Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 25

< November 24	November 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 02:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janey Robbins[edit]

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Janey Robbins was part of Loose Ends, which satisfies the groundbreaking criteria of WP:PORNBIO in a negative sense. Her sex during bondage scene was one of the reasons the movie was prosecuted.[2][3] Because of the prosecution, companies stopped shooting heterosexual scenes with sex while the woman is still in bondage. I don't know if that is true today with the advent of internet porn (especially with companies like Kink around). Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Morbidthoughts's comment on her role in the lawsuit I feel meets the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. FlyingToaster 07:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She may also have additional notability beyond the Loose Ends issue (would need to check), but I concur that her involvement in that situation satisfies the WP:PORNBIO requirements. 23skidoo (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google search very easily verifies her notability although the links I found were quite an eye opener! Paste (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2008 (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 G3. Magioladitis (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Det stinker fisk![edit]

I am trying to include this in CSD A9. It schould be included there. ON TOPIC: Hoax, no results on google. Or if not hoax, totaly non notable. The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there are ghits for the film title, there are none for title+star. Likely hoax.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits in the IMDb and google search has hits on "der stinker fisk", but not when additional words (such as "movie" or the lead actors name) are included. Based on original authors contibutions (included several previously deleted articles), it appears to be a test page or a joke/hoax. (EhJJ)^TALK 00:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 nonsense, hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:35, 26 November 2008 (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 (G3) by Thingg. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Liedberg[edit]

Made up nonsense, created by single contribution account. Google returns a whole 25 hits, nothing but Facebook and Youtube. Maybe should be speedy? Camillus 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Vandalism/hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:39, 25 November 2008 (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 02:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calvo (company)[edit]

This article is a mere directory listing entry for an apparently non-notable company. Of the two references provided, one is self-referential, and the other is a trivial mention. Aside from lacking any encyclopedic content, this article provides no assertion that the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Of the six google news hits that come up for "calvo fish", only one is about the subject of this article, and it is a trivial piece by an armed forces supplier trade periodical. If this article is to exist, then the name should be changed to "Grupo Calvo", the proper name for the company. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have more references, like Grupo Calvo closing its El Aaiun cannery WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And another from ABC.es, a Spanish news site - [4] - I think it's clear that this Spanish company is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A quick search of Google and AltaVista yielded several results; and I'm sure, given some time, the originating editor can grow this article further. I do agree the title should probably be changed to "Grupo Calvo", as this is how the company was referred to on websites I viewed. Anyhow, since at least some notability has been established, I feel that deletion is not warranted at this time. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename -- €420 million in sales? This ain't Joe's Tuna Shack. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It helps if you select "all dates" when doing a Google News search [5]. Yes, there are lots of false positives in the 795 (not 6) hits, but one of the first results confirms that this is the largest fish cannery in South America [6]. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS without problems -- and, please, don't knock Joe's Tuna Shack (Joe works very hard, you know!). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2008 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

João Sousa Valles[edit]

Unsourced, no real assertion of notability. Google searches only show vague hits, nothing considered reliable. Possible hoax or "autobiography". Tan | 39 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Man of 1001 professions in only 26 years? It sounds like hoax. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Pretty sure this is a hoax rather than bad translation. Let me summarize. Valles is 26, but has accomplished more than most in seven lifetimes. As a toddler he was addicted to heroin, he then founded a mythical IRC channel... yeah, no. FlyingToaster 07:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7. The Rolling Camel (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G10, negative unsourced bio. A search brings up a real photographer by that name. The story in the article, with the allegations mentioned above, is pure nonsense. Tagged G10. A7/G3 may also fit. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. Kevin Draves[edit]

Claim to fame consists of

nomination for the 2001 Primetime Emmy for "Sex & The City" ~~(no citation, I have tried and failed to verify this online)~~ Here's the story on this one. The series was nominated for Costume Design.[7] J. Kevin was "key costumer / on-set costumer / for (48 episodes, 1998-2000)"[8] Note that this is not "Costume Designer" or "wardrobe supervisor" or "costume supervisor"
designed the costumes for Off Broadway's Boobs! The Musical
assistant costume designer on "The Boy From Oz" starring Hugh Jackman
costume designs for the "Broadway Cares" benefits

Delete Not notable. Mwanner | Talk 22:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable assistant costume designer. Edward321 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence that leads me to think that he is notable. Paste ^Talk 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Slovaks[edit]

No assertion of notability and as far as I can tell the only references to the term online are on mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There is a project on African diaspora; and some of the numbers are surprising, but sourced-- like 400,000 persons in Russia who have African roots. There are others that are less surprising (France, Britain, Italy, Germany) because of African colonies, but these too have sources. This article, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be based on anything other than speculation that if there are persons of African descent in Slovakia, then they would be called "Afro-Slovaks". The template for the project was changed in September [9] to add a place for "Afro-Slovaks", about the same time that this nothing-to-say-and-says-it article was created. If someone has something to contribute about Eastern Europeans with African heritage, then something can be created; in this case, all I see is that someone wanted to create a word. Mandsford (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been surprised when visiting Poland before that there is quite a significant African population (although small by comparison with the UK, Germany, France, etc.) but we need references to back up these articles and this one lacks any to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article doesn't justify its own existence. Punkmorten (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable, no reliable sources to prove notability. Lehoiberri (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. Notability is doubtful (only source I can find is [10], Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL gives about a hundred GHits, but not any non-trivial coverage, just listings on government websites of the fact that Africans in Slovakia have an association), and anyway if someone eventually finds sources to create a passable article about Africans/people of distant African heritage in Slovakia, they should do it under a proper title, not a Wikipedian-invented neologism. cab (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:DICDEF or WP:N, since there's no source of notability. Take your pick.--Boffob (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2008 (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 WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure). Pcap ping 13:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUSblog[edit]

Fixing b0rked nom for User:DreamGuy. Contested prod Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning to keep): Do we think either or both of these sources [11], and [12] are independent? They are significant references that's for sure. Maybe we should ask some lawyers...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With 249,000 Google hits, including 145 news articles, it shouldn't be too hard to find enough sources to write an article. BradV 22:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This young, blog-reading law student says keep. It's not quite Volokh Conspiracy, but it's one of the best-known law blogs. The Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote:

"Although many blogs fall below the credibility line of the mainstream press, there are a growing number that have the respect of those in the judicial world. Edward Adams, editor and publisher of the American Bar Association's ABA Journal, said there are more than 7,000 blogs devoted to the legal world. Among the best, he said, is the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) blog.

"'It's run by lawyers and they cover the Supreme Court more intensively than any news organization does, and it does a better job, too,' Adams said." November 22, 2008 [13]

That's about right, I think. This should close as keep. Cool Hand Luke 22:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BradV and Cool Hand Luke. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion

discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more compelling reading than the High Court of Australia equivalent. Oh, um, I'm meant to talk about notability? Er, keep per Luke and Brad (both). Daniel (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per source in article before prod, Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy.[14].John Z (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That claim to notability should have probably been left in. I know blog aren't normally good sources, but I think that would be an expert blog—consisting almost exclusively of law professor authors and having the highest traffic of any law blog (I believe). I'll work on both this article and Volokh Conspiracy because it might be hard for outsiders to appreciate the status of specialty blogs. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the coverage about the blog the itself is not that great (I've added a couple of sources to the article), the blog is often mentioned as a source in other reliable media, WaPo, NYT, etc. [15]. Pcap ping 10:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable and verifiable sources establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian footballers in Europe[edit]

Consensus is that lists of footballers from nation X playing in nation Y are not-notable - see this AfD for a recent example. The relevant categories contained within Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality should suffice. Giant Snowman 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Giant Snowman 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, delete, delete, a thousand times delete! per nom. – Pee Jay 22:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete (All)- Inpossible to get this list full, And its also inpossible to get it useful. And per nom. The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Isn't this what we have categories for? – LATICS talk 22:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the country-specific lists are currently up-to-date, which I believe is the main threat to such lists, but delete the ones who are not maintained or who doesn't add more value than a category. I would therefore use this opportunity to nominate List of European football players who play outside Europe as well, just because the lack of updates (and value)! And we should maybe look into all the articles in Category:Lists of footballers by country and its subcategory... lil2mas (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would argue that NONE of the articles are properly maintained and/or referenced, or add any more value than a category other than what team they currently play for. Giant Snowman 23:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality does not suffice, as European leagues are of particular importance for development of Asian national football programs, as it offers the highest level of competition. The break-down of the list offers quantitative and chronological information to what national leagues players were competing in, and there for an interperspective to the level of football players produced by a nation for a particular generation.TakTak (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and expand Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality. Outside of the question of maintainance, these lists all fail the notability criteria of wikipedia. Themfromspace (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see the particular benefit in having lists for this. Punkmorten (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, although rarely useful, I tend to agree with the delete debate. Govvy (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they are duplicated by a perfectly good category. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:02, 26 November 2008 (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:SNOW applies here. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson News![edit]

Contested prod (with misleading edit summary); the title alone makes it clear this fails Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. Ros0709 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the referenced material seems to be present at the logical place already. No need for this Bfigura ^(talk) 22:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is nothing but a news report. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, gossip site and/or tabloid. Entire page redundant to information on the Michael Jackson page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopeless POV fork. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 00:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Is there no CSD criteria so that this could be speedied? If not, there should be! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Walls[edit]

Vanity article with no real assertion of notability. faithless (^speak) 21:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete autobio of non notable radio announcer. Fails WP:BIO. Paste (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this autobiographical article was created by and mostly updated by davewalls (talk). Lacks any assertion of notability or any references. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emotronic[edit]

Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's your rationale for deletion? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no notability, seems to be somebody's offhand OR on 'inventing' a NN neologism for a genre. (We don't need 'ambivamp', 'metalligothdustrial' or similar compound terms every time somebody wants to get clever about combining two terms.) Ronabop (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Open and shut deletion case, should have been speedy deleted as re-creation of deleted material.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: re-created deleted article, neologism. JamesBurns (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd say I agree with Ronabop. -XClaudiox (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, WP:N. Even the article says the topic is not notable: "Emotronic is not a widely recognized genre, mainly used on the social networking site MySpace." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2008 (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, after a very impressive salvage job by UncleG. Good work. DS (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niggerati[edit]

Not notable and in violation of WP:NEO and WP:NAD. Lacks inline and verifiable references and is never likely to grow beyond stub status. Not in general use. More suitable for something like Urban Dictionary than wikipedia.FrFintonStack (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. -- American Eagle (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable neologism/jargon. DreamGuy (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculative article on neologism of no provable currency. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question The term is apparently discussed in the Tina Barr article listed as a reference. Has anyone gotten a hold of it and seen how much it discusses the term? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard terminology in the field. Besides the article cited in J.Modern Literature, the first 7 ghits yield two more good ones, one from Modern Language Review, another from [Washignton City Paper], It was introduced by the extremely important writer Zora Neale Hurston and consequently will be found in all discussions of her work or based on her writings. The nom and the first pile-on deletes must have never even thought to check Google. Whether it is used colloquially at the present time is irrelevant. DGG (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I wonder if the above user has thought to check WP:NEO and WP:NAD. The fact that it has been used in an academic journal is neither here nor there: that would open the gates to literally thousands of pieces of jargon, which are specifically excluded by wikipedia policy. Regardless of the notability and status of those who have used the term, it is still a neologism without widespread common use. If the above user is arguing that what the term describes is notable, they may have a case but the resulting article ought to be entitled Black intelligentsia or suchlike, and would have to differ massively from this one in terms of contents. Words in and of themselves, particularly slang terms, do not merit entries explaining their meaning or etymology (Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and that is all this article does or is ever likely to do. Moreover, they seem to be suggesting that it is notable primarily because it was coined by a notable figure: that being the case, what does this page achieve that could not be achieved by briefly mentioning the term's coining on the Zora Neale Hurston page, especially since this page is never likely to progress beyond a stub?
As it happens, I did check Google and a search returns only 7630 hits, which is very low for a single word search. Moreover, on my Google search, the top seven hits were the Wikipedia article, the Urban Dictionary article, and the rest related to a blog ring.FrFintonStack (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So do a better Google search, eliminating Wikipedia and its mirrors, and stop counting hits. Counting Google hits is not research. Reading what the search turns up is research. DGG has shown the way. Actually read the pages returned, to see whether they are sources. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have taken, out of interest, a cursory look at this. Number of Google hits isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of notability, particularly for phenomena that arose prior to the widespread use of teh Internets. The term itself seems to have originated from Wallace Thurman, in whose article it is mentioned, and later used in a stricter literary sense (and probably by derivation) by Zora Neale Hurston. In an academic sense, therefore, as a self-referential term used by African-American authors and literary critics, it may have some validity. The blogs have merely borrowed it, in the sense that rap groups have reclaimed "Niggers" as "Niggaz" in the sense of an ironic or satirical reclamation of identity. However, I note that the original article was created by an IP address, which means that the article is of some antiquity, and that it hasn't been expanded since may indicate that the term isn't that important; but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Some of the references may be overlapping and obscure, but they are there. That it isn't in common currency is irrelevant; neither is the Code of Hammurabi --Rodhullandemu 02:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether articles take years to expand means nothing, in fact. Our article on North Asia, an entire geographic region of the planet, took almost five years to progress beyond a two-sentence stub. The lack of expansion of a subject reflects the inability or unwillingness of Wikipedia editors to write, and not anything about the subject itself. The notability of a subject is determined by the amount and provenance of the sources, if any, that are available. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because the word was coined by a notable person doesn't make it notable enough for its own article. It doesn't seem to get enough notable coverage to move from being a neologism to a word worthy of an article. Themfromspace (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is, literally, encyclopaedic, in that it gets a two page entry in the Encyclopedia of the Harlem Renaissance (Cary D. Wintz, Paul Finkelman; Taylor & Francis, 2004. 906–907. ISBN 9781579584580). It's also discussed in The Cambridge Companion to the Harlem Renaissance and in the "From House Niggers to Niggerati" chapter of Asim's The N Word. And those are just the top three books that came up on a Google Books search. There are plenty of sources and plenty of scope for expansion to talk about the Niggerati, Niggerati Manor, and various closely related biographical and social issues. This is a stub encyclopaedia article in need of refactoring and expansion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG and Uncle G. There are more than enough sources here that this is not a neologism and has enough content to make an entry which is much more than a dic-def. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G's logic and evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 20:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Uncle G. My first instinct was to delete, but they convince me: this is a case where I think the problem is not a BS article but not enough Wikipedians skilled in research. Can I ask DGG and UncleG perhaps to comment on the article talk page, to provide some concrete suggestion for other editors as to how to go about researching to improve the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC):[reply]
- Note My fear, essentially, is that any expanded article will end up being a history of the word itself, rather than the phenomenon it purports to describe (which, I'm sure, is very deserving of an article). That would do nothing to address WP:NAD issues, regardless of the quality of sources used. Moreover, I believe than an article on the phenomenon would be better placed under a simple descriptive title, although I'd be happy to mute this latter concern, and thus withdraw the nomination, if Slrubenstein's proposal was adequately followed through. Please note that an admin with have to create the talk page; ordinary registered users are blocked from doing so because of concerns it will become a vandalism magnet (hence why I had to get an admin to create this page for me): that in itself ought to give pause for thought regarding whether or not we want to have an article dealing with black intellectuals under this title when a simple descriptive would suffice, but as I say, I'm prepared to let it go.FrFintonStack (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cut and pasted constructive comments from this page to the article talk page. I also partially protected it because of your quite valid concerns. If a consensus emerges to delete the page, this will all be over in a few days. If we keep the page, we need a functioning talk page so some editors - I hope - will work to improve it! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The talk page has never (until now) been protected, according to the protection log. Whatever notice you saw, it was not caused by protection of either the article or the talk page. Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was actually next on my list after placement syntax (which has now been nominated for deletion). Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I hadn't know about Thurman's use--so it turns out more interesting than I thought. Incidentally, even a history of a word inevitably talks about how the word is used, & if done if full, is also to a considerable extent a history of the phenomenon. And if the article is about the concept, for concepts like this, which are a particular way of looking at things, it's I think much less confusing to use the original vocabulary. But there's a really important point in FrFinton's last comment--we ought never omit having an article because it would be possible to misuse it--that would be CENSORship, and a violation of the basic concept of a NPOV encyclopedia. There seem to be several people interested in watching the article, so there's nothing much to fear. I'd defer semi-protection until the vandalism occurs. It's not that obvious a place to find for the bored & stupid. DGG (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think semi-protection enables lots of editors to edit ... but if ANY other admin wants to remove the protection, I will not object; I think admins should feel free to rvet one another if they think one has been overzealous and I won't complain. I do hope people voting here for "keep" will pitch in a little and make the article something more like what they think is worth keeping. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a neologism, but a legitimate historical term around the Harlem Renaissance. See Wallace Thurman for further information. Might be in rough shape now, but there is a legitimate shot at improving this. Deletion would not be appropriate. Randomran (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and would the kind editors who found the references that irrefutably demonstrate notability be good enough to add citations to them in the article? Bongomatic 02:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done more than that. Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Uncle G. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the now improved article is both encyclopedic and has addressed the nom's concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:53, 28 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katy carlson[edit]

