world terms. Neither has a compelling case been made for harm of living persons.

The arguments for keeping are consistent and center around the article's reliable and verifiable sources, and that the scale and scope of these sources confer notability per WP:N (at least to the event, if not the person herself). Although other arguments for keeping do cite articles on other dead white women, and this is apparently an argument that should be avoided according to some essays; the presence of these articles does indicate an overriding consensus for the inclusion of high profile murder victims should they pass the community-determined criteria for notability. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Sander[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Emily Sander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Notability not established, just another unfortunate murder. WWGB 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep A search for "Emily Sander" brings up 2000 or so results from recent news. This has captivated the attention of the American Midwest, appearing on many headlines of the largest newspapers, and becoming one of the most discussed murder cases this year. It greatly exceeds notability guidelines. EgraS 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Extensive nationwide US press coverage (754 plus articles on news.google.com right now) clearly demonstrates at least transient notability. Claim that at the moment she's not notable is ... silly. Georgewilliamherbert 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete Does not belong to wikipedia We cannot put each and every event into wikipedia. This one belongs to the sister project, wikinews. `'Míkka>t 23:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Under which speedy delete criterion? ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Lack of stated notablity. Being killed is not among claims for glory, just bad luck. There are plenty of obituaries to fill wikipedia with, just open the door. `'Míkka>t 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh we only need to follow the policies he happens to agree with, I think. --W.marsh 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Blatant disrespect duly noted again. `'Míkka>t 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Are these comments supposed to be some kind of threat? You're the one who's called me abusive and a POV pusher. I've merely pointed out your mistaken grasp of policy here and there. --W.marsh 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  CSD a7: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. Now, once again I am asking: please explain why she is notable? Besides being killed is news, but hardly a fame. `'Míkka>t 02:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  She is notable because of coverage by the Houston Chronicle, Associated Press and ABC News, which the article asserts, as well as the thousands of other news stories out there right now. Whether WP:NOT's concerns about long-term importance overrides that notability is impossible to determine right now without a time machine. --W.marsh 02:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki/Delete. This is a news story, not an encyclopedia article. Being a random white woman who is murdered is not notable. Resolute 23:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't transwiki to Wikinews. It operates under an incompatible licence. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep for now; this can be addressed sans drama later. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now We are not a news aggregation. If this is deemed as important a few months for now we can reconsider, when the drama dies down. --Doc^g 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage by unrelated Wikipedia:Reliable sources determines notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now per WP:NOT#NEWS, currently it's news, if importance shows in a few months, we have WP:DRV This is a Secret ^account 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia does not report the news. Mr.Z-man 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per my other comments... too soon to tell so it's just more pragmatic to generate a good article now if people want to write it than turn away editors for bureaucratic reasons then hope they're around in a year or whatever if this does turn out to be important "enough". --W.marsh 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And she is notable for what? For being killed? How many murder cases do we have in the world daily? All of them are in most reliable sources: police reports and court cases. Coming to court cases. Petty theft and wife battering are also recorded in these same reliable court sources. How would you like to have a wikipedia article for each reported wife batterer? 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs)

Drop your uncivil tone Mikkalai, it's not helping you or your case any. — Save_Us_229 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teach your buddies manners first. What exactly uncivil in my text? `'Míkka>t 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'll hope you also realize that court transcripts and police reports are primary, not reliable, sources. The comparison doesn't hold. Someguy1221 00:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes reliable they are. Please learn how primary sources are used in wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know how they're used. I just hope that you know they don't prove notability, and they aren't used as sources for BLP information (the perp, for that part). Someguy1221 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can be reliable Mikkalai, but they are not prefered over news sources. If you had nothing but primary sources and it was fair quailty it might be acceptable, but secondary sources are far prefered over things like court transcripts and police reports, which are hardly anything to make an article out of. This individual was reported from multiple secondary sources, so your argument about police reports and court transcripts is moot. — Save_Us_229 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Many many independent news sources exist which established notability. Nobody of Consequence 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have an article on Natalee Holloway? Sometimes the level of media coverage makes someone notable. This person has 1,600+ Google news results at last count... I have no idea if they'll get the absurd level of coverage needed to justify long-term importance, nobody does. But "when in doubt, don't delete" was the foundation of deletion policy on Wikipedia... some of us still believe in that for the most part. Waiting a few weeks avoids needless drama here... --W.marsh 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because even two years after her disappearance she is STILL getting mentions in the media. Yes, she is not notable in her own right, but her disappearance and the lack of information regarding her disappearance has stayed in the media's eyes for two-and-a-half years now. will381796 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean we're in 2009 now. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, she disppeared in 2005, not 2007. — Save_Us_229 17:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's introduction paragraph: Emily Sander (1989 - 2007), was an 18-year-old American college student and nude model reported missing on November 23, 2007 and found dead six days later. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

will381796 was talking about Natalee Holloway's notability, not Emily Sanders.. — Save_Us_229 17:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deemed notable by a very long list of completely unrelated reliable sources, so not just an isolated news story. Someguy1221 23:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the keep reasons above. Notable subject. — Save_Us_229 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep as others -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete WP:NOTNEWS. She is only really notable for being a victim, I find this article and its focus on her nude modelling rather revolting, I'm very glad those disgracefully inappropriate categories have been removed. RMHED 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOT doesn't fall under speedy deletion criteria. — Save_Us_229 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ... And we're not censored, anyways. We have articles on notable porn stars, notable crime victims, and unfortunately Ms Sander appears to be both. Georgewilliamherbert 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, is any of her nude stuff still available? (I mean that on that level, for what I literally said, and nothing more, with no intended implications - I'd just like an answer).-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found some of it through Google Images, although many of the sites have taken it offline now.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Eventually it will have to be deleted anyway, and probably sooner rather than later. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Read 'Not Memorial: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. This is an individual who's murder has been published by secondary news sources and is written in a neutral point of view. So how does this article fall under 'Not Memorial' again? — Save_Us_229 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This woman's passing is her only claim to notability. So this article belongs in Wikinews, not Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - both sides are calling for a "speedy" conclusion. There's no need for that. There's obviously a debate here, so unless there's a violation of core policy do this very very slowly over 5 days.--Doc^g 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Mikkalai is blasting me for calling for a speedy conclusion, then calling for a speedy conclusion himself. --W.marsh 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep Open And Argue For A Long Time! Sorry, couldn't resist. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. I quote from the oft-cited WP:NOTNEWS: "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial". There appear to be substantial sources that likely establish notability per WP:BIO. I agree that a future analysis of the sources may be appropriate and a lack of any further coverage could merit deletion. A WP:NOT#MEMORIAL argument seems silly to me, as it clearly indicates that demonstrated notability trumps any "memorial" concerns. This article meets absolutely none of the speedy deletion criteria, so those are poor quality recommendations in my opinion. — Scientizzle 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wikinews & delete A sad story indeed, but odds are good that in a month this will be forgotten. She is not notable as a porn star & being murdered does not confer notability. will381796 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said above, Wikinews apparently uses a different license so we cannot transwiki there. --W.marsh 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At the moment, this has failed to establish itself as being more notable than any other murder. I don't disagree that there's potential there for this to become a drawn-out, tabloid-esque drama -- but it's not yet, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. The comparison to Natalie Holloway is a good example of how an article like this became significant enough to merit an article. If it becomes more significant in the future, great -- the content will be preserved in the logs. For now, it needs to go. Tijuana Brass 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy Delete This is news and as such belongs in wikinews. Who was Emily before she was killed? I'm not a rabid wikipedian. I don't know all the policies, etc. But as I read the article, the first thought I had was 'Why is this here?'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.56.191 (talk • contribs) — 24.23.56.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• This article does not meet any speedy deletion criteria by stretch of the imagination. — Save_Us_229 01:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, so I'm new around here and don't know all the policies. I've changed my comment to Delete'.

• Delete for now. Although I usually defend articles like this, it has only been in the news for a week and has a very high likelihood of fading from memory after the case is officially solved. Unless something big happens in the case, I would just chalk this up as another instance of missing white woman syndrome (maybe the proper place for mention of her).Sectryan 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had just about enough of political correctness. She is notable because she was in a small community which all came to protect one of their own, not due to race. Sure, some may not like the article, but Wikipedia reports on notable events and the high amount of media coverage more than exceeds the notability guidelines. Saying it should be deleted because of the supposed missing white women syndrome is the worst reason I have seen. EgraS 01:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, I could be persuaded to revisit this at a later date, but this story has gotten some national media coverage and could be considered at least marginally encyclopedic. Mikemoto, 01:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Georgewilliamherbert. Claiming that she isn't notable as of now...just silly, as GWH said. Jonathan 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for now. Let the tide settle, and see if WP:PSEUDO applies. Certainly there are reliable sources, but whether a biography is merited is dubious right now. Also, anyone suggesting a speedy delete does not understand the speedy deletion criteria.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the speedy delete criteria, I'm just applying WP:IAR in this case. The article isn't encyclopaedic, it adds nothing of value, it is a relatively minor news story about a murdered young woman. Its creation in my opinion does more harm than good. RMHED 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What harm will it do? EgraS 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep An example of posthumous notability that meets WP:N as of now per above , which also means the future as well which is covered in the section WP:N#TEMP, saying she wasn't notable before death has no bearing. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 02:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) change to relist at a later date see below.[reply]
• Speedy Keep per national media coverage. --Born1913 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)— Born1913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• speedy delete This is a 2 week story. If she had not posed online we wouldn't be talking about her. I do not mean any disrespect, but that is reality.May she RIP. Historystudent2010 02:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats a pretty moot point. There are plenty of articles that are 1 day old articles about news on Wikipedia about today. Her being a porn star doesn't even make any relevance as to the main reason she has an article. — Save_Us_229 03:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep so far, the details appear slightly more sensational than the Dru Sjodin case, but there were some notable repercussions from that case, at least in North Dakota. This may turn out to be a case of a young woman who made some unfortunate choices and suffered some consequences that others in her position haven't, but at this point, it's equally possible that there may be some lasting cultural shifts because of her unfortunate death. I'm willing to give accurate and impartial updates to the page benefit of doubt until this has matured another few weeks.

