The result was keep. Sufficient reliable sources have been presented. JoshuaZ 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
relies on a website and a newspaper article for notability. There is only one secondary source and it is trivial or incidental at best. Kephera975 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
*Keep As the article and references seem fine. Nom seems petty and relies on subjective analysis on the sources, pushing
WP:Good faith to the limit.
Pharmboy 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
*delete - no demonstration of notability from independent third-party sources, no verifiability outside of their own writings. I hate bad-faith AfDs and people creating them to make a
WP:POINT, but to tell you the truth, if some witchy person goes and writes a bunch of books, that doesn't make them notable. What makes them notable is independent third-party coverage. If these witchy people are unknown outside of their own friends and readers, they don't go into Wikipedia. I can accept
WP:POINT if it helps identify self-congratulatory spam that needs to be removed from Wikipedia.
AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
reply