Procedural AfD. After reading the sources on this article, I found a marginal level of notability. Enough that I was not comfortable speedy deleting it, but not enough that makes me satisfied as to its notability. Trusilver 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Carlson should be capitalized. Not much in the way of references, but it's nice that they tried to do the article properly. Delete ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Beat the Streets" is the more notable thing, possibly, so create that wiki and re-direct Katy carlson there. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2008 (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefree coalition[edit]

Exact re-creation of previously speedied article... previous version was speedied by Gwen Gale as "G11: Blatant advertising: COI advocacy, no encyclopedic content here"... is also almost a copyvio of the organization's website found here... creating user seems to be dead-set on creating new articles which are nothing more than copy&paste jobs with a couple words changed... see other article here... Adolphus79 (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot To Kill (DS Mixtape)[edit]

Non-notable mixtape with little media coverage of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed as "nonsense". —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability guidelines for music specifically say that mixtapes aren't notable.--Unscented (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JANNMT. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable mixtape. No sources, reviews, or sales information. DiverseMentality 07:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: under WP:MUSIC, mixtape, notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2008 (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 no administrator tools necessary. Any editor can revert, and all editors have the tools to do so. As a demonstration of that, I have just hit the "edit this page" button and reverted, without touching any of my administrator tools. Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LCC[edit]

Non notable and unreferenced team in unknown league. Articles being created on players are receiving Speedy deletes. Paste (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon looking into the articles history it seems that originally it was a perfectly good article that has been completely changed by User:Liverpoolcc. Paste (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be bold and revert to quite useful disambig page version but I'm not sure that's valid in the spirit of the AfD since it entirely reverts the article from the AfD'ed state. MadScot (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
restore dab and do an administrator rollback to hide all edits past the last one to the dab page version of this page. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why can't this be reverted as vandalism ? User:Liverpoolcc surely must have known what her/his action on wiping an existing page meant. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prophetic rock[edit]

Nothing on Google apart from the article itself... original research Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A shame, someone spent some time putting this together. However, after reading the piece several times, putting it down, and rereading again, I’m still not sure what the entry is about. With regards to the Term, there may be an article here. However, in my research I could find little to no coverage on the subject. Without being able to reference and cite from third party (even secondary sources) – reliable and verifiable sources, delete is the only option. Sorry! ShoesssS ^Talk 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Dan, the CowMan (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow. Original research from start to finish. It's worth a read just to see what Shoesss and I are mystified by. From what I can figure, someone is looking at Biblical references to singing and playing music, the singing of passages of the Book of Psalms (psinging, perhaps?), and... well, if you combine that with Contemporary Christian music (or Christian Rock) then you would have what the author calls "prophetic rock". Trouble is, there's no evidence that anyone else has discovered this yet. A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. Mandsford (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing salvageable there. Maybe userify it first, but looking at the author's talk page, he certainly appears to have a great deal more enthusiam that understanding of Wikipedia at this point. Let's try and be non-BITEy about it, but this can't stay. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi I wanted to send a note on prophetic rock i made a few changes and was hoping this might have some of you guys reconsider it entry in wikipedia I believe this is a new form of rock music that exsits today Im working on some more Info for the direction please consider Thanks... P A W — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiseandworship (talk • contribs)
Response I guess that the main thing that you would need to work on is "sourcing". All of us were new here at one time, and we learned the rules by going through discussions like these. I had never heard the term "original research" until I got here, but what it means is that in an encyclopedia, we have to cite to more than our own information. This is done by looking for "verifiable sources", which means that something like a website that any skeptic can refer to. To locate such sources, you can do an online search, like Google, and search for news accounts or books that have referred to the subject you're writing about (in this case, prophetic rock). Then, you cite the sources and mention what they say about the subject. As a Christian, I can say that sourcing was done in religion centuries ago. When a pastor gives a sermon, what does he do? He refers to the ultimate "verifiable source", doesn't he? Even before he notes that Jesus said, "A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house," the pastor adds, "Turn in your Bibles to the Book of Mark, chapter 6," and everyone (who has brought with them their own copy of the verifiable source) turns to the appropriate page. Moreover, when the quote is mentioned in a book, it even has its own shorthand citation like "Mark 6:4" or, for persons too lazy to spell out Mark, "Mk 6:4" (just joking). You might do the same thing when someone asks you the question, "Where does it say that?!". Anyway, the number one requirement is to back up what you say. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: original research. JamesBurns (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to Prophetic worship. a fully rationalized response: Lack of any signifigant sourcing to support a genre is primary here; any Heymann may be unattainable. There is certainly precedent for this, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horror rock, which apparently suffered from generally the same problems as this article.
1. For the sake of argument let's assume that you could go any direction with this, genre-wise. Prophetic hip-Hop / Prophetic hardcore / Prophetic progressive glam metal. Prophetic death metal could be fun. Oviously this is problematic, as each genre would need (#1 Specific Sourcing [PrX genre is typified by X band, popular in TIME/PLACE ect.] (#2 Specific bands and sourcing there too [xxx is a PrX band....]. It cannot be enough to state that band X uses some elements that are considered prophetic or are drawn from prophetic material.
  - On a related point, U2 would certainly object to being labeled in any such genre. Despite their use of Christian imagery, they generally object to being extensivily covered by Christian music related publications because they don't want to be associated with Contemporary Christian music in any form. (I can cite this statement.)
2. The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music (ISBN 1-56563-679-1, a 1000+ page reference work used extensively on Wikipedia, which covers the entire spectrum of Christian music from the Jesus Music era foreward) has 12 instances of the word "prophecy" and 37 of the word "prophetic". If I group the representations (rather liberally) by type (P references Biblical prophecy directly or is in a style associated with it / P is prophetic of the own artists later work ect. / P is other or unrelated to the above) we find the following:
  - "prophecy": (3/2/7)
  - "prophetic": (24/9/4)
  - While it is apparent that artists use prophetic material or stylings, it is still necessary to note that not one artist is listed as being in a prophetic genre of any kind. The books Glossary of terms has no listing for prophetic genres, while it does include examples of Christian bands in death metal, drum n bass, emo, techno, thrash metal, and even frat rock. Even PrX was in widespread use, it would still need sourcing. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industrial hardcore for an example.
I should state here, for full disclsure, that I regularly research Christian music -- most of my Wikipedia contributions are broadly within that topic -- and have never seen the term used. However, I can also say the same about Prophetic worship. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2008 (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 merge to Principia Discordia. MBisanz ^talk 09:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aneris[edit]

A discordian deity with no indication of notability outside the primary sources where it is mentioned. Pcap ping 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - Any relative information to Principia Discordia where it belongs. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect if no references can be shown from elsewhere, not significant enough for even consideration here as a redirect. DGG (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete/merge. The forces of AnEris dictate an orderly dictionary, not a chaotic one, so we should remove disruptive entries like this one... or migrate the data into Discordianism ;) Ronabop (talk)

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. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirituality (Discordianism)[edit]

A brief fragment from Principia_Discordia does not seem to warrant its own article. Pcap ping 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not significant either as an article or even as article content. DGG (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with DGG, plus the article gives no context. Also, isn't Discordianism supposed to be either a fictional religion or a parody religion such as the Church of the Subgenius? I'm looking at the template and I'm seeing it treated as a real religion. If it is considered bona fide, then never mind. But being quite familiar with the Principia Discordia myself as a book, in this one article's case, though, I agree there's not much here to hang an article on, whether it's about a fictional concept, a real religion, or a joke. 23skidoo (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant per DGG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:03, 29 November 2008 (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CZ-550[edit]

Moving for discussion on article deletion. The article does not sufficiently establish notability of the product to have its own article. Merge is a possibility Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 17:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is this rifle less notable than the ones it links to? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: You said it would be mergeable. To what article? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to say that I don't see why it could not be merged onto the manufacturer's article Česká Zbrojovka being that they're both stubs. I admit that I may have been a bit too hasty recommending this for deletion, though I contend merging is still an option. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are there specific notability standards for weaponry? I can understand that presence culturally can give certain small arms (IE M-16, AK-47, Desert Eagle .50AE) more notability than others, but do independent reviews exist for this firearm? Is that enough? I'm sure most guns have some non-promotional material on them, but I'm just not sure how much could be enough. It's undoubtable the gun exists, but where is the notability threshold? 69.210.56.62 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After looking around, (this is my first article) I would argue that since the CZ-550 is its own design, not a blown out version of another rifle action, it merits its own page. After looking through several other manufactures pages, I do not see rifles and other arms listed, instead they each get there own page. It is possible that if could be listed under big-bore CZ rifles, but this would be inconsistent with how other rifles of other manufacture are described.--JKBodylski (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ive taken the time to add some sources and external links to this page. It appears that there is an abundance of articles written about the CZ 550 when searching on google, including many reviews and forums. Still not quite sure what constitutes noteworthy though. --JKBodylski (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alright, my understanding of products getting there own page as defined WP:CORP page is that if a company's product list is too large as to make the main page about the company unwieldy, then the products get there own page. A quick look at Česká Zbrojovka Uherský Brod page shows in excess of 60 separate model lines, which would make the CZ page enormously cumbersome.--JKBodylski (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be significant and notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2008 (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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Brennan[edit]

An article for a fictional character with no real world information. Not even the actor's name is mentioned. No references, no media coverage. No sign of notability outside (not even inside) the show. Magioladitis (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Fair City characters - Mgm|^(talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note An AfD started for all the other characters of the show in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali O'Shea. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close pending general discussion in progress Probably a merge of some sort-- I say probably, because I have yet to fully figure out the roles of these characters. i note that Talk:List of Fair City characters is now discussing a proposal by Raven on how to do this sort of merge, and this should be closed, probably as non-consensus, pending that discussion DGG (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2008 (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 merge to Chicago_Cubs#Music. MBisanz ^talk 09:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me Out To A Cubs Game[edit]

Delete. Many sports teams come out with compilation CDs like this. I don't see what makes this album in particular notable. No independent sources that I could find, just those that sell the CD. Wolfer68 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chicago Cubs or Delete - Might be worth transfering the songs over to the main Chicago Cubs page, but doesnt require an entire article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. More appropriate to merge with the Chicago Cubs article since it clearly doesn't have enough to stand on its own. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added a few basic facts. This is an officially licensed MLB product. I have found a couple of references to the album of minor importance (below). I don't usually do AFD responses for albums, but something seems wrong about not WP:PRESERVEing this information.
- http://www.cubworld.com/product/TAKE1/Take_Me_Out_To_A_Cubs_Game_Music_CD.html
- http://nearlynextyear.windycitizen.com/2008/09/20/more-cubs-music-take-me-out-to-a-cubs-game
- Comment: Preservation can also be accomplished by merging the important and notable material from the article with a more significant article, like what BritishWatcher and myself are suggesting. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think the details of the album are appropriate for the Cubs article. I wish I could find better media references, but I am still hesitant to delete this information. This is a compilation album of several notable songs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chicago Cubs or Delete: doesn't require it's own article. JamesBurns (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Chicago_Cubs#Music. Doesn't seem to be enough to stand on its own but a 100th anniversary recording ought to be mentioned in the team's article. Otto4711 (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Me Smiling[edit]

Non notable band that has released only one album and has had no substantial media coverage. The article is based mostly on original research with very few statements sourced. The article has been tagged in the past to cite resources but the tag has been removed by the author with little to no improvements. DonelleDer (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete band and album. They have contributed to two apparently notable compilations and there're a couple third party reviews for their albums, but I'm finding very little anywhere about them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also, and also weakly, for reasons given by the Hammer. Some complimentary stuff on blogs (some really nice ones, actually), but no real coverage. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As always with band AFDs, it's a good idea to check out Allmusic, where in this case a band biography is lurking. There are also a few third-party reviews to be found elsewhere, like here, here, here and here. Even though I've never heard of these guys, the magic of the interweb means they easily pass WP:MUSIC - Keep. Thanks, sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm inclined to agree with Hammer on this. JamesBurns (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prinny[edit]

This fictional species does not establish notability independent of Disgaea (series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and everything relevant is already covered within the setting section of the main article. TTN (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure in-universe content; no notability. Eusebeus (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's stopping us from putting it in universe with a merge or a redirect? -= Mgm|^(talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Merge & rd would be fine too per mgm. Eusebeus (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nominator did nothing to address the secondary sources mentioned at the bottom of the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a minor quote with absolutely no significance, and the other is a piece of merchandise already covered in the main article. There is really nothing to address. TTN (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another suitable combination article. Much better than doing it individually for the games, and possibly there is some duplication in those articles to be removed. There is no consensus that articles like these need "real world" information. There is probably material in the various reviews. I ask once more, as many of us have asked, for the meaning of "no current assertion for future improvement of the article" and how that relates to any WP policy. I have not yet understood the plain meaning of that statement, and i am puzzled that it is still being used. Maybe its relevant and important and a reason for deletion, but I need first o know what is being asserted by it. DGG (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that since a recently-announced PSP game has one as the playable character this particular critter is going to get a lot more relevant. Articles like this penny arcade one (note that it even links to the article here), along with the accompanying cartoon, details of a toy here and some hints that further material could be found in game reviews, anime reviews and manga reviews means that there's at least a chance it could be improved. Having these extra media gives a lot more opportunity for sources to be out there. All that said there were no particularly strong sources from a modest search, how about we give it a chance to improve considering the upcoming game, and if it doesn't then looking at a merge? Someone another 03:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having another poke around, Nippon Ichi apparently host Tipsy Prinny Nights (press conferences), Prinny hats!, more merchandise. You can't hit a game review or interview without prinnies being mentioned somewhere, I'm sure there's something that can be hammered out of this lot.. Someone another 04:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MGM, DGG and Someanother -- hey, they got here first and said it best, so why should I repeat what was already stated? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's a little bit of a fine line, there's a compelling argument from the nominator. But I think there is also the potential to back up some notability claims here. I honestly think the article could be improved to make it meet our standards. I think someoneanother's points are particularly compelling. There's, at least, a strong case that a well referenced article could be developed.Icemotoboy (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reasons above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has anyone actually looked at this from a the viewpoint of properly managing this information instead of basing everything upon mainly trivial sources? The fictional details fit in the main article. Along with Prinny related merchandise, there are various other figurines and collectibles, which should covered in the main article. The second reception paragraph is just made up of two trivial quotes and a completely unnecessary reference to Penny Arcade (video game web comics are never a source of reception). TTN (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination comes at a time when the one event which could fundamentally change this group of characters' notability and relevancy is in the middle of happening, the PSP game starring the prinnies isn't just announced, it's released in Japan and due for an American release in February. With that event looming there's no point in proceeding as if it wasn't. Some bizarre wording which existed (and probably still does) in the article, the poor state of referencing and the lack of wikiproject templates on the talk page suggest that this article hasn't received a lot of attention from editors seeking to wikify it. That being the case, it's not surprising that the sourcing is still not stellar since we've had a standing-start to try and do anything with it during the AFD. Penny Arcade is a noted (and notable) video game commentator who have covered this character within an article and an accompanying cartoon, there's no reason they can't be combined and used in this capacity, if it was some non-notable entity on a MySpace page then that would be fair enough. Allowing this event to pass so that we can clearly see if it's a solid stand-alone article or not is a win-win. Either it becomes a decent article or the content is further improved and cited for a clean merge, so what's the hurry? Someone another 15:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears to have some reliable third-party coverage. Article needs to be improved, not deleted. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The coverage found verges on trivial, and WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable third-party sources to merit inclusion. But I'm getting the feeling that more stuff is out there, or will be soon. And if there isn't, then this article can be summarized and merged into another article. No prejudice against merging or even AFDing it if no further WP:N-appropriate sources are found. Randomran (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, does getting your own spinoff game establish notability? Prinnys appear to be a mascot for the game series, and the impending US release of the spinoff game may increase Prinny related information and sources. ViperSnake151 21:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, getting your own spinoff game does not establish notability. Notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. A new video game would be a primary source. As with all video game articles, to get its own article the information must go beyond the plot of the game and the gameplay elements. Although there may be more written when the game comes out, we cannot predict what will be written, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Deleting the article does not prevent it from being recreated should sufficient sources be produced in the future, but we need to know those sources are available, we can't just guess that they're out there. Jay32183 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2008 (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable company, with little more than trivial coverage in the media. Also, the entire article is almost a copy-vio of the company's website, save a couple changed words here and there. Fails WP:V and WP:CORP... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11/G12) — copyvio or spam, take your pick (assuming you read the copyrighted material and conclude that it reads like a manifesto of some sort). MuZemike (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sabrina the Teenage Witch cast members[edit]