joshschr 03:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find the article, it appears to have been replaced with a breaking news story/memorial? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 03:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - My reasons are given on the talk page. Basically I wish it wasn't notable, but it is, so it stays. Manning 03:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that

  A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

  The extensive media coverage of Emily Sander in multiple reliable sources cited in Emily_Sander#Notes clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. While WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is often misinterpreted to imply that "subjects whose notability is derived solely from the manner of their deaths are not notable for Wikipedia's purposes", the plain language of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clarifies its purpose

  Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

  Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues^[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of Emily Sander cited in Emily_Sander#Notes would therefore suggest that this person is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence.

John254 03:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This has been covered massively in the news media and is about as notable as notable can get. AfD has no merit. Nobody of Consequence 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability WWGB 04:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we supposed to wait months and years before writing an article? This logic is a misinterpretation of the Notability policy. A short-term burst would be a couple days. This has been going on for over a week and has been covered by major news sources on a national level. Nobody of Consequence 17:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. Although having a brief appearance in the news, the subject is not encyclopedic. --Strothra 04:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - add it to wikinews. --Philip Laurence 04:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I really have to say that this "missing white women" has gotten out of control. Most of the population of the USA is white, and so is the percentage of missing persons. By simple population, there will be more coverage of whites. It is another weapon used by black supremists to destroy MLK's dream of equality. Today, one has to be pro-black in order to be "non-racist". How ironic. EgraS 05:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally the last person to argue for political correctness in any sense, however, this is actually a real thing. While I believe that none of these cases are ever worthy of national level media attention, the media does focus on missing white females far above and beyond missing black women. Not only this, but white and black males are both underrepresented by coverage.[5][6] The focus is far more heavily weighted toward middle class white women. The total number of missing women reported in the media at all is far lower than the national total which means that we already know that the media chooses what cases to broadcast based on their ratings potential.[7] There is a connection between racial representation in the media and its viewing. Most people who watch the television news are the white middle class, thus, the media is going to cater to that audience plain and simple - that's called business.[8][9] --Strothra 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So, if she is currently presumed "notable" because of all the media coverage that is taking place right now, how much time must pass from the last media mention before she is no longer "notable?" She can't be "notable" forever simply because the media sensationalizes for a couple of weeks the fact that she was a porn star that just happened to get murdered. will381796 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I note that per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If third party reliable sources treat a topic as notable by providing significant coverage of it, we should not be second-guessing that determination. John254 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can verify that people who have obituaries in the local newspaper are dead, and I can find local news sources the find out whether or not they were murdered. Simply because I can verify these facts does not mean I should write an article about each of them. The fact that this woman has attained temporary notability due to the media's current focus on her death doesn't mean she warrants inclusion. This woman's death will sadly be forgotten by most people in a month. will381796 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "obituaries in the local newspaper" are not news coverage. The extensive media coverage of Emily Sander in multiple reliable sources cited in Emily_Sander#Notes is quite different from the coverage described in the hypothetical example. Furthermore, with regard to speculations relating to how long Emily Sander's notability will persist, I note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We should not countenance the deletion of articles on the basis of conjectural interpretations of future notability. John254 06:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as others make crystal ball predictions that she will be remembered in "100 years". So back to my original question: how much time must pass without any additional media coverage before she is no longer notable? I mean, her death has had no far-reaching implications (as of yet). She wasn't murdered by anybody notable. She wasn't even notable as a porn star. So if this is simply a young woman who was murdered and had her murder sensationalized, there must be a point at which we can say "she is no longer notable enough for inclusion." will381796 06:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Far better decisions are made at AFD when we apply objective standards of notability such as the general notability guideline -- which, as described previously, Emily Sander clearly meets -- than when the decision to retain or delete articles turns on the entirely subjective basis of whether a sufficiently high percentage of editors happen to regard the articles' subject matter as important. John254 06:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N#TEMP : "A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This media coverage has only been taking place for the past 7 days. I think this qualifies as a "short burst of present news" and as such DISQUALIFIES her as meeting the guidelines of notability.will381796 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's considered the sentence quoted, emphasizing the language "does not necessarily constitute objective evidence..." This implies that "a short burst of present news coverage" could "constitute objective evidence of long-term notability", just "not necessarily". In this case, the news coverage provided in Emily_Sander#Notes is sufficient to a establish a presumption of her notability per the general notability guideline. The burden of proof then shifts to the editors supporting deletion of the article, to show, on the basis of a solid policy or guideline based rationale, sufficient in strength as to override the previously described presumption of notability, that Emily Sander is not notable anyway (and not just "not necessarily" notable). John254 06:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable person. Will be noteworthy of coverage, even in 100 years; clearly passes guidelines. The Evil Spartan 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From WP:N : "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Massive short-term media coverage does not confer notability just like a lack of media coverage following a long period of media coverage does not remove notability. will381796 06:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If we were to accept conjectural predictions of future non-notability, as asserted by many editors supporting deletion, projections of future notability would be no less valid. John254 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to conjecture about the future. She's one of the more notable kidnapping deaths in the United States this year. This type of person is already notable, and by the information about this death will be notable in 60 years simply because it was notable now. The Evil Spartan 06:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Your very argument above, "Will be noteworthy of coverage, even in 100 years," is pure conjecture substantiated in nothing. --Strothra 06:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that everybody that has received this kind of media coverage in the past has ended up being notable in the future. And again, the person passes WP:BIO with flying colors; just because the person is dead doesn't mean we should throw it out as a memorial. The Evil Spartan 07:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Memorial (Quentin X 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• From the 'Not a Memorial' section: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Please point out the section that does this anymore than any other deceased individual.. — Save_Us_229 09:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Even if she wasn't murdered, she was still somewhat of a popular porn star. But either way I think this passes all the guidelines. 75.8.36.194 06:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC) — 75.8.36.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• She fails to meet the WP:N guidelines for a notable pornographic actress. will381796 06:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the only thing she's notable for though. This article is primarly about the subject, the subject is notable as being a pornographic actress and being murdered and the murder recieving national attention. — Save_Us_229 07:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was she notable as a porn actress when her website was only operational for a matter of weeks? --Strothra 07:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She had 30,000 subscribers paying $40 a month. That is clearly notable. EgraS 07:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know those numbers are notable? Do we have subscription statistics of other comparable pornographic websites? Is this number average, below average, or above average for these websites? Without that information, one cannot know if 30,000 is a notable figure. For instance, a community little league team might have a fanbase of 500 which, on the surface, seems like a lot of people. However, when compared to a minor league team which might have a fan base of about 15-20,000 it is not notable at all. --Strothra 07:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, clearly notable based on major news coverage. Everyking 07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The case has attracted wide and significant coverage ensuring that there is plenty of material to write an article on. Capitalistroadster 08:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newsworthy doesn't equal encyclopedic notability. It's very sad, but in a year, no one but her friends and family are going to remember her. This is only headline news, because one detail, which police are arguing is irrelevant to her murder, involves nude modeling. I'd be willing to change to keep, if someone could argue what she's done that is notable besides taking some nude pics and being murdered. AniMate 08:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- since I am certain the closing admin will respond with "the result was no firm judgement made" (meaning we're just flapping our gums), I'll be an asshole and say this: can we find some free-license dirty shots from her secret career? Guroadrunner 08:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be an asshole in response, but your not going to be putting dirty shots of this individual on her article, which is mostly about her death. We already have an image of her, and that is enough. We don't even try and find free-license images of pornstar's dirty images in general, and even if we did, we wouldn't plaster them all over the articles. If your looking for a porn site I suggest you get off Wikipedia because were not going to go looking for material for your amusment, especially of the deceased. — Save_Us_229 08:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blatant anti-necrophilia remark. Attempted WP:POINT. (Actually, I just find it funny you took my post seriously) Guroadrunner 11:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny that you thought you were funny to begin with, because you weren't. — Save_Us_229 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ****s don't belong on wikipedia.--Tripsones 08:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC) — Tripsones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Neither do you. — Save_Us_229 08:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Wait a few weeks, then decide I changed my mind. If it is in national news it doesn't hurt to have an article. If it is still news in a month, we've got the article in place. If it isn't news in a month, the deletionists can have their crack. Delete latest entry in the white chick of the month club SchmuckyTheCat 08:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I must have forgotten Wikipedia:No missing white females policy. Are you actually going to be citing a policy cause I'm sick of the non-reason reason's people are giving. — Save_Us_229 09:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this still gets press play in a month then recreate it. SchmuckyTheCat