This is, essentially, the exact same article as List of characters in Sabrina the Teenage Witch (TV series) and Sabrina,_the_Teenage_Witch_(TV_series)#Cast. The only difference between them is that this is separated by seasons (though seasons are still clarified in the other articles) and this is far more repetitive (the same actors play the same characters throughout the series, they don't up and start playing different characters and it seems to be unnecessary). Considering this is nearly identical to the other articles, I think this should be deleted or, at the very least, redirected to List of characters in Sabrina the Teenage Witch (TV series) or Sabrina,_the_Teenage_Witch_(TV_series)#Cast. Thanks. 13² 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This is a clear redundancy. Identical information is presented on the main article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the pages mentioned by the nominator. Themfromspace (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundancy to a page that already does this. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:49, 29 November 2008 (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 Keep (non-admin closure), as per the consensus of the discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and Scientology[edit]

Original research based almost exclusively on primary sources and without so much as a secondary source establishing notability for this (supposed) sub-topic of Scientology. A tag was placed in January to improve the sourcing but no improvement seen. Justallofthem (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Perhaps I was trying to be too succinct in my nom as I have in the past gone very much the other way. If you examine the article you will see that my premise is not specious; the only (possibly) on-topic bits of the article that are sourced from reliable secondary material is the little bit about Quentin Hubbard possible being gay (how is that on-topic?) and that Scientology considers marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Perhaps deserving of mention in other articles, but not having its own. Cirt's analysis notwithstanding, this article is not well-sourced in RS secondary materials. It is mainly sourced from primary materials and is original research. I am asking reviewers to look a little deeper. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are actually WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources given in the article itself already, including:
- Eric Townsend, The Sad Tales of Scientology, p. 65. Anima Publishing, 1985. ISBN 0-9510471-0-8
- Atack, Jon (1990). A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed. Lyle Stuart / Carol Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8184-0499-X.
- "About Scientology". St. Petersburg Times. 2004-07-18. Retrieved 2006-09-02.
- See also news, books, scholar
- See also Template:Religion and homosexuality - with many other articles along a similar theme.

This is certainly a subject that has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and should be kept and expanded upon with additional info from other secondary sources, and the info reliant solely upon primary sources should be pruned - but AfD is not the correct venue to discuss that. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, just for an exercise, how does "Eric Townsend, The Sad Tales of Scientology, p. 65. Anima Publishing, 1985. ISBN 0-9510471-0-8" relate to the subject of the article? --Justallofthem (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply pointing out that there are some secondary sources present in the article from whence to research additional information, but at any rate the subject matter is discussed in many other secondary sources, enough so that the article can be improved upon further with additional secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mkay. My point being that the so-called "secondary sourcing" for this article relates mostly to tangential material and that the article itself is almost entirely original research based on primary materials. Something I would expect you to stand strongly against, given your prior edit history on just those grounds. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as per Cirt (talk) ←Spidern → 19:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article seems even-handed, sourced, informative and entertaining.Red Hurley (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, three of those assessments work just fine for original research and, other than for trivialities, the article is basically sourced entirely from primary materials, another clear indication of original research. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that whole crowd of, um, Cirt, one "as per Cirt", and another. :) --Justallofthem (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Meets N/V; I see no real reason to continue the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. The fact that the first votes are keep is not a valid reason for speedy keep. No hurry. --Justallofthem (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but 2.5 ("nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question") is. That is, WP:AGF compels me to assume you failed to actually read the detailed references, rather than accusing you of intentionally misrepresenting them. Regardless, it's pretty clear at this point that anything other than a keep outcome is vanishingly unlikely, since we're approaching WP:SNOW as well. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I could counter about !votes "which are so erroneous that they indicate that the [!voter] has not even read the [nomination] in question". Laff. Seriously though, would you please analyze exactly what parts of the article are sourced in reliable secondary material and not in primary matter, remembering that the Minshull book is also primary material. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cirt's nice defense. Meets WP:N and more than meets WP:V. Themfromspace (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having read both Cirt and Justallofthem's discussions on this AFD, I'm still going to go with Cirt. AFD is not the venue for discussing content issues, but whether an article is viable. There is no Wikipedia rule anywhere that quantifies how many RS'es are required. There is also a little thing called WP:IGNOREALLRULES that must be taken into account. On a topic like this, it is imperative that both sides be covered, and therefore primary sources are, in my opinion, not only acceptable, but necessary, as this article is about a particular organization's/religion's point of view. Also, given the controversial nature of Scientology, secondary sources may not necessarily be trustworthy one way or the other in terms of accurately describing the POV under discussion; at least if you see a sentence that says "Scientology believes XYZ" and the source comes from a Scientology manual, then you know it comes from the horse's mouth, whereas secondary sources are good for criticial response to that POV or third-party interpretation of said view. If anything, this article needs more primaries, along with more secondary sources. There are certainly areas that need improvement, and it must be checked for WP:BLP issues, etc. The subject matter is also legitimate because proponents of Scientology feel it is a legitimate religion, therefore (and I don't recognize WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in citing this example) if we have Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, then a properly researched article on a similar topic relating to this religion is a perfectly viable subject, as long as WP:NPOV is maintained. 23skidoo (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep is a notable topic which has received much discussion spanning over decades, such as Travolta's recent appearance in Hairspray meaning some gays thought they should boycott it. Sticky Parkin 00:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'd like to remind nominator that our decisions on whether an article should be kept or deleted should be based on the merits of the topic -- not the perceived quality of the current state of the article. Strangely, I don't see the nominator raising his concerns on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There are still no delete votes, so I believe this nomination is still a candidate for speedy keep. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do find the absence of secondary sources establishing notability troubling. Jayen 466 13:48, 27 November 2008 (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 consensus that emerged seems to support the idea that the added sources are enough to justify this article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology and sex[edit]

Original research based almost exclusively on primary sources and without so much as a secondary source establishing notability for this (supposed) sub-topic of Scientology. Justallofthem (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Perhaps I was trying to be too succinct in my nom as I have in the past gone very much the other way. As I mention below: If you examine the article you will see that my premise is not specious; the only on-topic bit of the article that is sourced from reliable secondary material is the little bit where Hubbard said he recommends no sex during pregnancy. Perhaps deserving of mention in another article, but not having its own. Cirt's analysis notwithstanding, this article is not well-sourced in RS secondary materials. Other than the bit I mention above the other non-CofS sources are either non-notable and non-reliable POV pieces or are related to tangential material. It is simple to provide the appearance of RS secondary sourcing by referencing material not central to the theme of the article. For example, I could characterize Scientology as "controversial" and Hubbard as a "science fiction writer" and source both of those well. That would add two more reliable sources to the article but in actual fact I would have simply padded the reference list. I am not saying that the tangential references were included to pad the list, I am simply asking reviewers to look a little deeper. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are actually WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources given in the article itself already, including:
- Cooper, Paulette, The Scandal of Scientology, Chapter 3, "Life and sex in the Womb"
- Malko, George, Scientology: The Now Religion, Chapter 5
- Robert Kaufman, Inside Scientology/Dianetics, pt.1
- See also news, books, scholar

This is certainly a subject that has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and should be kept and expanded upon with additional info from other secondary sources, and the info reliant solely upon primary sources should be pruned - but AfD is not the correct venue to discuss that. Cirt (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, as an exercise, how do "Malko, George, Scientology: The Now Religion, Chapter 5" and "Robert Kaufman, Inside Scientology/Dianetics, pt.1" relate to the subject of the article? --Justallofthem (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply pointing out that there are some secondary sources present in the article from whence to research additional information, but at any rate the subject matter is discussed in many other secondary sources, enough so that the article can be improved upon further with additional secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mkay. My point being that the so-called "secondary sourcing" for this article relates mostly to tangential material and that the article itself is almost entirely original research based on primary materials. Something I would expect you to stand strongly against, given your prior edit history on just those grounds. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well-sourced. Edward321 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This AfD seems like deja vu all over again. Secondary sources sufficient to meet N and V exist in the article. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the other one is the deja vu. I did this one first and then noticed that the other article had basically identical issues. A common occurrence in posting AFDs, I would imagine. Please judge them each on their individual merits, they are separate AFDs. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This diff shows the difference in the article since the last AfD, which had a clear consensus for keep. Nominators rationale is false, as secondary sources are currently used in the article, contrary to the statement "without so much as a secondary source establishing notability for this (supposed) sub-topic of Scientology". DigitalC (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are demonstrating that the article has not substantially changed since is survived AFD last time? All due respect but that is not cause for a speedy keep, see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. If you examine the article you will see that my premise is not specious; the only on-topic bit of the article that is sourced from reliable secondary material is the little bit where Hubbard said he recommends no sex during pregnancy. Perhaps deserving of mention in another article, but not having its own. --Justallofthem (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cirt. As with the Homosexuality and Scientology article, this one clearly meets WP:N and WP:V. Themfromspace (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing to indicate why the previous AFD from 10 months ago should be overturned. If there's a content issue that has developed since then, then discussions at the article level can be undertaken with respect to this, with one option being rolling back the article to its state in February 2008 when the AFD passed. I also have basically the same viewpoint on this article as I have expressed on the above AFD regarding "Homosexuality and Scientology", but I won't spam this AFD by cut-and-pasting it, since it's a bit lengthy. Scroll up. ;-) 23skidoo (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Team Scientology's Just-whatever (honestly, I can't keep track of the endless numbers of name changes) hasn't provided anything to indicate that Scientology's views on sex are non-notable. AndroidCat (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all previous keeps. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An OR effort, and no evidence as yet that any scholarly or otherwise reliable sources directly address this topic in detail, as required by WP:Notability. The one solid source I see, added during the last few hours, is the one that relates to Homosexuality and Scientology (Siker), and we already have a dedicated article for that (which is also full of OR and should be rewritten, making prominent use of this source). Most of the other non-primary sources are tangential mentions in press reports; this, however, is a WP:SPS and completely unsuitable. Jayen 466 10:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The issue of sources used was raised at AfD1. AfD1 was closed as keep with promises of fixing the article's references. This AfD2 was listed ten months later and same issue of sources used was raised again. The keep thrust again was promises to fix the article. As the AfD numbers increase, the promises to fix arguments carry less weight. Not independent: The main trouble I am having with this article is that the content goes straight from Hubbard into Wikipedia, a problem that has been carried from the close of the first AfD into this second AfD. Few of the sources are independent of scientology. When published sources write about topics, they make business decisions as to what is important and what is not. Wikipedia is at its best when it reflects those hard business decisions by using source material at least one step removed from an event that are independent of that event. However, the use of dependent sources avoids dealing with the issue of whether anyone cares about the topic or sufficiently cares about the topic relative to the overall main topic of scientology. Instead, for the most part, the article now presents material for which the Wikipedia editors who entered the dependent material in the article can be said to care about. Is that the purpose of Wikipedia? I don't think it is. Content forking: I'm also trouble that this article may be a content fork. This article does not represent all significant views of scientology that have been published by reliable sources. Instead, it carves out a some of Hubbard's writings on sex and elevates them as the core doctrine of the Church. The article presumes that everything written by the now dead Hubbard was, is, and always will be the Official view of Scientology. There is nothing in the article that establishes that the listed sex views are the core doctrine of the Church. By not limiting content entrance into the article to independent third-party, published sources and posting the sex topic outside the context of Scientology as a whole, the article appears to be making a big deal out of a minor issue. Conclusion - The keep positions above appear to agree that the topic meets WP:N but neglect to sufficiently carry the discussion beyond that. While there may be room for scientology and sex in one of Wikipedia's other articles, I don't see any justification in the present write up to maintain an article on the topic-- Suntag ☼
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cirt and Jclemens's commentary. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, this discussion was already the subject of a non-admin closure by yours truly. The admin who reversed that decision has stated in the edit summary that "Scientology articles are subject to offsite canvassing and a solid rational for deletion has been provided." The first statement is presented without any evidence (at least in relation to this discussion) and the second statement is strictly an opinion that ignored the original consensus that led to the NAC. If the current consensus continues on track, I suspect this discussion will be closed as Keep, which would confirm the merit of the original NAC decision. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More material has been added from additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, still in process of researching and adding more from other secondary sources as well. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was re-listed for AfD after Cirt (talk · contribs · logs) added 9 reliable sources to the article. I do not understand the argument that this is an "original resesarch effort". If you want to see a real "original research effort", check out Scientology beliefs and practices. Both pages are clearly notable, and the former contains enough reliable secondary sources sufficient to warrant a Keep. ←Spidern → 22:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I still do not see a source that directly addresses this topic in detail. You will get tangential mentions of sex in secondary sources, e.g reports of references to sex in auditing questions, or references to sex as (part of) the second dynamic. But the literature on Scientology usually addresses this as part of its discussion of auditing or the eight dynamics, respectively. Jayen 466 01:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently 33 sources for this article, citing both the mainstream media as well as Scientology literature to explore the subject in an objective and encyclopedic manner. Dismissing this as "crap" is somewhat unusual. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not mean to cause offence. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a vernacular, but long-established wikilink illustrating one of the arguments that editors should avoid using in deletion discussions. This is the argument, employed by Spidern above, I thought, that another article, Scientology beliefs and practices, has similarly poor sourcing to this article. That's quite correct. However, it is not a valid argument to keep this article. The difference is that sources can easily be found that address Scientology beliefs and practices in detail. The shortcoming of Scientology beliefs and practices is that the article has not yet made use of these sources. It is not that such sources – i.e. reliable secondary sources addressing the topic in detail – do not exist. Jayen 466 04:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key to the argument for inclusion here is notability. My argument was not of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. My comment was that condemnation of this article for its lack of sources is laughable when the latter page contains even fewer. The notability of the subject is illustrated with a quick google books or google scholar search. Furthermore, the article does cite reliable sources. Do you dispute the reliability of the news media sources used? Also, your admission that literature exists on the subject contradicts your vote to delete; if you are aware of academic literature exists which is citable, why not add some such citations yourself? ←Spidern → 03:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I ran the same google book search, but I could not readily find a source that actually topicalised "Scientology and sex" in the way this article does. Of course you do get hundreds of books that contain both the word "Scientology" and the word "sex", but that trick works with any word – try cabbage + sex. Notability of a topic is established, as Suntag and I tried to explain above, by the fact that reliable sources out there, in the real world, produce sources that make this topic the subject of detailed discussion and investigation. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline. The question in this case is not whether the cited sources are reliable or not. The question is whether they are directly about this topic and establish its notability. As far as I can see, the media sources used here are all about something else, but do contain a tangential reference to sex and some Scientologist or other. This here is a good example. It is about Cruise's wedding, and what marriage means within the Scientologist belief system. It includes a brief mention of sex. We shouldn't compile articles and topics from such tangential mentions.

As for my admitting that sources existed, I identified a source (Siker) that I thought helps establish the notability of the topic Homosexuality and Scientology and posted it on the talk page of that article. I suggested it should be put to use there. Cirt then incorporated it here. I think, given sufficient sources, it might make sense to have this as a main article, with Homosexuality and Scientology as a more detailed subarticle, the way it is presently structured. But there is no need to have a main article if the only good source for it is one that covers a narrowly defined and contentious subtopic (homosexuality). Hope this makes sense. The very liberal use of primary sources is the main concern with this present article. Without the primary sources, what would there be? Jayen 466 04:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbage and sex - I like that. Twice as many hits as Scientology + sex on Google Books and 9x as many on Google Scholar. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Many reliable sources about this topic. I don't see an issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing issue resolved. لenna vecia 05:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see sourcing here as an issue. And the primary sources only help to avoid misconceptions -- it is coming directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak. ^Law_shoot! 05:27, 30 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xplico[edit]

Unnotable software with no significant coverage in reliable sources, nothing ground breaking about it. Article is nothing more than a short advertisement for it. Failed PROD with prod removed by article creator whose only edits have been to this article. Probable creator or associated with product. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google shows no RS, Google news shows no hits for this usage, and agree that article creator looks like an SPA. On the other hand, there seems to be plenty of forum traffic about it, so it may become notable at some point in the future. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur that this software is too new to have generated the kind of coverage necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia. But please don't bite the newbies. It looks like nobody bothered to explain to this "SPA" in non-WP-jargon why the article was being prodded in the first place. Or at least link to the guidelines for inclusion... Pcap ping 09:16, 26 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in the Harvest Moon series[edit]

This is list of extremely minor characters within a series of unconnected video games. Each game features its own set of characters, which is generally just a very minor part of the game, allowing for the characters to easily be covered within the main game articles if necessary. TTN (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate combination article for related characters. By far the clearest way to do this. Sufficient sourcing is possible from the primary sources for the games. DGG (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete After reading over the types of characters presented in the series, it appears that an all-encompassing list like this would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Major characters should get their own articles (assuming they meet the notability criteria) but a list like this becomes too long and fancrufty if there aren't standards for inclusion. A list of major characters from the series would probably be appropriate. Themfromspace (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:VGSCOPE, this is exactly the kind of individually non-notable grouping which it advises against spinning out without significant secondary source coverage, and per WP:N for the same, lack of significant coverage from independent sources. The Harvest Moon series is something of an oddity in this respect, each game has a spray of individually named and identifiable characters with a few lines of dialogue a piece (depending on what's happening in the game world), but these are not major characters in the sense of having detailed backstories etc. If this list were to have all those characters then it would be an unmanageable mess. It doesn't, what it does instead is list all those who can be married by the player character in the different games, or 'rivals' who are NPCs who will marry them if the player isn't quick enough etc. Here we have another problem, there is precious little to actually be said about these characters, most of the details you could list would be things like their 'likes and dislikes' and birthdays, which again tie into the marriage aspect of gameplay, and go against VGSCOPE (again). Whichever way you spin it, the way to deal with (or leave out) these characters lies in the individual articles. Someone another 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list of specific gameplay elements that goes against WP:VGSCOPE. Characters of Harvest Moon series is not in itself notable (no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject), therefore the detailed list is also not notable. Jay32183 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the many reasons. If you think this is bad, just note that this is AFTER I trimmed a ton of content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally I am not against List of characters but only for tv characters because they are always some real world things to add. Moreover, this list is cleaned and that's very good. But... These are characters of a video game series and the list has not a single line of real world information. Video games have a smaller audience than tv series and the notability of secondary video game characters is seldom important. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real-world context. This article would do better on a Wikia site. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:49, 28 November 2008 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for the game of Throw Ball[edit]

No reliable sources to establish notability; more seriously, WP:NOT a sports rulebook, and WP:NFT. KurtRaschke (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - to Throwball. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rules covered in parent article, unlikely search term. No reason for a separate article. gnfnrf (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator, Sportsenthu (talk · contribs), has stated that this content is unverifiable and original research on xyr own part. Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lebensbedingungen der kirgisischen Minderheit am Ausläufer des Pamir[edit]

WP:ESSAY. Title in English: "Living conditions of the Kyrgyz minority in foothills of the Pamir ". Seems a little too particular and time-sensitive to be an encyclopedia article. Besides, one of the first things the article says is, "must not be forgotten that alone because of the climatic conditions only a few people lead such a life." Perhaps merge into Kyrgyz people after translation? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR: "er beruht vor allem auf eigenen Reiseerfahrungen" - "it's based mainly on personal experience". -- Prince Kassad (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen — Wikipedia ist nicht ein Platz, Aufsätze zu posten. MuZemike (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, Löschen is German for Delete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based upon assertions that this is original research. Of course I have to take other editor's word for it because someone posted a German-language article to the ENGLISH Wikipedia, which would be my prime rationale for deleting, if no one is bothering to translate it. 23skidoo (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I've placed a Google translation on the article's talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of InuYasha terms[edit]

This list consits of terms that are either common to many anime/manga series - and Japanese culture in general - or are (or should be) already better covered in individual character articles, the character list, etc. The previous deletion discussion closed as keep largely because this list was the only place to find the definition for some of the series-specific terms, but that should be a largely moot point in light of all the recent merging and deletion of articles related to the InuYasha cleanup. —Dino guy 1000 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with the merging, deleting, and the fixing of remaining article to properly use the English terms throughout with brief explanations on first use, this list is completely unnecessary. Also, per the nom, it is more of a "how to"/cheatsheet of Japanese culture and extremely common terms (Lecherous), most of which are already in wiktionary, than anything of actual use. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised this survived deletion the first time around. This is obvious, non-notable fancruft. In fact, a significant number of these terms are actually just translations; I'm pretty sure baka, Itadakimasu, and oni aren't specific terms from Inuyasha. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only is this mind boggingly useless to the non-fan, it's not even very useful for a fan. This is just a random assortment of crap that happened o be in InuYasha. JuJube (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what WP:INDISCRIMINATE is all about. Themfromspace (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see nothing to indicate why the previous AFD only 6 months ago, which was close to a snowball keep, should be overturned. The nom, similarly, has not explained why the previous decision should be ignored. 23skidoo (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was no where clear to being a "snowball" keep, and it was highly inappropriately closed by a non-admin when it was obviously not a clear cut case of keep. By his own summary, he evaluated the deletes and keeps and he decided he preferred the keep arguments. Such a close is something an admin should do, not a non-admin, as is clearly noted in the information regarding non-admin closures. I'm surprised it didn't go to DRV. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Simple reason: a non-admin closed the AfD. The 2nd AfD should've been started even sooner. And the previous decision doesn't need to be address in the current AfD; consensus can change and there's no proof that those same editors hold the same opinion now. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIRDEF, and WP:DICTIONARY. Most of the vocabulary term's really isn't particular or special to the universe of InuYasha and much of it can apply to any anime or manga. That means that the list is indiscriminate. The list also has a bias towards the Japanese/fansub/scanlations terms instead of the terms used by Viz Media, which holds the English languages distribution rights for both the anime and manga. This means that the list doesn't maintain a neutral point of view. The previous AfD's result has no bearing on the current AfD, especially when it was closed by a non-admin using disputable logic. And WP:NOTAGAIN is not a valid argument to summarily keep an article. I generally do not see list of terms as being helpful to the reader, and such lists are often attempts to make the article look more informative then it really is. The only exception I would make is when the meanings of the terms are so complex, and it is impractical to explain them in a summary or character description. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the list was created when support of using non VIZ terms was greater than not.--88wolfmaster (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete What the heck? This is Wikipedia, not some Anime fansite. Just like the nominator said, these terms are common Japanese cultural terms. This article has no notability. I truly doubt anyone would care it some Japanese words are used in a overrated show. Lehoiberri (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Embarrassingly bad page, that doesn't satisfy any Wikipedia inclusion policies. Not only is it not written in an appropriate style, but the majority of the 'terms' listed there are simply common Japanese words. The series specific terms are mostly covered on individual character pages in greater detail.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry but we don't have a InuYashaictionary. In wikipedia these termas are just neologisms :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Zee[edit]

nn production company that has made one film shown at a college campus and a few festivals. Tagged speedy G11 by me, removed by another editor without comment. gnfnrf (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SOAPBOX. Lots of blog chatter but no WP:RS. The article does not even assert notability in objective terms. Also, half of the article is copyvio of the About Project Zee page. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps Project Zee might have a notability one day... but they haven't gotten there quite yet. Until notability can be addressed, it is not ready for Wiki. And to be fair, I did a search and actually found a source that I used to citee the article... but its not enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. No problem with recreation if the company grows enough down the road to meet notability standards here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2008 (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 02:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edge Baronets[edit]

Not Wikipedia notable. There does not seem to be more to say about the title than it was created for Sir William Edge. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL doesn't bring up anything. After giving a sentence about the title, the article goes into BLP issues about Edge. A tell in the article is that the 1990 reference cited in the article was published before the 2007 BLP information in the article. In sum, there does not appear to be enough reliable, secondary published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The baronetcy itself is notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Surely the many hours of discussion resolved the issue of the notability of Baronetcies long agoOrdyg (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Baronetcy is notable and I don't see any BLP issues. The supposed 'tell' doesn't say anything either. It's logical for information to be published before it is included in the article. In sum, the nominator didn't provide any solid reasoning (unless they're making a jump in logic I'm not seeing). - Mgm|^(talk) 22:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the nominator tried hard enough. I was able to find other references to the title and present holder with goggle searches - not that google is the be all or end all. AllsoulsDay (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chile number-one hits of 2008[edit]

This article is based on the Chilean chart listed in WP:BADCHARTS. Since the chart has been deemed non-notable and unreliable, it doesn't make sense to have an article dedicated to it. —Kww(talk) 17:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BADCHARTS - RD ^(Talk) 17:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Chile doesn't have an official chart. WP:BADCHARTS says it all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It took a while to dig down to the exact link. The deletion debate referred to was Hot 100, Top 100 was also dubious, but not the same. Still, a blog which is not integrated in a greater official site, is very unlikely to be an official chart. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. This has no notability. Lehoiberri (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cruisin' 'N' Losin'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cruisin' 'N' Losin'

Non notable book by non notable author who wrote this vanity page. Has also created page on himself which was speedy deleted. Paste (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NB. - RD ^(Talk) 18:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half the entry is about the author (whose article was already speedy deleted). The rest is a one-sentence tag line which cannot support an entire article, especially without any references. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JNW (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2008 (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 redirect to Super Robot Wars Judgement. MBisanz ^talk 09:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melua Melna Meia[edit]

I'm sorry but there are still some things from Super Robot coming: This elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take for someone to be bold and just redirect these pages instead of putting them on AFD? My computer is almost choking on all these nominations. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and merge anything useful and verifiable) to Super Robot Wars Judgement which is the only place this character appears. (it's not like this redirect would be used for anything else). - Mgm|^(talk) 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google search gives just copies of the Wikipedia article and one or two occurrences to a game forum about Super Robots. According to article itself this character appeared in a non leading role and only in a part of the series (in an RPG only for GameBoy!). Do you need a redirect for every fictional name someone comes up? In this series hundreds of characters make short appearances. I am sorry that I am bringing every single character for AfD but being bold has side-effects like: [16] and [17]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as all the other. I hope they are not many left, it's becoming tiring. -- nips (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable third-party sources that give us significant coverage of the subject. So, this fails WP:N. Randomran (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2008 (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 disambiguate. MBisanz ^talk 09:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford elementary school[edit]

The one-sentence article has no sources —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 17:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability of the school. Statement of "one of the best schools" is completely POV, opinion and unverfiable. Length is not as important as the potential for an article, but since this school has no claim of notability, the fact that this argument for deletion is longer than the article says a lot. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New version is a disambiguation page, should remain as such. I stand by my above arguments as to why the original article should not be recreated under a different name. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. About as POV as you can get. Without sources this can't be cleaned up. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new dab page. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, redirect to Montclair Public Schools, where the school is already listed. Deor (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school district, Montclair Public Schools. Trying to delete a school when there is an appropriate target for redirection or merger is something close to vandalism. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montclair Public Schools#Elementary schools - no arguments against this constructive redirect have been adduced. TerriersFan (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as DMB. TerriersFan (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the local school district: Montclair Public Schools due to lack of reliable soruces. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since there are several schools with this name, I have created a disambiguation page with links to the relevant district articles. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:13, 26 November 2008 (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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Jennifer Lopez projects[edit]

Contested prod. Unsourced future events in the life of Jennifer Lopez.