Is there a month rule I don't know about? We have an article on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis that happened today. Are you telling me that we should wait a month to see if it should appear in the headlines a month from now and then it get an article? — Save_Us_229 09:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we ignore rules because we want to see long term signifigance. Hillary Clinton is a much larger issue than another dead white girl. The "wait a month" thing is just an arbitrary cooling off period to see that the issue needs to be remembered. If there is still press about it in a month, or if gets EVEN BIGGER during the week, I'll back you 100% to keep it. Wait and see, that's what I'm saying. SchmuckyTheCat

That hostage crisis doesn't have any "historical" or "long-term" notability either. It will be forgotten in the same sense that this case will. Nevertheless, they are both quite notable and appropriate subjects for articles because they have far surpassed the level of press coverage necessary to demonstrate that they are considered significant. Everyking 04:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep - this the existance of the hostage crisis as an article on Wiki is irrelevant to this discussion. --Strothra 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coverage from major news outlets. Lugnuts 10:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of reliable sources so article can exist, potential to redirect to a non biography article. Catchpole 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Tragic as this murder is, it is a news story pure and simple. The victim is not famous/notorious to any degree, and does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. User:Bazmchat 15.01, 1 December 2007
• Delete and place a soft redirect to the appropriate Wikinews article. When we have some indication of long-term significance (as opposed to ZOMG! Dead girl is teh pr0n star!) then we can think again. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes I am the one who began this article but I started it because I believed it deserved to be here. This article already got a speedy keep. The story has been covered by major news media and Sander was known before the murder. It is definitely notable. It's true that not every death gets national coverage, which is why every death or even murder is not in Wikipedia. Sometimes a murder doesn't even get reported in a major newspaper that covers the area where it occurred. But this death did get national coverage and is still getting it. As I'm writing this, this discussion is 37 kilobytes long--and it only began less than 24 hours ago. While that is not an official reason to keep the article, it certainly shows that people are interested in this story! Toyalla 16:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, it's an indicator that people actually check the list of current AfD's. Also, note that the speedy keep was for this exact deletion discussion, but the decision was speedily overturned. --Strothra 16:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many articles listed in AfD that got five or six comments in an entire week. This has gotten dozens in less than a day. That's a bit different, I think. Toyalla 16:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I know it's not required, but it would be nice if whoever tags an article for deletion follow the suggestion which is included with the tag "4. Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing (a notice--I removed the command symbols so it wouldn't mess up this page) on their talk page(s)." I wasn't notified, and as the beginner of this article it would have been nice. :-) Toyalla 16:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is certainly recommended that people nominating an article for deletion notify the creator and major contributors, but I highly recommend that you watchlist articles you have created or that you are otherwise interested in. Besides AFD nominations there is vandalism and unwise or POV revisions to be dealt with, and those persons will rarely notify you they have sandalized or butchered the article you created or edited. Edison 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this AfD has gained more attention than any of the previous 500, and I checked every one. This alone shows that it is noteworthy, and that there is significant enough interest to merit keeping the article. EgraS 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, insufficient notoriety. If this article is to stand then there appears to be virtually no criteria for entry. Regretable circumstances but emotion is not the rule here. Richard Avery 17:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is silly. Look at the list of references in this article! I don't really edit much anymore, but I feel I must support what is right in this case. Every time something like this happens, we get the people who want to "respect the dead" by deleting articles about them, or people who think someone covered by multitudes of reliable third party sources aren't notable because its "just another case of a dead white woman". What if someone were to say Emmett Till was just another case of a dead Black person? He's black and he was murdered, but the fact that he was murdered and covered in the news media is what made him notable (his importance to the equality movement came later). Otherwise, he was just a regular teenage black kid, same as anyone else. Racism on Wikipedia is one of the reasons I haven't edited in ages. Sander's race has absolutely nothing to do with her notability, which is clearly established. TheQuandry 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The fact that articles exist for other high-profile murder victims (Natale Holloway, Sandra Levy, some of the more well-achieved victims of high-profile disasters, etc) means that, if a murder case makes national news, it's fair game for an article. Death can and does render people famous and/or relevant. Wikipedia has an inherently democratic nature to it, so if it's something people are sincerely interested in reading about (and clearly they are) then it should stay until the case becomes trivial due to passage of time. Wikipedia is intended to be a reference for people to look up information on topics of interest; she is currently a topic of interest, and I'm sure her Wiki article has received MANY hits, so it should stay on if, for nothing else, for the mass public interest in the case- even if people are only interested in the fact that she was an online nude model. But hey, most high-profile cases gather attention because someone involved was wealthy or beautiful or otherwise sordidly interesting. There are murders and disappearences every day that hardly get a tagline in local newspapers. A story or a person is only as important as the mass public perceives it to be. This case is perceived to be of importance, so it should stay until that's no longer the case and nobody's bothering to search for or read the article anymore. --71.235.157.226 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)— 71.235.157.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete: As many people are saying, we'll have to do this anyway three months down the road. Subject has zero notability beyond that, as Guy aptly phrased it, "ZOMG, she did p*o*r*n!! ... and there is nothing suggesting that this is a "high-profile case" beyond that this is the Scandalous Sweet Young Thing Murder of the week.  RGTraynor  21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think most articles are truly interested in finding the suspect, and have only mentioned her career as a porn star as an afterthought. It is her death that has attracted far more attention. As a poster mentioned above, this has achieved notability now, and is far too important to not be included.

• Relist at a later date: Come on people, are we actually gonna get consensus by putting this up now? Let's wait a month or two for the flurry to die down, then we can actually see if this merits an article. Wizardman 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It clearly meets every definition on this site for notability. EgraS 04:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Wannabe porn star gets picked up (or picks up someone) in a bar, leaves with him and gets killed. Where's the notability in that? Cut through the titillation and the voyeuristic element and it is just another sad case of a young life cut short. Let's try to elevate Wikipedia above the level of The National Enquirer. Krford 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Changing to Rename - see below.[reply]

• I detect some animosity there toward Sander. This news has been reported by almost every major newspaper, even in the headlines such as in the Houston Times. EgraS 04:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Death of Emily Sander or Murder of Emily Sander. I now agree that this case has too much attention to be deleted. I still believe that Sander herself is not notable; it is the circumstances of her death that have achieved notability. Krford (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can see both perspectives, but this is maybe covered by WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events[...] Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." I think only the loosest assessments of "historical notability" could sway for inclusion here.Brokethebank 23:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This news has occupied the mind of the entire Midwest. It will be mentioned again and again in the future, just like Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson. EgraS 04:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since the event has national news coverage in multiple reliable sources—this is our objective standard for inclusion. Not to mention the extra notability for her pornography career! — brighterorange (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The murdered individual was not notable prior to her unfortunate death and fails WP:BIO. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Delete because Wikipedia is not a memorial site for the unfortunate deaths of young people. A brief flurry of news articles following a violent crime clearly shows that the crime is newsworthy but not necessarily that it has the notability needed to justify a permanent place in an encyclopedia. In any event, articles such as this should be titles "Murder of Emily Sanders" because it is the crime which has the news coverage, not the 18 year old woman. Before her death she was clearly not notable as a nude model. Edison 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with you there. First of all, no news source has confirmed that she was murdered, although it is confirmed she's dead. And the number of news articles has stayed relatively constant since she disappeared. This case is not going away, and has attracted increased attention even as this proposed deletion is being discussed. The entry is no memorial, rather it does have all the hallmarks of an article. EgraS 04:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have one response for everyone who's called this a case of the supposed missing white women syndrome. First, the "syndrome" itself is disputed. Second, even if it were true, it's not Wikipedia's job to delete articles because of it. It is only Wikipedia's function to create articles that, like Sander, has gained notability. And because of the "syndrome" or not, this has gained far more fame than most murders. The press and perhaps the people have determined the importance of the subject. Therefore, it must be kept. EgraS 05:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2. I think you need to chill out for a while. You have already made over 60 posts on this topic in less than two days. Stop trying to dominate the debate, and give others some credit for independent thought. WWGB 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MWWS is a scar on this site more than any other article. You will not shut me up for opposition to this arbitrary "syndrome". EgraS 07:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

• Keep without prejudice. First, the subject is clearly verifiable, since there are multiple citations. Given that there is significant attention in the media, I think that - at least currently - she meets the notability criteria. Note that 1) I consider the nomination good faith, so a speedy keep is inappropriate, and 2) my "without prejudice" comment means that this debate may warrant being revisted in the future (six months? a year?) to determine whether she is still notable. —C.Fred (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the verifiability thing is obviously a non-issue and I do believe this person is notable per WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 08:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. --Tom 14:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Other high profile murder victims, such as Natale Holloway, receive full, detailed articles. There is sufficient national news coverage on this incident that it can be on par with other cases on Wikipedia. Per other comments above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Under which of the Wikipedia:Speedy keep criteria is this article eligible for a speedy keep? It clearly fails #1 and #4, it fails #2, and no evidence has been presented for #3. —C.Fred (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as it is more acceptable to Wikinews. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist at a later date: per Wizardman. this is a valid debate, but there isn't going to be a consensus right now. should be closed as no consensus (without prejudice) at the end of this process .▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 17:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to Death of Emily Sander. She is not notable; but her death (and possible murder) is. BlueValour 20:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with this course of action more than simply keeping this article. It is, afterall, her death that has gained the media's attention and not her actions while she was alive. She alone is non-notable. will381796 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete: not encyclopedic topic. The person has no personal notability. Sometimes murders become landmark cases: precedents of Law, request in parliament/congress, etc. This one is a piece of sad, but merely newspaper news. Mukadderat 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have Wikinews for a reason. It was made for things that have brief spurts of coverage but no long-term historical significance. It'd be ok to recreate this if sources still talk about this six months or a year down the line. Spellcast 21:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Multiple (hundreds of) non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, so clearly notable. As always, notability on Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't personally think she should have become notable, because her murder is not particularly unique or exceptional, but the fact remains that she has become notable, because the rest of the world does not ask my permission before deciding what to take note of. So therefore, we should have an article on it. --Delirium 22:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a news source. This would be appropriate for Wikinews, but not for here. Nothing that shows the person is notable (the case may not even be notable as there is no evidence it caused any major changes in existing policies). The sources are about the case, not the person; notability is not inherited. --Coredesat 22:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that more an argument to move to a Murder of Emily Sander article than to delete this one? We generally don't delete and start over whenever someone suggests a new pagename. --W.marsh 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The case itself may not be notable. All the sources are incidental. --Coredesat 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1,700 publications incidentally carried articles about the topic? As if by accident? Incidental coverage means they were writing about something else but happened to mention this in passing... it's hard to fathom that 1,700 articles about this topic only ever mentioned it in passing and were actually about other things. Also you say "may", what ever happened to "when in doubt, don't delete" - founding element of our deletion policy? --W.marsh 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A quote from the AP written in December 30th's edition of the San Antonio Express News: "Sander's case drew wide attention after it was revealed that she appeared nude on a popular adult Website under the name Zoey Zane." Her story was not important enough for mentioning in the news until the media caught wind of the COMPLETELY UNRELATED fact that she was also a wanna-be porn star. Sex sells, hence why all the media coverage. She is still, on her own, not a notable person. will381796 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like to think inclusion isn't just about picking the stories we would have reported on if we were newspaper editors. We aren't, and only including WP articles on topics we think deserved the coverage they got leads straight to bias. --W.marsh 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This case wasn't important to the media before the porn issue came to light. We're not being biased; if this is what the sources say, then the case was definitely not notable before this rather insignificant detail was found. --Coredesat 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it's not biased to exclude an article just because it is related to porn? That sounds exactly like bias. --W.marsh 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody is saying "exclude her because she's related to porn." We're saying that she was a non-notable porn star who just happened to get murdered. She wasn't important enough for the media to focus all of their attention on until it came to light that she was in porn. The AP even admits that it wasn't until her "secret life" became known that she got all of the attention. Then...all of a sudden...she's all over the news. Doesn't this sound like news sources publishing something they think will sell papers and get viewers? will381796 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are aware the article is titled 'Emily Sander', not 'Murder of Emily Sander', correct? The fact that she is more notable because of her involvement in pornography is a pretty explicit argument to keep the article, not to delete it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And you are aware that WP has guidelines for what makes a pornographic actor or actress notable, right? She fails those guidelines. Being a non-notable pornographic actress who was unfortunately (and as of right now completely un-relatedly) murdered still makes you non-notable. Should it develop that her relation to porn was related to her death, then fine. That's different. But as of now its completely un-related. will381796 07:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Those sub-guidelines exist to establish conditions under which we can assume notability without the subject's obviously passing the general notability guideline. Failing to satisfy the specific conditions for its subject type does not negate the subject's notability if it still qualifies under the general notability guideline. Indeed, you'll notice that all of the sub-guidelines include the nutshell of WP:N. Someguy1221 08:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so we can be clear, you're saying that she would have a greater claim to notability if she received all this attention as a murder victim who wasn't a porn star? Being a porn star invalidates the press coverage that would ordinarily establish notability, because we have to factor in the media's motives for reporting a story (sex sells)? The point is that she received a high degree of attention from the media, not who she was or what she did to receive that attention. For our purposes it is utterly irrelevant if the media took note of this story because there was a porn aspect involved; the attention is what matters, not the reason for the attention. We cannot judge what is and what is not notable based on our opinion of people's motives for caring about it. Everyking 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'm saying she'd have NO notability whatsoever (as the media was not focusing ANY attention on this young woman until it was discovered she was also a porn star). She's notable because of her death. I sadly understand the reality of our society and see that a murder, while tragic, isn't anything out of the ordinary or worthy of great national coverage. I don't care if she was a stipper, a porn star, worked at Jack-in-the Box or was unemployed. Had she not died, then at this time she would not yet be notable per WP:BIO. Had she not been a porn star, she wouldn't have had her death so sensationalized by the media. But who am I to argue with "guidelines?" I hold "GoogleNews" source counts with great skepticism. I believe that many of the "thousands" of media mentions are simply regurgitations and re-prints of AP articles. Obviously the interpretation of others so far outweighs my interpretation. But thankfully I have more important things to do than go and "count the number of independent sources." I'm glad to see that notability is now simply a matter of the amount of media coverage. No historical significance need be analyzed whatsoever. It is great to see where WP has gone in the few months since I was last active in AfD. Whatever. I am trying my best to abide by WP:DGAF. will381796 07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment are these "1700 sources" all different? Or are 90% just a copy of a newswire report used in different newspapers? Mr.Z-man 23:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to tell with Google News but many are different stories [10] WP:N only specifies multiple, it doesn't say 2,000+ or something. --W.marsh 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Keep now/Delete later". This is all over the news so it makes sense to keep this as long as there is coverage/investigation being done. But after it's all over, no one's going to care anymore, so delete it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flytrap (talk • contribs) 03:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ravenna1961 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But this isn't a news report or a memorial. It's an actual article. Nobody of Consequence 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Delirium, also this meets notability requirement definitely! I actually came here because i saw something on the news and wanted to see if there was an article and there is clearly one. the subject meets WP:N. saying article should be delete because she wont be covered later on in the press is crystal balling. Elbowdrop 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable when she was alive, not notable as a dead person either. All she did was post nude pics on the internet and get murdered, and it's not like that doesn't happen to thousands of other people every year. Move to wikinews. --carelesshx _talk 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first time I've heard of a hot chick posing for pics nude then getting murdered after a few months... --Howard the Duck 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Widely reported. If you people still want to make this article not about the person, retitle it to "Murder of Emily Sander" like what was applied on "Disappearance of Madeleine McCann". (Heck we even have Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann...) --Howard the Duck 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not the job of Wikipedia to decide why something's notable, only that it is. Hundreds or thousands of news accounts certainly makes it notable. And we can't call this "Murder of Emily Sander" because it's not been announced that she was murdered--the cause of death hasn't even been released yet. Binky The WonderSkull 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - which is why I suggested Death of Emily Sander and it can be moved to Murder of if/when it is confirmed. BlueValour 23:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, Death of Emily Sander is an acceptable title for me. --Howard the Duck 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The strongest case of notability has been made for her death...not herself as a person. will381796 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually about her murder, with her online activity detailed in a shorter section. Nevertheless, deleting this article would be tantamount to violating WP:N so renaming it won't be that much of a problem. --Howard the Duck 08:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some research and the nearest recent parallel that I can find is Murder of Meredith Kercher. If we can get consensus for this page to be moved then it would need restructuring (which I am happy to do) involving removing the bio infobox, changing the cats and rewriting the lead. A summary of the bio would then conveniently go as a reference section at the end. BlueValour (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the designer of her site said "She actually was one of the highest-climbing Web sites I had ever seen. It was amazing; it was incredible." That should help establish her notability. Nobody of Consequence 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, the designer of a website saying how great it is is like a PR firm saying how good their clients' products are. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He wasn't actually talking about how great the site was, he was talking about how popular the site was. He doesn't atand to gain anything more anyway, particularly since he took her photos down (whereas he could have left them up and probably become hugely wealthy.) Nobody of Consequence 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN person --Cjs56 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She's notable in two ways: she's a (presumed) murder victim whose death led the news across America, and she's an internet celebrity. We have articles for hundreds of each of those. The fact that the two things are related doesn't diminish the significance of either.--Mike Selinker 01:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"internet celebrity" you are kidding, right?? --Tom (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Simply put, she has no historical importance.68.244.95.182 07:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is almost certainly going to closed as no consensus, but we could try for another AfD in a month's time when less people care about the article's subject.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most representative decision is going to come at the time when more people care about it. It certainly should not be renominated in only a month; that's a classic recipe for deletionists getting rid of something after it falls off of most people's radar screens. If this is closed as keep or no consensus, the issue should not be raised again for a considerable length of time. Everyking (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If it falls off radar screens, that would mean that people don't really care as much as all of that. As it is, I note that this supposedly highly notable case has already dropped off the media's radar screens.  RGTraynor  14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The danger in a subsequent nom is that people who care about the subject may have become sparse, leaving the outcome in the hands of group of deletionist-leaning AfD regulars who are not interested in the subject itself, but merely in "pruning" Wikipedia's content. Such a nom would be nowhere near as representative as the current nom. It is irrelevant whether or not the story remains in the media at the present time; it has already achieved its notability, which lasts forever. Everyking (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE - A 100 people are murdered everyday in the U.S., and how many world wide? Are you going to start an article for every person murdered in the world everyday? 4.240.201.1 (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, just the ones that satisfy the notability guideline. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While it's sad that a girl has died, it really is non-notable (although her family and friends would, of course, disagree). This is purely a local news story (it certainly hasn't made it to the UK). -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. [11] Not the greatest source, but there you go. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even barring the mention in the Sun provided above, this is actually a national news story, not a local one. The AP and newspapers across the country have covered it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know about the UK, but this story has been reported in the United States, Mexico, and even Canada (see the current version of the article for a Canadian source). That makes it international. Besides, where does it say notabily mean it has to be an international story? Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. She died. That is only local news. Nothing special. People are killed every day. Metal Head (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not a local story, it's a national story. And people are notable if they fulfill WP:N, which this person does based on the many reliable third-party references. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Different outcome in different articles. Lansing Bennett was a CIA employee who was murdered by a Pakistani gunman on a rampage to kill CIA employees. There was international news coverage, not just US coverage. The article was deleted (but some of the content merged). The Baby Grace article Riley Ann Sawyers is another murder but this has not been selected for AFD. For now, I am not mentioning if I think this is a delete or keep because of my involvement in the Lansing Bennett debate. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't believe the Lansing Bennett comparison is significant, as Emily Sander's death was not part of some larger story. If it fit clearly into some other article, I don't think there would be much discussion here. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what to think but as I've just said whilst looking at the Meredith Kercher article, it's a depressing prospect that sensation lovers are leading an encyclopedia by the nose. Allowing the media to determine what is and isn't notable is a bad joke.... I bet we wouldn't be having this arguement if it was an ugly middle aged man who had been murdered. I think that WP needs to establish a specific guideline - I've no idea how to go about it. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is a well-presented article with numerous reliable references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the problem with establishing a guideline is that there would be no consensus on it. Since even this fairly obviously significant article is contested, what will we agree on? Decision from a random number table? DGG (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I think think some of the comments on this board are blatantly disrespectful to victims of crimes. Yes Ms. Sander is not the first victim of a crime. Her story is told over and over again in the murders of women everywhere. Besides Children women are the most victimized in society. My wife and three daughters are growing up in a world where Males seem to have horrible control issues. This story was important and continues to be important but not for the reasons most people seem to hang on to. The fact this young lady posed nude on the internet should not be the focus. Yes it probally was a mistake but not one she should die over. This case should stay a topic until the killer is brought to justice. Perhaps not such a big story as it is now but a story none the less. I just hope the porn star accusations will go away. Despite what others may think Emily was not a porn star. She was no more a porn star than a playboy plamate. No one calls those girls porn stars. We live in a world of hypocrites. They call Emily a porn star in the press and go in their own homes and hotels and watch porn movies behind closed doors. Shame on society. Emily was a human being and did not deserve her fate. Good Day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.15.221 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is neither a memorial nor a soapbox. Mr.Z-man 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent dictator[edit]