Delete. The creator claims that the information comes from the main article on Lopez, so it should be deleted there as well, unless it is properly referenced. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL. - RD ^(Talk) 18:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Crystal. Hairy Perry 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree per above mentioned rule. --GPPande talk! 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is almost entirely crystal balling. But aside from that, there's no reason to have verifiable, notable future projects be separate from the main Jennifer Lopez article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one lost me with the first words "This great information comes from...". WP:NOT a fansite. If there's anything listed here that is sourceable, maybe merge that info into the main article. But I bet most of it's there already. This possibly could have been speedied based on how it was written. 23skidoo (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Tiger Beat. --John Nagle (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please. Fansite-material. (I agree with 23skidoo on speedying.) Drmies (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sian Alice Group[edit]

This article fails all criteria of WP:MUSIC. I recently prod'd the article, but it was removed with no edits being made towards making it pass any of this criteria. ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait--you already nominated this for deletion, right? Drmies (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but i usually add a line in here as well as the commentary at the top as people seem to overlook that i am voicing my opinion. I'm not sure the notability of the works with the exception of the Guardian article, i think this needs to be reviewed. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 16:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per failing WP:N Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 01:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Criteria #1 of WP:MUSIC requires that a band "... has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works..." which is what I added links to when I removed the prod tag. Is there something wrong with all of those references? Yes, it's still a stub, but the notability should no longer be in question. (??) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Quiddity is correct; nom. may have been a bit quick on the draw. While not all of the sources are really notable, in-depth, etc., the Guardian article alone is almost enough for WP:N. Combine that with the other halfway-decent sources (you know what I mean, Quiddity: an article in Pitchfork is not exactly like an article in Rolling Stone, and the NME article is far from in-depth), and I think you have notability. BTW, kudos to the band's label for NOT filling the page with PR nonsense. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally, I dislike filling Wikipedia with semi-notable musical groups, artists, songs, albums, bands, etc. However, according to the established guidelines for WP:MUSIC and WP:N, this meets the criteria. Should be kept due to sources provided, though some of them are a little weak. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable group. I see no evidence of notability established through multiple, non-trivial publications. Eusebeus (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:MUSIC#C1. The last time I looked, the Guardian, NME, and Allmusic reviews were classed as reliable sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly badly in the need of expansion, but the references provided do establish a passable case for notability under WP:MUSIC#C1 (particularly the Guardian and WNYC stories). Nsk92 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2008 (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 merge to Sister Abhaya murder case. The usual response to this kind of case is a redirect to the article discussing the case. There is suffucuent support here for this to be the result Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fr Thomas kottoor[edit]

Subject appears to come under WP:BLP1E. Also, has only just been arrested. There is no indication when this might come to trial. Subject is already mentioned in the main article Sister Abhaya murder case. I therefore ask that this article is deleted. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

Delete page at Fr Thomas kottoor, because it is duplicated by Fr. Thomas Kottoor. Then rename the latter to Thomas Kottoor. PamD (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no honorifics in article titles per naming conventions) and redirect the names to the case article (since there's nothing else to tell about them).- Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three per WP:BLP1E. These two men are known for being arrested. No substance for balanced biographies. Cover the event. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS.--Boffob (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three: the individual criminals have no claim to notability apart from the crime, which already has a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fr. Thomas Kottoor. He has been in the news for quite some time. Plenty of source available. See here, here, and here. Salih (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sister Abhaya murder case--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sister Abhaya murder case as a subsection. Create a separate article only if that section expands substantially. --Shijualex (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is nothing in the three articles that is not already in the article on the case. Therefore there is nothing to merge. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fr. Thomas Kottoor. Though it is in nascent stage, he is in the news big time. Possible expansion scope still there. But surel keep. Galoiserdos (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Note: More sources are available now. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Salih (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have looked at all the sources provided by User:Salih. None of these prove the notability of either of the men outside of this single event. Wikipedia convention is to have an article on the event rather than on the individuals allegedly involved - unless the individuals are notable in other ways. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "single event" you mentioned is one of the most sensational murder cases in the in the history of Kerala. It is a 16 year old murder case that has generated much heat and dust in Kerala. Thomas Kottoor was in the news ever since the murder took place. He is not an ordinary person. With his influence he could evade the arrest for last 16 years. He is a priest and trained psychologist. He was Chancellor of the Diocese of Kottayam.[18]. With the arrest of Thomas Kottoor, he has now become (along with other accused) the main protagonist in the Abhaya murder case. On 19 November, 20008, the front page headline news in the largest circulated regional newspaper in India was the arrest of Thomas Kottoor and the co-accused.[19]. Salih (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a sensational case. However, following Wikipedia policy WP:BLP1E we only write about the person in the context of the event. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the names to the article on the case. I have no objection to a merge in principle, but there is nothing to merge at this time. I know that in the case of particularly sensational crimes we tend to have articles on the accused - Scott Peterson comes to mind - but in this case we're out in front of the event, and I see no reason not to follow our normal process and cover the event per WP:BLP1E. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. Hardly any content in the articles, and all three fall under WP:BLP1E. The event is covered elsewhere. Pcap ping 15:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the case. And rewrite t that article: overdetailed, confusing, and OR. That the people named here have now been actually arrested in connection with the case justifies the redirects. DGG (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context, definite WP:BLP issues, and when the case in question is a redlink ... it just doesn't work. Additional: that redlink is just on the "main" nomination, I see now. Still, I agree there's no need for each participant to have their own article.23skidoo (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Context is very obvious. Red link is now turned blue. Salih (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2008 (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 redirect to Federico García Lorca. MBisanz ^talk 09:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tragedy of Federico Garcia Lorca[edit]

Non notable play and article that seems only to serve as an advert. Paste (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The play was a local production and doesn't seem to have received significant reviews. Also, there's Federico García Lorca, about the subject of the play; a brief note there would suffice. --John Nagle (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to Federico García Lorca, per John Nagle. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Grisafi[edit]

No coverage in third-party reliable sources to demonstrate notability. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 15:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree with nominator. Could find no information at all in third party, or even secondary, reliable sources. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Undead Warrior (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a grain trader. He has a blog: "With a soft spot in our hearts for corn, we were happy to learn today that VeraSun Energy Corporation won approval to keep paying bills in a hearing Monday in a federal bankruptcy court." [20] He has a podcast.[21]. That's about it. --John Nagle (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2008 (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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Kumar V.V.S.[edit]

This bio of a nonnotable "young scientist" has been tagged as lacking notability and references since August 2008. Evb-wiki (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an apparently non-notable teenager. Very little evidence (other than Wikipedia) can be found to verify that this person exists, and none at all exists that indicates he is notable by any standard. Nothing published, no articles, no other criteria of notability met. Clear delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claimed "young scientist" fails WP:PROF. -Atmoz (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —GPPande talk! 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. speedy could have been better. waste of our time. Docku: What up? 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Nonsnesical vanity article. What did our young scientist discover, gravity? --Deepak D'Souza 05:08, 28 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Boundaries[edit]

WP:ESSAY. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Great essay I'm sure, but not encyclopedia material. --DAJF (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a sociology essay. Regardless of how truthful the information in the article may be, the article is not an encyclopedic topic. There is no real notability, no matter how much the phrase is used, Wikipedia does not need an essay explaining this term, as it is not an encyclopedic topic. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The text has some fairly serious problems, mostly because it is a polemical essay rather than an encyclopedia article in its current form. But the concept of a racial boundary is widely discussed in academic sources -- Google Scholar gives a whopping 6,000 hits -- and the instant text could be rewritten to make a proper article about it. If kept, move to racial boundary as standard usage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think anything sufficiently general (i.e., not details picked for a particular purpose, resulting in what amounts to an essay) could be said that isn't or wouldn't be covered by Racial_prejudice#Racial_discrimination? I'm not sure it's a separate topic, leaving concern about WP:FORK. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think so. We have a fairly extensive article on glass ceiling, which by my understanding is a metaphor for a similar idea, but usually invoked in the context of sexism rather than racism. That article couldn't be merged into sexism without discomfort. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like it has sources that talk about "racial boundary" so it doesn't fail our "original research" policy. It might have originally been somebody's college thesis though; it was uploaded as a single edit. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is covered in the Discrimination collection of articles. New content should be fitted in there. --John Nagle (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though it may not be "original research", it's certainly "original synthesis", and it's unavoidably someone's point of view WP:NPOV. The central thesis of what looks like someone's college essay is "Racial boundaries are widely used in the United States to keep certain races from achieving their full potential through political policies, social policies and family wealth." The two sections are, in reality, two book reports, with "Wealth as a Racial Boundary" being drawn from a book by Thomas Shapiro, and "Mass Imprisonment as a Racial Boundary" coming from a book by Bruce Western. My suggestion is that the author should merge this to the article Thomas Shapiro and to consider creating an article about [{Bruce Western]]. Mandsford (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it relates to the USA and not elsewhere, and it holds to unencyclopaedic and unscientific American views upon race.Red Hurley (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads like a term paper. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to say it. The article does look like an essay. I don't really believe that it contains any encyclopedic value whatsoever. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may have been an essay at one point, but that's a reason to edit for encyclopedic tone, not to delete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a reason to delete if there isn't any reason to think a valid article with the same name could exist and survive (e.g., in the face of merger proposals, etc.), or if there isn't any reason to expect that the article will be rewritten to conform any time soon. Otherwise the exhortation to people not to post essays is a vain one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2008 (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 A9 by Gwen Gale, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC3 (album)[edit]

Album alleged to still be at least 18 months away from release but curiously with full tracklist available (right down to the length of the songs) by artist so staggeringly non-notable (if he even exists) that Googling his name produces only 2 hits other than wikis and Bebo. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-yet-released album that has received no mainstream coverage by a non-notable performer. Fails all aspects of WP:MUSIC and WP:N as does the individual who made the album. Delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unfortunately, albums are not covered under speedy CSD A7... Album completely fails both WP:RS and WP:N as well as crystal ballery --Pmedema (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete via CSD A9. Boldly tagging as such. gnfnrf (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jones, Aberdeen South[edit]

Not yet elected. No sign of considerable local notability in article per WP:POLITICIAN. Dweller (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Paste (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Musamies (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An candidate who has never stood for election is not notable enough for inclusion. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British BJJ Blackbelts[edit]

Okay, everyone sing along: "Everybody was kung fu fighting...those cats were fast as lightning..." All seriousness aside, what we have here is another indiscriminate trivial list lacking proper referencing. Sorry, guys. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there are enough notable British Brazilian Jui-Jitsu black belts to warrant an independent article. This should be merged with a regular list of notable Brazilian Jui-Jitsu black belts, if one exists. Plus, the article should be renamed to British Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Black Belts if it somehow manages to survive deletion nomination. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What are you sorry for??? Your singing, or the nomination of this indiscriminate list? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:42, 26 November 2008 (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 keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gothos[edit]

No reliable references, does not assert it's notability. Not every "sleepy village" deserves an article on wiki. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the references, i see no need to continue this AfD and ask for a Keep and Speedy close.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced. The very specific Google search "Gothos -"star trek" "indian village"" doesn't seem to yield anything approach a reliable source. --EEMIV (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion - I don't know the geography project's more specific criteria for notability, but the references and cleaned up writing and formatting at least slap away my delete !vote. --EEMIV (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Has the nominator taken some efforts to find a Wikipedia policy on Geographic locations? I am sure he (since username contains tiger and not tigress) has not done so and hence nominated the article for AfD with words "Sleepy Village". I would ask the nominator to specifically read WP:NGL Option III. --GPPande talk! 19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? Those words were lifted directly from the article itself. No bad faith here. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. Let me explain - in local Marathi language a village whose population does not grow even though neighboring villages are growing is called zhoplela gaon means sleepy. Now the article is surely written in poor format (back in 2004) and so the person mostly had translated some words as it is from Marathi language. Article has not improved since then just as the actual village. I do not see this derogatory. It is a phrase used in local language and so has been translated. Now, making the use of same in perfect sense English while nominating AfD is something sarcastic which AfD rules prohibit and derogatory. Read the Wikiquette section on AfD page. The village has a history behind it, the article has been on Wikipedia for 4 years, it is a village and not just another geographical location, has fort associated with it. I think putting this article on AfD was a result of not knowing WP policy(proposed). --GPPande talk! 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More likely it was nominated for deletion because, as the nom. says, it is unsourced and there are no readily apparent sources. If you can substantiate claims about this village's importance and how it aligns with the geography notability requirements, please do so before the AfD ends. I'm willing to change my !vote, but not based on anything on this page or in the article (yet). --EEMIV (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for the WP:RS part as per nomination, I have just now added 3 sources proving the existence of the village, that its administration is under village panchayat and that Sabnis are mentioned in Gazetteer. These are Government of India and Government of Maharashtra sources and so extremely reliable. I would check some more sources if possible. --GPPande talk! 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review now - I have added few more sources from other Government of India websites like Census which says it has a population of 1500+ people. These are WP:RS --GPPande talk! 21:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone overwrote the original star wars entry with this. Both entries should be evaluated on their own merit and split if needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Towns and villages are inherently notable regardless of size. US towns of this size are never even brought up for AfD and there's no reason why similar Indian towns should be. The refs added by gppande confirming article content was very helpful.--Oakshade (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GPPande. Villages with a panchayat do not need to assert notability. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as nominator is now requesting closure, after revisions. 23skidoo (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2008 (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 Deleted under WP:CSD#A3 Pedro : Chat 15:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Greek[edit]

Empty page, contains only infobox, hasn't been touched since creation on 27 October. Can be recreated with actual content at some point. roux 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (from where I'm standing speedily). An infobox is not an article and without any text it lacks both context and content (A1 and A3). Is this a new trend article about random migrated groups of people? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete tagged as such, no content. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2008 (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 Nomination withdrawn. Okay, folks, move on, this race is over. (Non-admin closure) Ecoleetage (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HoverRace[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Originally a prod: "Completely unreferenced (WP:V),with no assertion of notability (WP:N).Token directory entry at mobygames, which states that there have been no press reviews of this game." Prod was contested with the rationale: "This article needs to be cleaned up, but if you search Google, there are several reviews of this game. It was probably the first ever online racing game." I have looked through the google hits, and can see no reviews from an independent, reliable source. IGN, Mobygames, etc all have a token directory entry with the publisher's description, but nothing to suggest this meets our WP:GNG, or basic verifiability. Marasmusine (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick apology, as I see that the article has been AfD'd previously, so I didn't need to prod it, should've taken it straight here. Marasmusine (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. NN. roux 12:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reviewed on ogaming.com and was a featured article in the December 1998 issue of GamePro. I really hope this doesn't become a trend where we AFD games that had sources and magazine articles 10 years ago, but are exceedingly difficult to provide now. Someone already attempted to attack ZX Spectrum games, but thankfully we do have a digital magazine archive for that. SashaNein (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if such sources are used to build the article in the first place. I think last time the reliablity of ogaming.com was in question, but I'd be interested to see how significant the GamePro material is. Marasmusine (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if sources from said magazine rack exist, then, by all means, reference them instead of pointing and expecting others to do the work for you. MuZemike (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SashaNein, do you have a copy of this article? Is it one paragraph? a whole page? a publisher's description? critical analysis? Marasmusine (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found it: [22] - I didn't think I would. I found it from a copy of the HoverRace homepage in 1999: [23]. Additionally I found this article proving John Ferber's collaboration in the development of the game: [24] (and updated the HoverRace page itself to reflect that) -- Ryan Curtin, 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.43.144 (talk)
Keep Games with multiple reviews are notable. DGG (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which reviews do you mean? Marasmusine (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Development is active and ongoing, the edit I made yesterday (which is likely why it was brought to your attention and nominated for deletion) was to announce the newest release of the game, something that hasn't happened in years. This game is an important piece of history because it is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) online racing game that still has an active community, holds tournaments, and is under active development. It was also reviewed by http://www.gamepwned.com (certainly a small site, but still a review) about a month ago. -- Ryan Curtin (I don't have an account but I still have an opinion) 03:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.43.144 (talk)
GamePwned appears to be a self-published source [25] ("The articles you find here are currently being written by Greg Cannon (that’s me)"), so is not usable to establish notability (WP:N)
Withdraw nomination - I'm satisfied that the GamePro review is of significant quality. Good work Ryan! Marasmusine (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

اندیشه گستر[edit]

Contested PROD. Article that has been listed for translation without being touched for more than two weeks. Possible spam for something called www.saipaonline.com. role^player 11:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The prod was removed by the user without explanation and it is the user's only edit. Without a viable reason, I see no reason to interrupt the prod process. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Farsi Wikipedia and delete. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Yupik (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete per Stifle. Don't see the point of an untranslated article on the English-language Wikipedia (and how could anyone perform a search for such an article with a western QWERTY keyboard, anyway?) 23skidoo (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The rites have been duly performed as written. Not sure that we'd be doing the Persian Wikipedia a favor by transwikiing this; the website the article mentions does not look obviously notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator is Saipamagazine (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal), which has already been indef-blocked for username violation. Add the fact no progress has been made on the translation, and you get something not worth keeping. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Persiam spam?? MuZemike (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum — I also don't think we're doing any kind of service to the Persian Wikipedia by transwikiing it. MuZemike (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can establish that this is a positive contribution from the indef'ed author. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:PNT. Plus, this is English Wikipedia. Hairy Perry 18:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PNT. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:39, 26 November 2008 (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 Already speedied. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Cope[edit]

Someone tagged it for speedy deletion, but it was contested so i take it here for discussion. The Rolling Camel (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close page already deleted. The Rolling Camel (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toe Head[edit]

DO NOT DELETEAs set forth by the WP criteria for musicians and ensembles. This band meets, and exceeds all criteria set forth by WP Music (Notability) e.g. #1. “It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]” - All press releases from Fender, Rhino Records, and Ocean Pacific USA for their signing to Fender Records. Although run in 2002, still searchable on any major search engine. Also, available from their website

9. “Has won or placed in a major music competition”- Nationwide Fender/Op Emerging Artist Contest. Although run in 2002 still searchable on any major search engine.