Benevolent dictator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:N nor WP:V. Article appears to be WP:OR and WP:NPOV and this seems to already be adequately covered in Dictator#.22The_benevolent_dictator.22. Collectonian 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A worthy topic for Wikipedia, but unreferenced; probably the best course of action is to redirect to Dictator (little content to merge). - Mike Rosoft 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect Will ^(talk) 22:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Philosopher king. Both concepts have the same origin and are similar in many ways, and "Philosopher king" is more notable. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 15:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but where? Blanchardb's Philosopher king idea would fit, but would require a good deal of effort. Dictator or even Enlightened absolutism might be easier. Tim Ross·^talk 18:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Content is unsourced and posibly personal opinion, so a merge would be inappropriate. No opinion on a redirect afterwards. Someguy1221 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rearrange with splits and moves. The software term Benevolent Dictator for Life is up for deletion also: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benevolent Dictator for Life (2nd nomination). Ideas in my order of preference (same as I posted on the other AfD, but from this article's perspective):
  1. Idea 1: Merge the state government (non-software) parts of Benevolent dictator — at least those that aren't WP:OR or non-WP:NPOV — into Enlightened absolutism or a section of Dictator. Then move/merge Benevolent Dictator for Life and remaining software part of Benevolent dictator into a new Benevolent dictator (software development) and make Benevolent dictator an disambig for the software and state meanings.
  2. Idea 2: Same as above, but with software stuff merging into Lead programmer, if appropriate, instead of having its own article. Make Benevolent dictator a disambig to explain the Lead programmer and Enlightened absolutism/state Dictator meanings.
  3. Idea 3: Keep Benevolent dictator and merge Benevolent Dictator for Life into it.

--Closeapple 10:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep With minimal effort I just added three references for the use of this term. This article should be kept for no other reason the last section on the model of software development. However this term is widely used in america and quite notable as it is used even in major news sources. So it's plenty notable see the New York Times. The tone looks fine to me, also, not full of jokes or anything. And as for deleting unsourced article, I hope we editors can try and find some sources before saying it is unverifiable, it's just as easy to fix/edit/source an article as it is to nominate it for deletion which should be the last alternative. If it is somehow decided to merge, then it should be to Enlightened absolutism, which also obviously needs work.Earthdirt (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The popular use of "benevolent dictator" as a rough synonym of "Philosopher King" is probably worth documenting. However, I understood the term as a primary economic one. In neo-classical economics, it is convenient to consider groups of people (families, economies, etc) on aggregate in terms of one representative agent. However, this frequently doesn't make sense, Keith Arrow's impossibility thereom (on which there is a fairly good wikipedia article) being a formally proved version of the intuitive objection that groups often don't behave in the same way as individuals. The concept of the "benevolent dictator" was introduced by the economist Frank Ramsey as a way of sidestepping this objection, imagining a powerful individual (basically a stern father, since the unit initially under consideration was the family) whose individual preferences are imposed on the group, resolving any irrationalities in the conflicting aggregate preferences. I'm not really familiar with editing Wikipedia so I fear I'm violating your procedure/etiquette, but there's a frustrating lack of sources online (the best I found was this: http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue27/Harcourt27.htm) and I hoped you good wikipedians could remedy that. Cheers, Dave S 10:04, 05 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is noteworthy according to WP:N since it is often cited in the media as stated above and therefor will be looked up. It is also verifiable in the same way as "dictator" is per se, therefor WP:V is valid, too. — comment added by DyingGasp (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. nothing to merge as it's unsourced WP:NOR Secret ^account 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White House (Zork)[edit]

White House (Zork) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Zork game articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From the previous, as little to nothing has changed in the article since:

  "Delete. Within the Zork universe, the "White House" is quite notable; and as such I recommend the merging of any pertinent reliably sourced information into either Zork I or Zork. But it certainly does not meet the notability requirements for fiction. (03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC))"

  In the previous nomination, JJL (talk · contribs) suggested that Chuck's pilot episode might have referenced the White House. I have since seen that episode, and while it does reference Zork I, it does not reference any content within this article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any info into Zork that's not already there. This is a key location in the game. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this is an important piece of gaming history. 132.205.99.122 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sourceless. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent Dictator for Life[edit]

Benevolent Dictator for Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Self-given title applied to a single person with a mention of another person using it as his IRC nickname? I'm finding it hard to find its use as an IRC nickname notable at all, and Rossum's original use of the title does seem notable outside of his own article. Previously AfDed with Keep and suggestion of merging into The Cathedral and the Bazaar however, nothing in the article appears to relate to that, so reAfding as it is already covered with about the same breadth as Guido van Rossum. Collectonian 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Redirect to Guido van Rossum. If it is a psuedonym for the guy, it may as well redirect to him, right? I must say I'm quite confused by the contents of the previous AfD. -Verdatum 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this article is pure speculation, and if not anything else should be merged into the article related to the creator, not a seperate strand, related only to his nickname.Eastonlee 01:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment How is the article speculation? Dispite all it's failings, it is certainly properly citing references. -Verdatum 01:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Guido van Rossum. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 15:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Okay, I read the somewhat confusing AfD, I read the article, and I looked at each and every ref. There's nothing here. As far as I can tell, the term is used only *once* in any of the references in relation to to Guido van Rossum: "As long as the community recognises me as the BDFL (benevolent dictator for life) of Python, I have an effective veto right on any change proposals." That's it. The rest may mention the phrase "benevolent dictator" in some form or another, but don't seem to relate to Rossum. No notability to the so-called title at all. Not even worth merging in my opinion. Tim Ross·^talk 18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Guido van Rossum - While I'm pretty sure the term refers to other open source project leaders as well, and I personally find it notable, the article as it stands can't stick around. It needs a complete rewrite to demonstrate its notability; indeed, it will need to be written about something more than just a nickname for Guido. -FrankTobia 19:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rearrange with splits and moves. I'm not sure where. "Benevolent dictator" for software development might be notable enough to have at least a section, maybe an article, since multiple people have generally been described that way, but there isn't enough difference in "for life" and not "for life" to justify splitting the software development meaning across two articles as it is now, and people are going to get "BD" and "BDFL" confused for sure. Benevolent dictator is up for deletion also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benevolent dictator, so now is a good time to do the content dance. Ideas in my order of preference (same as I posted on the other AfD, but from this article's perspective):
  1. Idea 1: Merge the state government (non-software) parts of Benevolent dictator into Enlightened absolutism or a section of Dictator. Then move/merge Benevolent Dictator for Life and software part of Benevolent dictator into a new Benevolent dictator (software development) and make Benevolent dictator an disambig for the software and state meanings.
     • I second that. Seems reasonable. --LuckyStarr 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     • I vote for it, too. Redistribute and then redirect from here. --DyingGasp 15:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Idea 2: Merge Benevolent Dictator for Life and software section of Benevolent dictator into Lead programmer, if appropriate. Leave the remainder (state government part) of Benevolent dictator to its business over there, whether that's being deleted or merged separately.
  3. Idea 3: Merge Benevolent Dictator for Life into Benevolent dictator, assuming that article survives AfD itself.

--Closeapple 10:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'dabify 132.205.99.122 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't redirect. What we have here are several similar titles that have been pulled together to try and make an article but there is no article here. I also don't see the benefit in redirecting to Guido van Rossum; no-one looking for his article is going to use this as a search term, surely? TerriersFan (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BDFL might be a pithy little comment in the article on van Rossum, but it does not warrant an article all by itself. PKT (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. currently unsourced, WP:NOR, Secret ^account 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Heaven[edit]

Outer Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Metal Gear game articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete in-universe unreferenced gamecruft. Mukadderat 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Explains a confusing, frequently recurring concept. KDerrida, 3 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 08:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful, unfortunately, is not a wikipedia guideline or criteria. Judgesurreal777 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say or imply that it was merely "Useful", as that would be an Argument To Avoid. To break it down: My arguments are that Hideo Kojima's work is highly influential, both in America and Japan (which I may assume that you would not debate, having not nominated his body of work for deletion), that Outer Heaven is a frequently-recurring important plot point in his work (as this article should demonstrate), and because of this particular topic's confusing nature, listing it in pieces in subheadings inside different Hideo Kojima articles would provide less of a clear picture to the reader, acting more as random trivia than a proper explanation. If you feel that it is both repetitive (or as you put it, "totally duplicative") and unreferenced, you might consider eliminating this information from the original Metal Gear articles, and finding references for it. -KDerrida (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this persons works are as influential as you say, I am sure you will be able to find a good number of references that are needed to keep it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant in Kojima's works. Whoever had been revising the article recently didn't put in references. Ominae 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well tell them to put some in, otherwise the article will have no proof of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metal Gear. The only game in the series where Outer Heaven has any real relevance to the plot seems to be the original (where Outer Heaven is the name of the enemy fortress the player infiltrates). All the other mentions of Outer Heaven in the series are just that, throwaway references. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, sourceless. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. east.718 at 00:36, December 1, 2007

Bandit Hunters[edit]

Bandit Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Game appears to be completely fake. Uses http://maiji.deviantart.com/art/Bandit-Hunters-39522006 which is not only done without the original artist's consent, but is also a fanart of a completely unrelated game. The ESRB rating is also a hoax, as the ESRB's website has no records of a game named Bandit Hunters, even with the RP rating. Finally, BlinDVault Studios apparently does not exist beyond Wikipedia articles. Onyxstraten 21:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as complete nonsense. Come on! Date of release nearly three years away? And have you looked at the plot? So tagged. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous versions of this article don't make much more sense either. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Coredesat 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CuteNews[edit]

CuteNews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article for a software program that is not sufficiently notable per WP:CORP. Specifically, this program has not “been the been the subject of coverage in secondary sources”, such sources being “reliable, and independent of the subject.”

This article was deleted at its first AfD nomination, but then kept at a second AfD discussion. I did not believe that second result was correct, but instead of a DRV review I decided to give the article time to improve, if possible. It has now been over a year and no substantive improvements have been made. In fact, the article still contains not one single third-party source, and I was unable to locate any reliable ones that provide non-trivial coverage of the subject. It is time for deletion again. — Satori Son 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am a regualr user of CuteNews software. The project is just about dead. Not unique in having a flatfile database system. Hammer1980·^talk 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is notable enough to have an article here, plus there are much shorter software articles, and a lot of less famous CMSes with their article here, and CuteNews is quite famous. --escondites 05:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It may well be the other articles are not sufficiently notable per WP:CORP. Hammer1980·^talk 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn Mukadderat 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, and probably won't be. Talked to the developer of cutenews, and the project seems to be dead/unactive. Although I've used this software myself, it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Alecwh 09:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the script is still widely used and the article states that there ARE plans for future version + the forum post on the original website states that such version is in development, 1 year of no updates does not mean a project is dead 217.169.30.225 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC), 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: But the dispositive issue is not whether the project is "active" or "dead", but whether the subject meets the notability requirements for inclusion set forth at WP:CORP. — Satori Son 17:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Coredesat 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Clark Preschool[edit]

Campbell Clark Preschool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, shuttered preschool, seems to have been the subject of a very local controversy over its closure. Prod tag sneakily removed. AnteaterZot 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN per nom. Bearian'sBooties —Preceding comment was added at 04:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Preschools have the same right to have a Wikipedia article as elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, and post-secondary schools. This school has served the area for decades and it is as notable as any elementary or high school. If there were no preschools, then children wouldn't have the advantage in Kindergarden over children who didn't go to preschool. Besides, someone might have gone to this school and it is not a good idea to erase articles about schools (regardless of what age group it serves). GVnayR 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That "right" requires reliable, third party sources, on the page, explaining why the subject is notable. As a matter of fact, many people disagree that high schools are inherently notable; look at the upper corner of this page for the ongoing debate--or click here. AnteaterZot 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply no assertion of notability, unless being part time is notable. No school has the right to an article, so that argument is specious. Vegaswikian 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Coredesat 03:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, Janet![edit]

Dammit, Janet! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Third time the article has been nominated for deletion. Talk Page shows a huge chunk of excised material with questionable sources and possible violations of WP:OR; this could also be reflected into the main article. References link print media: attempts to locate online sources met with little success. Asking people to provide other sources have been fruitless. I'm led to believe the article is nothing more than fancruft, and is in violation of WP:SYN, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 293.xx.xxx.xx 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This was settled just last month. The AfD had clear consensus to keep. Renominating now based on no strong new reason is inappropriate. It's still the same song. Wryspy 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article has been to AfD twice already since October 9. There's nothing to show why it should be deleted now. Give it a rest. --Smashville^BONK! 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus can change. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but we're talking about the third nomination in a little over a month...that's just a little bit of overkill. --Smashville^BONK! 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You can safely ignore this person Smashville, he seems to make snippy comments all over this place. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How many times do we have to reiterate the same arguments over and over? Song is notable, article is well referenced. Give it a rest already. -- Sander Säde 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As a matter of fact, due to the recency of the previous AfDs, I believe this qualifies for speedy keep. Repeatedly nominating something on the chance that you'll happen to get a combination of people who will !vote the way you want is inappropriate. It shows a lack of respect for the Wikipedia process. It could be perceived as obstinate determination to get your way no matter what others may think. Wryspy 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I could argue that the second AfD was vote-stacked by Rocky Horror fans. That could be construed as also circumventing Wikipedia policies. --293.xx.xxx.xx 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which would be an argument for DRV, not for hitting people with another AfD. Wryspy 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not much of a Rocky Horror fan, but this is a notable song. JavaTenor 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I probably wouldn't have reopened this one, because I have given up. The song just isn't notable as an independent entity. The closing admin on the last AFD admitted that he closed it for inappropriate reasons (all the 'keep' votes ignored multiple policies, but they were a clear majority, so he went with them to save the hassle of a DRV). Insufficient sourcing, insufficient notability. What passes for sources in the article are passing mentions, and there is not a single source that addresses the topic directly and in detail, which is required by WP:Notability. Redirecting to Rocky Horror Picture Show is the best that should happen to this thing.Kww 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're right, then that's a reason for deletion review, NOT reason to club people with the same AfD over and over. As a matter of fact, basing your argument on a closing admin's alleged admission illustrates even more strongly that this AfD is inapppropriate because DRV fits your assertion. Deletion review reason #2: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions." I'm not saying you're right. I'm saying that's what fits your claim. Wryspy 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It did go through deletion review, and survived despite the closing admin supporting an overturn of his own decision. That's why I gave up, and did not resubmit this thing myself. It's a shame, but sometimes the worst garbage gets kept because people like it, not because it belongs in an encyclopedia.Kww 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there you have it then. The thing has had its deletion review. This AfD is just wrong. Personally, I don't care whether the song is notable or not. Editors have to respect Wikipedia's process. See the relevant deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_25. Wryspy 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And it's still having problems. Nobody has attempted to correct them, nobody has even given me ONE single reference pinning Dammit janet to any of the news articles and Rocky Horror, and as it stands, I think the article is nothing more than a well written piece of fancruft. My stand is Delete. --293.xx.xxx.xx 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Part of the problem is that you deleted almost half of the article and almost half of the references because you dubbed the section on pop culture references as WP:OR. This is one of those things that is largely notable because of it's prevalance in pop culture...removing that part of the article instead of just rewording it...and then nominating it for deletion...doesn't seem right. --Smashville^BONK! 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This issue was addressed and resolved barely seven weeks ago. This seems to be an effort to subvert WP:CONSENSUS. Alansohn 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Dammit, Keep it - Sorry I had to say it. Yes keep it. Discussed and settled before. Gtstricky 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I know we're supposed to comment on the article and not the editor, but I think it needs to be pointed out that the nom removed a huge chunk of text and 16 references from the article[12] after the last AfD. --Smashville^BONK! 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The subject text was reinserted, and I deleted it again myself. It is WP:OR of the worst kind ... if someone makes a joke about Janet Jackson's boobs, it's synthesis to tie it to the song unless the article being quoted links it to the song.Kww 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't original research. It was a poorly written "references in pop culture" section. --Smashville^BONK! 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A classic song from a classic show, so much so that the title has entered the pop culture lexicon and has been widely used as a punning headline or other text. --Malcolmxl5 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It should be noted there have been two DRVs - one overturning the delete and one supporting the keep. --Smashville^BONK! 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are keeping score, this article originally failed the AFD. Jreferee then pasted together a pile of passing mentions, carefully keeping to hard copy references, and created this thing as a result. No DRV occurred to override the AFD, which is why I redirected it as an obvious attempt to bypass consensus. That redirect was reverted, which is why I went for the second AFD. By that time, the fan base was sufficiently mobilised that they keep the article alive. Since the AFD review consisted of fans that refused to support their arguments, that AFD was taken to DRV, which again attracted nothing but fans. That DRV was the only DRV that has occurred. Just for fun, go try to find a single reference for this article that passes the "direct and detailed examination" requirement. As I've said, I've given up on actually getting this thing excised from Wikipedia. It just points out the process problem ... fans can always override policy if enough of them show up for reviews.Kww 22:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad...there was a Rocky Horror Songs article taken to AfD...Admittedly, I've never seen the movie...and didn't know it actually contained songs until the last AfD... --Smashville^BONK! 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If it is a classic song from a classic show I don't see what the problem is. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix. Majoreditor 22:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep too many AFDs in too little time. Also, Print sources are fine and in fact should be encouraged. Will ^(talk) 23:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to be clear, I have nothing in general against print sources (except that to verify them, I have to fly to a country that has English-language libraries, no mean feat when you live in South America). Exclusively using print sources seems a bit out of line, and makes it difficult for a critic to prove his points. I'm pretty sure that an Entertainment Weekly article on The Indie 50; The essential movies contains, at best, a passing reference to the song, and does not deal with it directly and in depth. The author of the article has refused to provide excerpts from his sources to support his contention that they do, and from the titles, it's pretty clear that they don't.