10. “Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article)”- Three Toe Head songs with over one year of rotation on FOX Network’s Fuel Channel “Project Detention 2003” and “Project Detention 2004”

11. “Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network”- All FM stations available form their Website.

Also, as for endorsement deals, SWR (also owned by Fender USA) searchable on the SWR website (bass player’s real name: Jason Roberts (AKA Billy-Ray J) listed playing for Toe Head). OCDP website (drummer’s real name: Pat Leon listed for Toe Head), etc. All “verifiable”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.104.146 (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete All band artist deals, and endorsements are legitimate, I know this because I work for Fender. Check Rhino records for Toe Head. You will see them on the Fender/OP Emerging Artist Cd. Just because you have not heard of them, or are not a fan, does not diminish their popularity, or legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.124.123 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note--that is not the way to do it. This evidence, if such there is, should be a part of the article. That is how encyclopedias work: they give verified and verifiable information. Whether nay-sayers here are fans or not is completely beside the point. Please do not tell the reader or the editors to go check that information; included it if you revert those edits again. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They aren't listed on the billboards anywhere, so never had a hit song. Are any of the awards they claim to have won, notable? Dream Focus (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--one of those cases where the really low level of writing in the article hurts the subject. But to get to the matter, even if those awards are real, they are local and not very notable, and likewise for their reviews. BTW, those endorsements from Fender, do they hand those out like candy? I mean, is Stevie Ray Vaughan's spirit playing for this band? These endorsements have to be exaggerations. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2008 (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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Liquid Fire[edit]

Unsigned band, the members aged 19-20. Does not meet any criteria in WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the age of the band members relevant? I can name at least three younger people who are notable despite their age. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for falling well, well short of WP:MUSIC. If any of the voluminous content could be sourced at all then maybe this could be reconsidered, but at the mo it's just another history of another school band. one brave monkey 10:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC with only a solitary album. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons mentioned above. Dream Focus (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Large article, lots of information, well formatted, but it still fails all aspects of WP:MUSIC. A single album is not enough to confer notability. This means the band is not notable, as no third party coverage, awards, major tours, etc. Fails guidelines. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 - Recreation of deleted material [26]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--nice timeline, but no notability. One album, one single, that's not enough. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor nord[edit]

Small-time businessman, also WP:COI. Punkmorten (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and description doesn't give any indication that subject passes WP:N.--Boffob (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable buisness owner. Owning a business does not automatically make a person notable, and neither does having a business plan when 15 years old. Fluffed article that is still a stub despite peacock language, no significant notable accomplishments and no independent third party coverage. Delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Windman[edit]

Autobiographical article authored by completely un-noteworthy person. "Sources" at the bottom of the article appear to have little if anything to do with him personally. Soothing Vapors (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – meets the criteria as established at professionals where it states: “…The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors”. I believe Mr. Windman has more than met the requirement, as noted here [27]]. You will notice that he is cited by more than a few creditable – reliable – verifiable – and noteworthy publications. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - could you clarify how a series of articles written by the subject satisfies that criterion for notability? I think it would inform this discussion, and I prefer not to weigh in without understanding your thinking. Thank you.--otherl left^{No, really, other way . . .} 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

responce - Sorry for the delay. But let me try explaining my rational. And yes, I am repeating myself, as noted below. In my original Keep opinion, I expressed the view that I believed that Mr. Windman met the requirements of Notability as outlined under Creative professionals‘ where it states verbatim; “…The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors‘. An example is if an academic or journalist is notable under Creative professionals‘ his or her possible failure to meet other notability guidelines is irrelevant. In that vain I believe that Mr. Windman‘s prolific publications in Newsday - Baltimore Sun - New York Post and Chicago Tribune, just to name a few, as shown here [28]] fulfill the requirements as outlined in Creative professionals‘ in that if the publications are willing to use his opinion and publish it in print form, they are in fact citing Mr. Windman and depending on his opinion as an “Expert‘. Therefore, citing him as an expert by his peers fulfilling the requirements of Creative professionals‘ . Now that is a mouthful :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it looks like the entire autobiographical article was generated by the subject. The citations are largely irrelevant to the article. Footnotes 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 do not even mention the subject. SM1039 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Let me see here. Your account was just created 5 minutes ago and your first edit here at Wikipedia is at a Afd? Now that is an extremely quick learner. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And your point is what, exactly? My Delete recommendation was clearly not made surreptitiously. I cited two valid reasons for my recommendation. The fact remains two-thirds of the citations are not valid. SM1039 (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sufficiently independent or significant sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:BIO; no significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources independent of him. Having his byline on a lot of articles means he writes a lot, not that he is written about. RayAYang (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self-serving, base autobiography that is completely unsubstantiated by any other sources, of a completely non-notable individual. Wikipedia should not become a vanity press for small people with large egos. SlyFrog (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiographical vanity article, non-notable subject, sources do not actually have anything to do with the article JMGK (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity article, subject is completely irrelevant to everyone but the author, citations link to articles written by the subject and not about the subject. It's fairly obvious by any standard that the subject is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors”. Socrates2222 (talk) 20:2, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- Vanity article with misleading citations to irrelevant sources. deathdrive (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain I think he probably is notable, though I am not satisfied by the references. This really needs one more , not associated with him. The LA Times one might do, but I cant get it to work.It is well established that publication of essays by someone is not enough to make him notable, unless they are substantially quoted. or he can be shown to be considered notable. I am however a little puzzled by the animus expressed in quick sequence by several editors who have otherwise made almost no contributions at Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nobody has cited his work and he's pretty clearly made this entry himself to stroke his ego. I think wikipedia deserves better.Socrates2222 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, let’s start at the basics here. In my original Keep opinion, I expressed the view that I believed that Mr. Windman met the requirements of Notability as outlined under Creative professionals‘ where it states verbatim; “…The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors‘. First, as a guideline it is not policy, in that it is not mandated that it be followed. It is more a reflection of the community consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. With that said, the sub-headings under Notability are meant for individuals, under specialty areas, such as Creative professionals‘ - Academics – Films – Music and such who do not meet general notability standards but are notable in some other way under one of the other notability guidelines. Example is if an academic or journalist is notable under Creative professionals‘ his or her possible failure to meet other notability guidelines is irrelevant. In this vain I looked to what constitutes “…widely cited by their peers or successors”, as noted under Creative professionals‘ and enlisted the help of Merriam-Webster dictionary, regarded as an unbiased - reliable - verifiable and unbiased reference source for the meaning of “cited”. The definition is as follows:cit·ed; cit·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French citer to cite, summon, from Latin citare to put in motion, rouse, summon, from frequentative of ciēre to stir, move — more at -kinesis Date: 15th century 1: to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a court)2: to quote by way of example, authority, or proof <cites several noteworthy authors>3 a: to refer to ; especially : to mention formally in commendation or praise b: to name in a citation^[1]

Now I believe that Mr. Windman‘s prolific publications in Newsday - Baltimore Sun - GW Hatchet and Chicago Tribune, just to name a few, as shown here [29]] fulfill the requirements as outlined in Creative professionals‘. If they do not, please show me where I misinterpreted the guidelines and I will be more than happy to rethink my position. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The link you gave only underlines Mr. Windman's non-notability. Click the links. Newsday: page not found. Hartford Courant: redirects to a page that has nothing to do with Mr. Windman. Chicago Tribune: redirects to a page that has nothing to do with Mr. Windman. Even if the links did work, all it shows is that Mr. Windman has a handful of bylines, not that he is notable or that people are talking about him. Also, GW Hatchet is a student newspaper. Is Wikipedia really for biographies of student newspaper columnists? Soothing Vapors (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responce - 364 bylines, and still counting, as shown here [30]. You must have really big hands Happy Thanksgiving. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Mr. Windman is notable for the number of reviews he had written, I would still be looking for third-party verifiable sources to confirm that fact. I've tried to find citations for Windman too, so I know how difficult it is, but the notability guidelines are pretty firm about this. Since we already have a reference section, I shall quote directly from WP:GNG: "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.^[2]" I applaud you for finding the meager secondary sources that you have, but they just aren't enough to indicate notability.--otherl left^{No, really, other way . . .} 03:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you even bother to click any of those 364 "bylines" you list? On the first page you link to, the Newsday links are all dead, two articles are from a student newspaper, and the NY Daily News has this very authoritative reference to the notable Matt Windman:

"You don't know how awesome this is! I'm at the center of the world!" exclaimed Matt Windman, 12, of Marlboro, N.J., resplendent in his Yankees pinstripe jacket and World Series cap.

Perhaps this supports your position--after all, how could someone at the center of the world not be notable?Socrates2222 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I thank you for the applause, it is appreciate. But to address your comment and question here, I believe I addressed those thoughts above. Possibly we had an edit conflict during posting. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I did miss your restating of your rationale. I think the difference is that academic professionals are published in peer-reviewed journals, while a critic such as Matt Windman is simply being hired to write for newspapers. There isn't a standard of expertise such as one might find in mathematics or anthropology, and Windman can get his reviews in print even if every other critic on the planet thinks he doesn't know what he's talking about. That's why academics get what may appear to be a lower standard, but one which proves to be much more difficult to meet in the publish or perish world of academia. Theater critics just aren't in the same class, and so the standard notability criterion I have cited must be upheld.--otherl left^{No, really, other way . . .} 04:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - LOL differences of opinion. That I can respect, laid-out in logical format. But one more thrust at the “windmill”.^[3][31]. In citing the guideline for Professionals You may have overlooked that it also includes a range of individuals . One of them being journalists. In that I consider Mr. Windman a professional journalist, I applied the standard as outlined in Professionals to Mr. Windman. ShoesssS ^Talk 04:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I think the point of WP:CREATIVE that you refer to is "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors," as none of the other criteria appear to apply. The question is, are the two or three mentions of Windman's name that are referenced in the article sufficient to meet the standard of "widely cited by their peers?" For all the editors that have expressed an opinion of delete, I am confident that a closing administrator will keep this article if the answer to that question is "yes."--otherl left^{No, really, other way . . .} 04:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyone who has ever cited a written work knows what it means, you don't need a dictionary (besides, despite two articles listing him as a "Tony Prediction Expert" and referencing his guess at who will win awards, he isn't "widely cited" for anything authoritative). Look at the notability guidelines--he fails the basic criteria and all of the additional criteria as well. Although I'm sure he's thrilled that ShoesssS is vehemently defending a self-composed article about a random second year law student who wrote a few articles for his student newspaper.Socrates2222 (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responce- I'm sorry, can you cite when Newsday - Baltimore Sun - New York Times and Chicago Tribune, been considered “Student Newspapers”. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- Define "cite" Socrates2222 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the moment. I'm still not convinced by your arguments, Shoessss. The notability criterion you mention works very well for Rex Reed, a critic who is cited by his peers and whose own article has third party references. This isn't intended to be a "What about X?" argument as discussed under WP:WAX, it's just an example of how I think the standard should be applied. There are many professional writers whose work is widely distributed but who are not notable (including myself); therefore, I do not find myself swayed simply by proof that the man's work is published. On the other hand, the publications Windman is published in are notable, which certainly doesn't prove his notability in and of itself, but leads me to suspect that there are better references out there. In a nutshell: I haven't been convinced that we don't need third-party sources to establish notability in this case, but I believe that they are likely out there.--otherl left^{No, really, other way . . .} 03:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I am definitely not convinced that the citations establish notability, and the whole thing really strikes me as an autobiographical vanity article.Realitycookie (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Merriam-Webster [1]
^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
^ An obscure pun to Don Quixote

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moore (Australian footballer)[edit]

No evidence that this player has ever played professionally, therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE test (there was a Chris Moore who was with Dagenham & Redbridge c.2003 and went on to play professionally, but that was this guy) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a clone. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability and WP:Athlete. Hairy Perry 18:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Also appears to be missing from the Aussies Abroad reference in the article. Murtoa (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably as he is now without a club he has been removed from that website since it was added to the article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:01, 26 November 2008 (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 02:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer rage[edit]

Article based completely on original research; orphaned; does not seem to be notable of inclusion and lacks sufficient content to identify it as encyclopedic. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 07:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – At first, I was going to agree with the deletion. However, after a quick News search, I was surprised at the number of articles addressing this psychosis, as provided here [32] In addition, I found more than a few Scholarly works dealing with the subject as noted here [33]. The article can certainly be expanded and referenced and if that is the case, it should be kept. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is in fairly common usage. road rage and the like have articles, and the coverage and usage of this seems to be comparable. Can be expanded, will not fail WP:N, and should not be excluded under WP:NEO. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It needs inline sources, links, and stub status, but these problems don't make it OR. The term is in familiar usage. LH (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2008 (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 as failing WP:V. I have been unable to establish that this institution exists, either. Universities are notable, and recreation is in order if sources can be found in the future. TerriersFan (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatarman University[edit]

Apparently unremarkable or non-existent. No sources available to assert notability. Contested prod. BradV 06:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established and training to improve stamina is a concern. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not assert notability or prove it through reliable sources. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Salih (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —GPPande talk! 19:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as most certainly a hoax. Zero search results for the supposed university. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:43, 26 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé Is...Sasha Fierce Tour[edit]

I am nominating this article to be deleted, without perjudice, until official information has been released. There are no sources to back up any information that is listed in the article, including the speculated title and venues. The page should be recreate once there is an official statement released by Knowles Management, her record label and/or tour promoter. Until then, the article appears to be wishful thinking/fan speculation. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I vote delete per WP:CRYSTAL, I noticed that the nom has had a few problems.... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A editors conflicts on this site has nothing to do with this nomination. Your comment is completely irrelevant. Alkclark (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save the article as ok as it is, im sick of articles been deleted by people who don't even contribute. We will find sources and add them. Wneedham02 (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith during the deletion discussion. Users need not have to actively contribute to the article to contribute in this discussion. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An editor need not contribute to articles to nominate them for deletion, nor need they contribute to them to vote to keep them. However, this article is far too premature to remain. The tour is not yet fully planned, let alone begun, and as per WP:CRYSTAL the article should not be created until there are official, reliable, verifiable third party sources indicating the significance of the tour. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In agreement with both the nom and above editor's statement. 64.140.0.3 (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with other editors, pure speculation at this point. Alkclark (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2008 (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 redirect to SD Gundam G Generation. The arguments relating to OR an Notability concerns (among others) outweigh the concerns of the procedural validity of the AFD. MBisanz ^talk 09:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits[edit]