• Keep Jeez! Leave it alone already!--Brewcrewer 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and User:Kww. The first AfD got it right. Xihr 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "References link print media: attempts to locate online sources met with little success" live with it, not everything revolves around the internet. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per apparent consensus above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Coredesat 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Goods Partners[edit]

Global Goods Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

doesnt seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Reads like a PR piece Hu12 12:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article seems to portray GGP as a charity-style organization, but this article discusses a fashion show where they had product. If the article is kept and rewritten, as it probably needs to be anyway, we need to find independent sources that tell us what GGP actually does, as the article was not clear enough to make that point (to me, anyway - maybe I misread it). ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because Idealist.org is a reliable source. Needs more of the same, cleanup. Bearian 17:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Also, notability is not inherited. This is nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.--Hu12 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. Mukadderat 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no substantive, reliable secondary sources that I could find. Searching Google News and Google News archive turned up a handful of references, all passing.^[13][14] --A. B. ^(talk) 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 as non-notable musician, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chill Will[edit]

Chill Will (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician, no chart listings, cannot find anything to verify this artist's notability. CSD remove by author, PROD removed by anon. Wildthing61476 20:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A7 as non-notable musician, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also listing the discography page:

Chill'Will discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete both; fails WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 Result was Delete. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Express News Channel[edit]

Express News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notabaility not established. Hammer1980·^talk 20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable; no reliable sources. Google doesn't have anything relevant either. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced and I am having trouble finding any. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable News Channel. Masterpiece2000 12:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 by User:Ioeth, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postage stamps and postal history of Azerbaijan[edit]

Sorry but I just don't get it, this is not an article at all. Do we allow placeholders like this? If nothing more is to be said, I have to say delete. Coccyx Bloccyx 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderline speedy delete under CSD A1. About the only real content is The postal stamps from 1992 onwards are issued by Azermarka.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete a1 for lack of context, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eating club[edit]

Eating club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

If Dining club is considered notable in the discussion down the page, then maybe this article could be merged into it or vice versa. If the discussion establishes that it doesn't warrant an article then maybe this should be deleted too. Hammer1980·^talk 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even if this is legit, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wryspy 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even this small and young article is already much more than a dictionary entry. Wikipedia is exactly where I'd look up an unfamiliar American term like this, which incidentally I don't seems to find in any online dictionaries, including OED, or the paper ones I have here. Flapdragon 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mentioned in biographies of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, etc. I'm sure lots of good cites could be found with a bit of work. Appears to be notable by itself, or merge with Dining club. Bearian'sBooties 04:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even though I agree with Wryspy that Wikipedia shouldn't try to emulate a dictionary, I don't really see how that is relevant to this particular article. Coccyx Bloccyx 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable in a number of universities, probably beyond the one listed here. Certainly relevant in American society. DGG (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Hut 8.5 07:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavia (Richmond)[edit]

Moldavia (Richmond) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this property notable ? Edgar Allan Poe's last address. No references in the article. A little on Google. Hammer1980·^talk 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the house were still standing and recognized in some way e.g. on the National Register of Historic Places or at least an official Richmond landmark it might be worth inclusion, but there's nothing of significance asserted about this long-demolished building anyway. Even if you're Edgar Allen Poe, notability is not inherited by the places that you've lived.--Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anything useful can be placed at Edgar_Allan_Poe#Preserved_homes.2C_landmarks.2C_and_museums; there isn't nearly enough here to merit its own article. Xymmax 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no references found to indicate that the place is itself more notable than a trivium good for a sentence in a biographical article. I don't see any additional information worth merging into the parent article, either in the section mentioned by Xymmax or in the earlier part where it already appears briefly. Barno 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable property. Masterpiece2000 12:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this material does not warrant a separate article. RFerreira 08:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallaby (manga)[edit]

Wallaby (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I did not create the article, but have been the principal editor for several months, and have come to the conclusion that this incomplete manga (which didn't last long enough to fill a collected volume on its own) does not meet the notability requirements. Certainly it does not meet notability requirements for books, and while that guideline does not completely apply here, it is indicative. I'm bringing it to AfD rather than PROD on two considerations:

• The unusual left-to-right format might make it exceptional enough to be notable.
• The main characters make a crossover appearence in another very popular manga by the same author might make it notable.

I disagree, and so propose deleting the article and replacing it with a redirect to Kiyohiko Azuma. —Quasirandom 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the general gist of notability with regards to literary works is that works by a notable author are generally notable except in unusal circumstances. The fact that this is by Kiyohiko Azuma is enough given Azuma's eminence in the industry and international acclaim. That it's incomplete matters little: Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and Coleridge's Kubla Khan were never finished either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable because it's by a notable author, general consensus is that works by notable authors are notable too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't agree that "works by notable authors are notable too." This should be judged by the general guideline of whether the Wallaby manga has gotten substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I don't know the field well enough to judge this based on a quick Google search from the workplace. Barno 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I searched for coverage as part of trying to improve the article, but was unable to find anything in English. (Should have mentioned this in the AfD.) There may be sources in Japanese, though. —Quasirandom 21:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Kiyohiko Azuma is a notable author. And, I think sources may be in Japanese. Masterpiece2000 12:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for its unusual format and its being by a notable authour. As for the sources, it should be taken for granted that, like in almost all cases regarding manga, by far most sources are Japanese: the best thing here would be to ask help from Japanese wikipedians to provide sources.--Aldux 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I just don't see any reason why an unfinished series should be anything more than a footnote on Kiyohiko Azuma. Worth a mention there, but it doesn't need an article of its own. Doceirias 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Hut 8.5 07:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Football Rivalries[edit]

Scottish Football Rivalries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Information already exists within Local derbies in the United Kingdom. this appears to be OR Whitstable 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not needed. As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also although there are exceptions most of these aren't really particularly well-established rivalries. PatGallacher 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is simply not required. Masterpiece2000 12:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 14:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge with Football in Scotland, but only if said rivalries can be referenced. GiantSnowman 19:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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: the nomination was withdrawn, and other editors initially favoring deletion now favor keeping the article, so I have closed under the speedy keep guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Middle School (Coquitlam)[edit]