In-universe fancruft. Largely unverifiable. Non-notable. Contested prod. BradV 06:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the community already have this discussion here and here? Why renominate, let alone prod it?--chaser - t 06:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's in universe! The title should have been a hint. It is entirely acceptable to have in-universe material around as long as it a valid spin off of the main article or a major subject of the fictional world. Gundam pretty much relies on the suits. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't; the strongest sentiment expressed in the recent notability RfC is that "all spinoffs are notable" was flatly rejected. If the subject relies on these suits so much, it should be trivial to identify reliable sources which deal with them. That hasn't happened. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite the same as that -- the majority of the show takes place in the suits. Gundam for all intents and purposes basically is the suits. They're called Gundams, and are what the name of the franchise is derived from. GlassCobra 11:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither here nor there. It is illogical to reason that because the franchise is about the suits that the suits are automatically notable because the franchise is. If no reliable third-party sources devote non-trivial coverage to individual instances of the suits, then an article which takes those instances as its subject fails to establish notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural close as dealt with a month ago, wait until January to renominate. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — entirely game guide material and unverifiable original research. The result of the two AFDs listed was that they were merged here, which it seems like they have been. The problems remain as before, so bringing up the other AFDs are not moot in this case. It's a case of merges that have been executed to improve another article that have failed its goals, hence the AFD here. MuZemike (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add that this is what happens when said unverifiable original research is merged into another article with similar problems — nothing gets accomplished. It's akin to pouring chocolate syrup on dog poo-poo to try to make it taste good. MuZemike (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references do not appear to be reliable enough to be used as a source and most of the material in the article is copied from it anyway. I would recommend using the site as an external link instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as original research and in-universe gamecruft. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This list is a perfectly suitable place for the details of this highly notable fictional franchise. ~~I would disagree with a speedy close, but~~ it seems distinctly silly to me to do anything with this other than keep when the community has already consented to have other articles merged into this. A PROD was also an exceedingly inappropriate way to try to deal with this. Trimming can be worked out on the article's talk page. GlassCobra 11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reconsideration and noticing similar viewpoints from others participating in this discussion, I will remove my objection to a speedy close, and reinforce my initial notion about the prematurity and inappropriateness of this AfD. GlassCobra 10:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least stubbify just to to label of these suits (and move to broader list name) - Appears to be referenced to a fan site. And "G-Generation F mobile suits" -- is there some better-suited/other list that isn't so specific? Please tell me we don't have separate A-, B-, C-, x-generation lists floating around. --EEMIV (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —--EEMIV (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Whatever "relevant" information there is to whatever "list of Gundam characters" article there is. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's this article. Several others have already been merged into this one. GlassCobra 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge/redirect. I started the merge based on the closure of two AfDs to help out, as sometimes these things close as merge and no one actually goes ahead and merges (some just redirect without merging, sometimes no one does anything) but as Gundams are not really my cup of tea aside from merging the content I am not really able to accomplish much else in the way of actual referencing and this particular article is not a priority to me. I placed a rescue template on it in the hopes that someone with greater knowledge or who may have Gundam publications without online archives can maybe accomplish more. Maybe speedy close due to nominations for the two merged articles being only a short time ago. Maybe redirect to some other Gundam article as they do not seem to be completely made up and unless I have strong suspicions otherwise I like to assume good faith with our article creators. Yet, although this time I would actually agree that sourcing is a bit more difficult than usual here, I cannot agree with an outright delete on the grounds WP:ITSCRUFT or WP:JNN bases per Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insalvageably in-universe. There isn't enough coverage of any of these subjects in reliable sources from a real-world perspective to warrant even a list article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In-universe, non-notable cruft. The "sources" are a joke. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because Wikipedia is not game guide: SD Gundam is a game without canonic anime or manga. Transwiki to Gundam Wikia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. The subjects of the article lack substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources, so fails notability. Edison (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and Keep There was a discussion here a month ago to merge the individual articles into here. The closure of that discussion was authority for the merge, and for this article. To try a month later to remove the article justifies the statements I have earlier made that merger proposals from opponents of this content are sometimes just devices to remove the content altogether when there would not be consensus for that. I see a proposal above to merge to List of Gundram characters. If done, i expect that the article will in turn be nominated. Glass Cobra is perfectly right about the inappropriate nature of this AfD. DGG (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it is not equally a case of gaming the system to argue that a group of articles which fail WP:N can somehow acquire notability if only they are merged into a list. This appears to be the case here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete In-universe: has no application to this world, and hasn't been written about by scholars of this world. WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works." This article about fiction is in no way encyclopedic, and no sources are possible to find to assert that a "list of SD Gundamm G-Generation F mobile suits" has any reception, impact, or significance to the real world. Themfromspace (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close We had this discussion less than a month ago -- move on, people. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No notability as it's not inherented from parents. I'd also like to echo one of the other remarks - "list of" really means = dumping ground for any old shite. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't additive or inherited--specifically, if a dozen articles with no sources are merged into one, that article still has no sources. The subjects of this list are not covered in significant detail by third party sources. Further, the specificity and parochial nature of these articles (and the list formed from them) almost entirely precludes the possibility that they will meet WP:NOT (As noted variously above). Protonk (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 15:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to SD Gundam G Generation, which itself is in need of cleanup. --Farix (Talk) 15:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Farix. There's like two paragraphs on ifnormation here, just move the information into a section somewhere else instead of deleting it. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chaser and Farix. This decision was already made. If the merge hasn't happened yet, you don't AfD it just to get it going, you bug the people that were supposed to perform the merge. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my usual practice on speedy renominations. I have no doubt that everything has been done with honorable intentions, but I do read the prior AfD discussions as authorizing this article, and I think editors need to be given a good faith opportunity to work on these lists while we try to sort out how we will deal with these lists. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:07, 30 November 2008 (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 G3 by Gwen Gale, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Together Again (Jamahl Seden song)[edit]

Per A9, song by not notable artist. If this is not true, (as it says "...by Jamahl Seden, Janet Jackson, James Harris III, etc.), then perhaps a move, or clarify? Otherwise, falls under A9. American Eagle (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The article currently says, "The song was released digitally on December 5, 2008 as Seden's debut single." If an article refers to the future as the past, that is a big problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Must be a hoax by a guy who doesn't even have a article here and the date's been changed. Otherwise, Delete --Numyht (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, the future/past confusion is an issue. In any case, does not meet WP:MUSIC#SONGS in any way. Not a hit, no coverage, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3/A9 Performed by a red link artist. Clearly a hoax given the temporal confusion and the fact that I can't imagine a red link contributing to a song with so many blue links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:39, 25 November 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is My Milwaukee[edit]

Fails WP:N. This article is based upon a odd video on YouTube that is possibly a Alternate Reality Game. I say "possibly" because this thing started last Tuesday. The people playing this game have created their own private Wiki, so this is article is not needed. dposse (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC) (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent verification to assert its notability. Royal broil 04:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somehow it seems cool even though I have no idea what the game is about. But no notability suggested or indicated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For an obvious ARG barely a week old, it is already just shy of 1000 google results. I don't think I Love Bees was more popular in the first week, and it seems silly to remove the article now so that it can be re-added in a month or so when a lot more information is known about it. Here's the Alexa data. Just because there's an article on some random wiki somewhere does not mean there shouldn't be one on Wikipedia. There's a wiki for Star Wars (the Wookiepedia), but does that mean all links related to star wars have been sent to a Soft Redirect to Wookiepedia? That, to me, is not a logical response. --TIB (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're comparing this to Star Wars? How? This began last Tuesday as a weird 10 minute video on YouTube, a small website and a phone number. No one knows what this is for, but so far, this does not have nearly the impact of Nine Inch Nails's Year Zero which is actually notable. The largest website i've seen this mentioned on is Digg and SomethingAwful. It's not nearly in the same league as Year Zero. dposse (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, I'm certainly not interested in Star Wars, but I don't think it should be relegated to a separate wiki. I suppose because this ARG (and it is very hard to believe it is anything but) wasn't advertised on a high profile location like the end of a Halo ad or wherever Year Zero was advertised, that it's not yet notable? --TIB (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to be not only popular but part of an official production of the Milwaukee Tourism Committee, which if not making it notable as its own article, at least makes it notable enough that the information should be kept on Wikipedia. If this AfD somehow passes, the information should definitely be merged into a section of the article on Milwaukee, WI. Based on the initial data of online response to this viral video, I would say that it's probably notable on its own. 12.226.169.154 (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think someone pointed out that the Milwaukee Tourism Commission is not real, and that Milwaukee's actual tourism organization is called the Milwaukee Visitors' Bureau. This MTC is made up for the video/game/whatever it is, so shoudl be judged on its own. Rmbjspd (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MTC doesn't exist. Keep nonetheless for reasons below. --Samvscat (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, despite unclear origins (the "Milwaukee Tourism Committee" is a sham, it doesn't exist), the thing is captivating and it's growing quickly. There are supplemental videos out already so this thing is definitely going somewhere. As TIB said, if it gets deleted now, it will just come back in a few weeks when we know more about it. Might as well keep it around to add details as they come. --Samvscat (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP has documented other viral marketing campaigns and ARGs, I see no reason for this to be excluded from that group. Further, it's notability is increasing, leaving little room for deletionists to raise valid objections. burnte (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this passes WP:N. True, it's a relatively new game, but searching through the Googles shows a huge amount of hits and interest. FlyingToaster 04:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How can there be an encyclopedic article when we don't even know what we're writing about? No reliable sources to show notability; when some show up, I will have no problem with it having an article. At the momment, there's no notability (as opposed to popularity, which it clearly does have). Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N and frankly, very little to pass WP:V. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:48, 30 November 2008 (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 A7 by Texas Android, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Weaver[edit]

No evidence of passing either WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. A band player in a band of another singer. No references, no independent notability and in fact no significant coverage of any kind that I could find by googling. Nsk92 (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO. A live player for some band is not enough of an assertion of notability. GlassCobra 11:39, 25 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Trail[edit]

There are some potential claims of notability here but real issues with verifiability especially in that no reliable sources back up the VoA claim and Levine's own site calls him a faculty member and not an assistant dean which I'm not sure would confer notability. Also utter lack of reliable sources other then mentions of performancs. No apparent reviews of his work. Thoughts? StarM 04:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to pass either WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. No evidence of significant scholarship and does not appear to be notable as a musician. Regarding Assistant Dean, even if he was one at some point (the article was created in 2006), that would not be sufficient for academic notability; not even if he was a Dean. WP:PROF specifies that only administrative posts at the level of a university president/chancellor confer automatic notability and that for lesser posts satisfying some other criterion of WP:PROF is needed. Nsk92 (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not covered by established media. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Found about 10 outside sources mentioning his work in the D.C. region on news.google.com that indicates to me that in a more specialized search it could be that something more significant turns up. I think the article needs improvement right now, as notability is beginning to be established. --Buridan (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found 7 news articles mentioning him as a pianist, but they were mostly community events articles listing upcoming activities, where he was listed together with other performers. The fact that news articles featuring him as a pianist are hard to find, if they in fact exist, suggests lack of notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the improved article. That he is called upon to play at the National Archives speaks well toward his notabiliy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the archives link is a trivial mention in a press release that does not discuss his work. I believe it's long established here that press releases cannot be used for notability because they can say whatever they want. StarM 13:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps... except that this particular "release" was put out by the National Archives themselves, and may be considered a news release rather than a publicist's blurb and although short, directly addresses their repeated performances at their facility... notability indeed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient coverage, press releases cannot be used for notability, fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2008 (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:SNOW and rewrite/rename. -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namibia national ice hockey team[edit]

Declined speedy nomination. Original speedy deletion rationale was, "There is no Namibian ice hockey team, only inline hockey is played there." If the speedy request is to be believed, this is potentially a hoax article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly not a hoax, since the fact that Namibia is a member of the IIHF is referenced: [34]. The article states they are registered, and that they currently do not participate in any world championship events. I don't see any hoax. Reso lute 04:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rewrite: I created this article in good faith that there was such a team, based on the only source I had at the time. Other sources [35] indicate that Namibia only as an inline hockey team. I strongly suggest moving this article to Namibia Ice and InLine Hockey Association and rewriting it accordingly. Flibirigit (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Flibirigit. While Namibia may not have an ice hockey team, they are still members of the IIHF, and while they may not be active with an ice hockey team, they do have an active inline team. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename At the risk of being repetitive -- no hoax here. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename/rewrite Jamaica had a bobsleigh team and it does officaly exist --Numyht (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some rewrite based on the NIIH website, to reflect that this is a national inline hockey team rather than an ice hockey team. So far as I can tell, plans for anything other than roller hockey team are on ice. Mandsford (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2008 (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. Magioladitis (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rich girls (mixtape)[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable mixtape, though the artist appears notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, no establishment of notability that I see. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mixtapes are generally non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Icewedge (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing to speak of, no assertion of notability. GlassCobra 11:37, 25 November 2008 (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 no consensus. , default to keep. At least it has sources, which is more than I can say for a lot of articles that come through here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left Field Lounge[edit]

It's a yard, a grassy area, within the confines of Dudy Noble Field, Polk-DeMent Stadium at Mississippi State University and as such, should be included in the very same Dudy Noble Field, Polk-DeMent Stadium article, but not one of its own. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - a lounge area? I don't see how it's notable. It should be merged to the correct article then redirected to it. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe Left Field Lounge is unique and has its own history. Bestselling author John Grisham has even written specifically about it: See http://www.leftfieldlounge.com/JG.html . Also see: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/out_in_left_field/ . The LFL's "standing room only" policy and large capacity has helped Mississippi State set multiple college baseball attendance records, more than double the stadium's official capacity. It has also been named "The Best Place To Watch College Baseball" by Sports Illustrated. Therefore this entry should not be deleted. Allstarecho is a fan of MSU's rival school (U of Mississippi) and obviously is targeting Mississippi State wikipedia entries or targeting this entry that I have created because of a disagreement we have on another entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjmpb (talk • contribs) 01:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I'm not "targeting" anything. If the "Left Field Lounge's" claim to fame is a brief passage about it by John Grisham and a small article about in a once-a-week free metro-area "nightlife" "news" paper, then what about U of Mississippi's (Ole Miss) "The Grove", which has gotten extensive coverage by ESPN, CNN, BBC and many others? But yet, you don't see an article on Wikipedia about "The Grove" do you? In FACT, if there was a seperate article for the U of Mississippi's (Ole Miss) - which yes, I am a fan of - party yard known as "The Grove", I'd move for it to be deleted too because it would belong in the same article as Vaught-Hemingway Stadium, not an article of its own. So what makes Mississippi State's grassy area next to the baseball stadium so notable that it needs an article in an encyclopedia??? Nothing. Just like your rival "The Grove" isn't either. The fact is, whether it's Mississippi State's "Left Field Lounge" or U of Mississippi's "The Grove", they are just tailgating grass areas and should be included in the their respective stadium articles. My backyard of my house has seen one hell of a party if not 20 that would rival any tailgating party at "Left Field" or "The Grove" but it doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia. Neither does MSU's grass or Ole Miss' grass. So don't try and sway the AfD by saying it's only because I'm a fan of your rival. Lawns don't deserve an article on their own, be it "Left Field" or "The Grove". - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are calling it a lawn or grassy area tells me that you really don't know anything about it. MSU's Left Field Lounge is not "just a lounge" or "just a grassy area" or even "just a tailgating area". It is packed with trucks/trailers/RV's, homebuilt stands, and monsterous grills. The official capacity of MSU's baseball stadium is 6,500, but due to the LFL MSU has had as many as 14,991 fans attend a game (on-campus college baseball record crowd). That's over 8,500 fans just in the LFL and more than the biggest-ever crowds at 98% of the college baseball schools in the country. By the way, the Grove is unique and terrific and also deserves its own entry and not to be included with the stadium. Anyone that has been there (or read the articles about it) could see that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjmpb (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

packed with trucks/trailers/RV's, homebuilt stands, and monsterous grills is nothing more than tailgating. A rose by any other name... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. You're talking generalizations that just do not apply to the Left Field Lounge. There is no other place like it in college baseball (or professional baseball). It appears that you are just being difficult because you are a fan of a rival school. You ONLY nominated this LFL entry for deletion after our disagreement on the Egg Bowl entry (MSU-OM football rivalry). You obviously looked up my ID and my contributions and saw that I created the LFL entry. You are being petty, allstarecho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjmpb (talk • contribs)

First, I'd advise you to layoff with the personal attacks. Secondly, go read WP:AGF. Thirdly, go read WP:NN. Fourthly, stop making this personal and stick to the issue at hand. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have called you a jealous college-baseball-ignorant Rebel and have edited it out, but "I" did not make this issue personal. You did. I created this entry a long time ago and you just now nominated it for deletion after our disagreement on another entry. I think the evidence and timing show your actions qualify as personal even under the good faith criteria.

Either way, I can get past your personal rivalry issues. I have given information and references demonstrating that the Left Field Lounge is notable as its own entry and will give more if necessary. Its unique history, its unique attributes, the sheer magnitude of attendance/capacity/use relative to the rest of the entire college baseball world, an article by a noted author and independent regional and national journalists, and "awards" such as "best place to watch college baseball" and "100 things to do before you graduate" by national sports publications should be enough for the Left Field Lounge to stand on its own.