Summit Middle School (Coquitlam) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing notable asserted about this middle school. Arthurrh 18:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's been fixed appropriately. Well done. Arthurrh 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing notable about this middle school is asserted in the article. The content is far less encyclopedic than other middle school article's. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We cannot have articles for all the middle school. Masterpiece2000 12:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Now the article is fine. Masterpiece2000 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can find a number of articles about the school that demonstrate some notability. For instance:
  • They won the Maple Leaf Junior Tour's Girls national championship title for gold — a national sports award for young girls. Keel collects national title, Coquitlam Now. New Westminster, B.C.: Sep 5, 2007. pg. 35.
  • They were noted for having one of their teachers play one of the leads in a theatrical production of Aladdin, designed for middle school students. Principal role for Summit teacher, Coquitlam Now. New Westminster, B.C.: Dec 8, 2006. pg. 23.
  • They helped in the production of another play, MAGIC!, designed and run by middle school students. Theatrix makes the MAGIC! happen: Musical adventure written and staged by local young people, Coquitlam Now. New Westminster, B.C.: Apr 12, 2006. pg. 17.
  • They were chosen for a session of "Odyssey of the Mind", an NASA-backed international educational program. Odyssey of the Mind founder to visit Summit Middle School, Simone Blais. Coquitlam Now. New Westminster, B.C.: Nov 15, 2003. pg. 15.
  • They had a student win one of BC's Junior Achievement of B.C.'s 2000 Awards. Kudos, The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Jul 24, 2000. pg. C.8.
  • They participated in a very successful high/middle school partnership program which attrached media attention. Big buddies make a lasting impression on young student, Scott Simpson. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Jun 14, 2000. pg. B.1.FRO.
  • The school itself was part of the BC Ministry of Education's new cost-cutting construction measures, and one of the first two to be built to those specifications. Economics 101: Expensive schools off the curriculum, Suzanne Fournier, Staff Reporter. The Province. Vancouver, B.C.: Oct 5, 1997. pg. A.24.
• I think this demonstrates that it has sufficient notability. --Haemo 23:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is the article is written in a completely different direction. Instead of talking about the school being one of the first built under the ministry's new cost-cutting rules, the article talks about the hallway being narrow. That's one of the major problems I see with the article: the aspects covered on the subject or non-encyclopedic, and the overall tone is non-encyclopedic. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like a problem for cleanup, not deletion. --Haemo 01:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which I have now done. --Haemo 02:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as nomination withdrawn - nomination properly withdrawn on the addition of content and independent, verifiable sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 04:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically invalid, since there are other editors advocating the delete position. I'm going to review the article myself, since I'm one of them. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 04:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)))[reply]
• Keep. My goodness, we have a ridiculous number of third party sources here which establish notability. RFerreira 08:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since my first assessment, the article has been improved substantially, including the third-party sources RFerreira mentioned above. Accordingly, I have changed my recommendation. —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's obviously been fixed up! --Galaxy250 22:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good work! Nice article Victuallers 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"De Pietro"[edit]

"De Pietro" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, and I can't find any information on the internet to verify this is true. Mangostar 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; It was me who created the page. You cannot find information on the internet because there are none: that is why I thought putting it on Wikipedia could be a good choice. If you wish, I could include the fact that every De Pietro on Brazil has these habits and know this precise history. If someone bother asking them, they will confirm (there are about 20 members in several cities). Thanks;

• Delete unverifiable original research. JuJube 02:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:OR, no general indication why this surname is notable. Caknuck (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. WP:V concerns weren't met in this AFD Secret ^account 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coningsby Club[edit]

Coningsby Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish notablilty. No references and nothing much on Google on this club. Are dining clubs notable ? Hammer1980·^talk 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More from the one-man anti-dining clubs crusader. If gentlemen's clubs get an article, so do these. Several in fact have articles of their own on Wikipedia. You must have heard of at least the Bullingdon Club! Grunners 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not on a crusade. Please see Wikipedia:Civility as there is no need to patronise. I haven't heard of the Bullingdon Club but reading the article shows that some notable people have been a member of it. This article fails to establish the notability of the Coningsby Club. The articles for the Coefficients (dining club) and Square Club (writers) have a similar problem. Just because I haven't heard of them does not mean they are not notable, but the articles as they stand do not explain to me why they are. Hammer1980·^talk 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way of Wikipedia is that new articles do take time to build up steam and become really good informative articles. I'd suggest in the interests of civility you enquire as to the nature of a user's article before slapping tags everywhere. That is extremely disrespectful. Grunners 18:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging an article is not disrespectful. Accusing an editor (whilst attempting to canvass support for you artciles) of a "one man campaign being waged against dining clubs" is bordering on WP:Attack. Seven editors have been contacted with that message at the time of this post. I have posted the artciles to afd for a debate, the outcome of which I really am not going to lose any sleep over. I will not be dragged further discussions of this type. Hammer1980·^talk 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless attribution of notability is shown via independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete pending references. Dining clubs, or any type of "social and discussion clubs", do not attain notability just because some notable people have been asserted to be members. Are there reliable independent sources to cite? The nominator's search seems not to have turned up such sources, and the article has nothing to substantiate any real claim to notability. As for Grunners' comment, a speedy-delete without asking contributors or doing any research would have been "disrespectful"; but use of tags like citation-needed, and eventually an AfD after an attempt at finding citeable sources, is reasonable and appropriate. Effort would be better spent on finding and providing sources than on acting offended and canvassing in tones that disregard whether the tagging was policy-based. Barno 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Are dining clubs notable?" What a strange question. Are political parties notable? Are cricket teams notable? Some are, and some aren't, just like anything else; this one is fairly old and well-known I believe, not that I know anything much about dining societies. As far as I'm aware there's nothing wrong with alerting people to the fact that a debate is in progress that they may be interested in witnessing or joining. There's also nothing wrong with nominating articles for deletion, but one should have be pretty sure that an article is a no-hoper. A quick Google would surely have established that this is hardly a clear candidate for speedy deletion, a fairly extreme measure which can lead to a little-watched, but perfectly sound entry disappearing in hours, before people have even had time to become aware of what's happenening, and which should thus be used with restraint. There's no shortage of genuine nonsense added every day to keep people busy who want to make deleting stuff their mission. Flapdragon 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It isn't notable in the sense of getting into the news, but it has been the main social link between national Conservative politics and Oxbridge student politics. I've added a couple of independent references. --Paularblaster 23:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Keep - a club that has succeeded in existing for over 85 years is likely to be noteworthy, and hence notable. It is properly marked as a stub, and I hope that some one will be abel to expand it. It appears in another encyclopaedia, whose publisher is an academic one. Peterkingiron 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not sure if one is meant to add support on a deletion discussion page only if one has new points to make, but I agree with the previous two entries.45ossington 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete how can it be kept with no information about notable members, no real references, and the only link being to the announcement for their next dinner. The claimed references are a mention of its existence in a history of the university, and a listing in a directory. I know it's notable is not a sufficient argument. Things that don't happen to "get into the news" can be sometimes be important none the less, but sometimes otherwise. DGG (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this last one, all the negatives you point out are due to the article's stub nature. Let's give it time to grow I say. After all, the gentlemens club article which I started is now large, but for a while was quite small with few references. Grunners (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article will only grow with time if there are reliable sources that give this club substantial coverage. Passing mentions as a trivial detail about someone, where the reference's focus is on events unrelated to the club, aren't enough for an article. Handwaving that sources "must exist" needs to be followed up with actual research to actually find and cite the references. "Succeeded in existing" and being a "main social link" wouldn't be much of a claim to notability even if mentioned in independent sources. With no sources offered in a week, it doesn't mean that there are none, but it seems to indicate that we don't currently have enough for an encyclopedia article. I'm leaning toward "merge into Dining club"; it can always be broken back out later when (if) some actual nontrivial sources are found. And no, nobody is trying to speedy-delete this stub; this AfD has been left open beyond the five-day minimum to give people a chance to solve the little problem of not meeting the core WP:V policy. Barno (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to the apparent WP:V issues related to the article. I'm sure no one would mind if this article were to be recreated at a later date if better sources can be located. RFerreira (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. John254 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dining club[edit]

Dining club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I removed speedy tag I placed and put the article up for discussion. I can't see how it is particularly a notable subject. Also seems to fail WP:DICTIONARY. Hammer1980·^talk 18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about a particular club, rather it's about a type of club, very similar to gentlemen's clubs. It cetainly doesn't merit deletion. The tag has obviously been placed without thought by someone who either hasn't read the article properly, or who is ignorant of the existence of such clubs. Such clubs are far more popular in the UK than the US, where they are known as [eating club]]s. However, Eating Clubs has an article, and one which although shorter than the Dining Club article (which after all is only 10 minutes or so old!), hasn't been put up for deletion.

Particularly in the last century, dining clubs were a major institution, and most notable figures in fields such as politics, law, journalism etc. still are. We wouldn't delete the gentlemen's club article would we, and what are dining clubs of not mobile gentlemen's clubs? Grunners 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't engage in what about X? arguments; they are not useful. --Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the topic is notable, however poorly the current article explains that. But please let's have some references. Charles Matthews 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the dining club idea is a notable one Coccyx Bloccyx 19:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To the extent that these are clubs for adults and eating clubs are for university students that should be dmeonstrated, toherwise a merger is appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge would not be appropriate. Charles Matthews 23:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A number of notable clubs are listed. An overview of such institutions is notable. This could be expanded to trace the history and social influence of such clubs. This is important, not just notable. - Crosbiesmith 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Flapdragon 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — this lists a number of notable dining clubs and is a good stub article. — Jonathan Bowen 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has the makings of a good article, as gentlemen's clubs seems to have become. Article already lists several examples notable in themselves; an encyclopedic overview of the concept would be informative. Agree that expansion & referencess are required. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 11:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important social/intellectual/political phenomenon of 18th-19th centuries; still not entirely negligible, even if not in the news much. --Paularblaster 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, naturally such a generic topic would be notable and worthy of inclusion. RFerreira 07:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as these clubs continue to be mentioned in reports on notable people; expansion of current entry is necessary but merited Robma 21:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While this article is the host of a list of clubs, many have websites. The article is only a brief one, but it ought to remain. I suspect there is room for expansion. I seem to remember literary references in the works of John Buchan the novelist. Peterkingiron 23:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think there are some very notable dining clubs, as the more famous ones have held notable memberships and societies, which go on to shape political policies and socio-economic influence. --Ashley Rovira (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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