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. Cirt (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webmarketer[edit]

Declined PROD; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dictionary like content. It's not a dictionary. Marlith (Talk) 04:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, more time is necessary , it is no longer a dictionary definition. It is greatly improved with meritorical and reliable/sourced content. This article has only 5 days now.

If you still have some objections to this article , please denote them more precisely !!!!! and set another 5 day trial , so the authors / editors have a reasonable amount of time for further improvements and dealing with a problems that You've announced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monikapelc (talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is expanded beyond a dictionary definition at this point. The term seems to be in widespread usage as well based on a google search. I am not positive that it should remain, as it seems to be a neologism, but the widespread usage pushes me to keep the article. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Internet marketing, where the concept is already covered in more detail. Rklear (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete – See Below The author does make a good point here. The article was created at 22:48 and proposed for deletion at 22:51 than AFD a few days later. Now that is efficiency. However, on to why we should keep. First, there is enough media coverage, as provided by Google News and shown here [36]] to establish that the term is Notable enough to meet the inclusion guidelines. Likewise, there is enough scholarly work, as shown by Google Scholar, and provided here [37] that the article can be expanded upon. May it need a rewrite, yes! However, that is not a condition for deletion. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnews search you cited was for "Web marketer". An equivalent search for "webmarketer", the neologism that is the heart of this article, turns up exactly 7 hits. And, to reiterate, Web marketing already redirects to Internet marketing. I don't see what is gained by a redundant article. Rklear (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for pointing out the redirect. I totaly overlooked it. Changed opinion to delete per Rklear argument. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zeal to remove buzzwords, buzzword-wannabes, and marketing gibberish from Wikipedia is no vice. The instant article adds nothing that could not be added to our already existing article on internet marketing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the reference used for the definition states "an alternate term for Internet marketer". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2008 (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 Procedural close. The AFD debate for the article this redirects to is here. In the event that article gets deleted this redirect can be deleted under CSD R1. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placement new[edit]

Declined prod. Wikipedia is not a how-to, nor is it a repository for documentation. It's possible that a brief discussion of this topic belongs in a larger article on C++, but it doesn't seem to work by itself. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is now a redirect to placement syntax (also nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Placement syntax). --Itub (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2008 (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 02:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westin Causarina Las Vegas Hotel, Casino & Spa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Westin Causarina Las Vegas Hotel, Casino & Spa

Not even an indication of notability. WP:Notability (buildings), as regarding what it says about individual hotels. Speedy was denied on the grounds that this article has been here long enough that controversy is likely, but I think it makes more sense the other way around: if it's been around this long and still no one has added anything indicating notability, that speaks for itself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is established given that when it was nominated, there was at least one news source used. Yes, the article does need work. But that work is adding references which should be addressed by a cleanup tag and not bring it here for deletion. Also WP:Notability (buildings) does not apply since notability is as a casino and not a building. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that a single article in the local paper that reports every time a bulldozer moves in Las Vegas doesn't reach the level of "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (WP:Notability (businesses)). —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The included sources seem to satisfy GNG, and I expect there are plenty more. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notability now satisfied and appropriately Cited. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:14, 26 November 2008 (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 02:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watcher in the Water[edit]

This guy is not notable (fails the four-pronged test). He has only a couple of minutes of screentime in the film and maybe is the focus of half of chapter in the book and doesn't even have a name. Now Middle-Earth is one of those subject matters where you can find a lot of information about practically anything you want, so fluffing up this article was not hard to do. But if you actually consider the real world impact it has, it's pretty much zero. Belongs on the LOTR Wiki, not here. Remurmur (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there exists many sources from third parties, proving its notability. That is the bare minimum to achieve notability for an article. Marlith (Talk) 04:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Monster with a significant role in the plot. That he doesn't have a name is part of the desired effect, not that the author thought it not worth the bother. Tolkien used names so effectively that the failure to do so here indicates an addition dimension of horror. There will be enough references, a with everything on this universe, so the argument would have to be what elements of his works are intrinsically unnotable regardlesss of sources. I don't think theats a sound principle. DGG (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a fairly well-sourced, detailed article about a character with a significant (albeit comparatively minor) role. one brave monkey 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant character, acceptable sourcing. GlassCobra 11:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; sufficiently sourced and a significant character is a notable work of fiction. Satisfies every requirement I know of. Per nom's comments, its role in the movies is irrelevant; all we care about are the books and the article suitably focuses on this. 23skidoo (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Well sourced?" Lets look at the sources.

The first citation is a link to Third Age. We're not supposed to cite ourselves.

Three of the citations are for Tolkien's books, and one cites the film. This does not establish notability.

Four cite in-universe LOTR encyclopedias.

One is just citing an alternate name.

Two cite online stores just to prove certain merchandise exists.

These leaves two references that even begin to touch on real world notability. Nobody has shown that this is anything but an article with a lot of content on a minor character.--Remurmur (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Respectfully, I must disagree with the above. There do appear to be sufficient multiple sources independent of the films or the original novels that indicate this creature has some out of universe notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, despite the fact that WP:FICT is still a draft proposal and currently in flux. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- inherently notable; also unique. Possibility of adding comparison material regarding HPL-Mythos creatures. -- 62.25.109.196 (talk)

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. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Clean Start Party[edit]

No notability from any independent sources. Ghits reveal Wikipedia mirror pages and ballot listings, nothing more Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much notability to speak of so I was interested to check out the reference... which was to a geocities webpage. I do like the party's name though... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no notability was found after a search, beside geocites, which I wouldn't trust as much as other sources. Marlith (Talk) 04:13, 25 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up (Rage Against the Machine song)[edit]

Non-notable non-single without enough coverage in reliable sources. Almax999 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BE BOLD and redirect to Rage_Against_the_Machine_(album). Lugnuts (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent enough third party sourcing. IIRC, this song was also featured on the soundtrack for The Matrix. I'll see if I can find some sources for that. GlassCobra 11:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, howabout sourcing that to the closing credits of The Matrix, where it is quite apparent. :) JulesH (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This article does not seem to be encyclopedic or notable enough. Redirect to Rage Against the Machine (album).--74.163.253.149 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it isn't a charting single. Tavix (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is more to notability than just that... Drmies (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am sorry to ask this question, but did anyone do a quick Google search to see if this may be Notable enough for inclusion? Just a quick entry, under very specific parameters produced these results, [38]. I believe they fulfill the requirements of inclusion here. Rewrite yes, deletion, No.ShoesssS ^Talk 02:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree If this article is rewritten using these sources, it may be notable enough to keep.--65.8.237.87 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those sources look more like reviews of RATM shows that mention the song. I didn't see any evidence of the "media furor" claimed in the article. Even the Spin reference given in the article only mentions a single show that attacked De La Rocha's speech during a live performance. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the band's best known songs, even if it wasn't released as a single. Use as closing theme in a highly influential film also suggests notability. JulesH (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (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 redirect to Good Omens. I too saw no reason to delete prior to redirecting; we'll just keep an eye on it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Crowley[edit]

Nonnotable by itself, and completely unsourced article on character from the book Good Omens. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then reinstate as a redirect to Good Omens. Being a sourceless, excessively lengthy, biography of a fictional character who appears in just one book, this article is almost certain to be kept but I think those are good reasons to delete. Reyk _YO! 01:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I see no reason to delete prior to redirecting. If the redirect has trouble sticking, the redirect can be protected. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 25 November 2008 (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 redirect to Good Omens. I didn't add in the material because Aziraphale already is mentioned at the target, and nothing here was sourced; it's all here in the history if needed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aziraphale[edit]

Nonnotable by itself, and completely unsourced article on character from the book Good Omens. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rd to Good Omens; one character from one book with no clear rationale for a separate page. JJL (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2008 (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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000–2001 fires in the Western United States[edit]

This is a article that is primarily un-sourced original research β^_command 08:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text is not specific to these fires and could be about any fire that has happened in the past or will happen in the future. Not encyclopedic. (I'm also open to merging anything salvageable into Wildfire if it can be sourced) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article can be sourced and expanded tremendously.Hairy Perry 16:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: References are provided at the bottom of the article, they just aren't included as in-line citations. Could someone check those references and determine the article's accuracy? Everyking (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Newsweek article is available online.[39] The 2000-2002 Forest Fires in the Western United States has a preview on Google Books.[40] -Atmoz (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the strength of those sources, I'd say this is a clear keep. Everyking (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Meets WP:V and WP:N. -Atmoz (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information can probably all be found in one news article. Dream Focus (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For being an orphaned series, uncited, too narrow and too broad. It is too narrow in that in focuses only on two years in one specific region of the world. It is too broad in that the wording includes all fires. I believe that any vote with the belief that it can just be cleaned up is a bad idea. The core problem is that this is the only article on a fire season we have. If specific years are to be given articles, it needs to be systematic and not willy nilly. Until more information is provided to warrant such specific articles, information should be grouped into something like History of wildfires in the United States--Remurmur (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to go for a keep here, per Everyking. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too poorly sourced, non-specific, unclear evidence of notability. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 16:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We keep articles on hurricane seasons, why should this be deleted? They're both real-world disasters that draw news coverage in RS'es. Suggest the authors of this article look to the hurricane seasons as an example of how this information should be sourced and presented. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2008 (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. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Mathews[edit]

Animated film/TV writer. Has writing credit on a dozen or so films and series, but nobody has written about him, so no WP:GNG, and his work isn't significant enough to qualify for WP:CREATIVE. Article also suffers from apparent WP:COI/WP:AUTO issues. gnfnrf (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - besides the WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues, there appears to be a serious lack of sources. What little I could find are mere crew mentions or empty bios... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a reference for the guy right away, listing all the things he has worked on. And look at how much money his movies have made! That certainly is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is the reference? If it is substantive coverage from a reliable source, maybe I should withdraw the nomination. However, if it is just a list of credits, such as his IMDB page, I don't think that qualifies under WP:N. gnfnrf (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMDb is not a reliable source, since anyone can edit it... Also, how much money the films made, has nothing to do with his notability... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A writer is automatically considered notable if their book or film is successful. And his films doing that well at the box office, makes them notable, and thus whoever created them notable as well.Dream Focus (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is that from a policy or guideline? Because what I'm going on here is WP:CREATIVE, a guideline that doesn't say that at all. gnfnrf (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment If you are going by that, then how do you interpret this: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." He was part of the creation of a feature-length film, which received multiple independent periodical articles and reviews. Those movies are mentioned in all the major news outlets. I vote keep, because by that clear rule, he is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I interpret that statement as having two clauses. First, the work must be significant or well known, and second, the work must have been the subject of a book or multiple articles. Nothing written by Temple Mathews meets both criteria. Only Return to Neverland unambiguously meets the second criteria (though The Little Mermaid II makes a good case), and neither of those, in my opinion, are "significant or well known". gnfnrf (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You do not consider either move well known? If millions of people have seen a movie at a theater, wouldn't that qualify it as well known, thus meeting the criteria? Return to Neverland made $74,904,590. How much does a movie ticket sell for? Millions of people saw it. Dream Focus (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I think "well known" is asking for a higher standard than "moderately successful at the box office". For context, Return to Neverland was the 52nd highest grossing film of 2002. Obviously, you interpret the guidelines differently than me, and that's OK. Let's leave it at that, and see what the consensus is on this particular case of applying this guideline. gnfnrf (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I am leaning towards agreement with gnfnrf here. He has written (or co-written, etc.) two significant or well-known works, but neither of those two items seem to have been the primary subject of an independant book, film, or multiple articles or reviews. With a lack of sources for information, his being notable or not "because of his work" is not the only issue at hand. The article also fails verifiability and COI concerns. As I stated in my original !vote, what little information I could find on this person seems to be simple listings of his name among cast & crew, no biographical information. The biographical information that is currently included in the article has all been added (and the article created) by the subject himself (which means it fails WP:AUTO). - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete (unless sources confirming the importance of his role as a screenwriter are found). It is important to note that WP:CREATIVE is a secondary criteria which does not necessarily confer notability but might point towards it. I think this chap sounds like a good candidate but, in the absence of reliable sources connecting him personally with the success of his films, I would still say no. For example, Little Mermaid 2 and Return to Neverland would probably have been financial successes even if written by a hoard of monkeys. GDallimore (Talk) 14:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is like saying that a certain hit movie would've been just as popular without the actors that were chosen, so no need to give them credit for being in it. Or if their acting ability in the film was not specifically praised by notable reviewers, they aren't important enough to have their own page, no matter how many hit films they have been in. And if a movie isn't good(by definition of its target audience), then I don't think it'll continue to do well after its opening weekend. Dream Focus (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cruise is notable, but his father may not be. And yet without his father we couldn't have Tom Cruise. Arguments are fun and interesting, but notability is demonstrated by including sources that include substantial discussion of the article's subject. There are of course exceptions when notability is somehow inherent, but I don't think everyone involved in a successful project is inherently notable. 19:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reformation (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no substantial media coverage. Sourced mostly from interviews and sources of dubious reliabilty. Previously deleted via AFD, speedy deletion was declined. Still fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "upcoming debut album" and citations that aren't great. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The album hasn't been released yet. Once its out, and people are talking about it, then you can make an article about it. This violates the rule: WP:CBALL Dream Focus (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The G4 speedy was declined because this incarnation of the article is substantially improved from the version that was previously deleted. For a hip-hop article, the sourcing is pretty good, including an XXL interview. This is good enough for me. GlassCobra 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The speedy was declined because the article "is not substantially similar to deleted version, and current version is sourced". That an article is sourced does not mean it meets notability requirements. The video interview—actually a DubCNN video that is merely embedded on the XXL website (it's not from XXL magazine)—is fine, as far as primary sources goes. It doesn't, however, appear to be primarily about The Reformation, but about his new (at the time—1 year ago) mixtape, Caltroit. Not the substantial coverage required by WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--improved it may be, but the Crystal Ball rule still applies. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreleased album - notability not established, WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2008 (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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novelty theory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:BOLLOCKS. No WP:RS. No WP:GNG. Not even WP:FRINGE-worthy. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well-sourced, and is written from a neutral point of view. Even though the idea is ridiculous, that doesn't mean we can't have an article on it. BradV 00:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whallawhosawhat'sthat? Are you reading the same article I'm reading? "According to the timewave graph, great periods of novelty occurred about 4 billion years ago when Earth was formed, 65 million years ago when dinosaurs were extinct and mammals expanded, about 10,000 years ago after the end of the ice age, around late 18th century when social and scientific revolutions progressed, during the sixties, around the time of 9/11, and with coming novelty periods in November 2008, October 2010, with the novelty progressing towards the infinity on 21st December 2012" Do we have any WP:FRINGE#Independent sources? Do we have any way to verify this belief to people other than the wackos? Has anyone noticed who isn't a true believer? The answers to all these questions is "no". What's more, the answer to the question, "should we keep this article?" is "no". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it doesn't appear to be showing up in the box on the right, here's the first AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novelty theory. — Scientizzle 00:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've got no objections to articles about crackpot theories. Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion is not the correctness of a belief, just the verifiable fact that this belief exists and is somewhat well known; we've got articles on Atlantis, UFOs, Flat Earth theory and Morgellon's disease and none of those are likely to be true, but these beliefs have been reported in mainstream media. That's where this article falls down. There are no reliable secondary sources that indicate that this kookery is in any way notable. Any crackpot can come up with a bizarre theory, but as long as that theory is confined to self-published stuff and a small circle of like-minded kooks it shouldn't be documented here. Reyk _YO! 01:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. Anything of value here—and I actually haven't been able to spot anything—can be merged into the section of Terrence McKenna devoted to this topic. looie496 (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Redirect to Terence_McKenna#Novelty_theory_and_.22Time_Wave:_Zero_Point.22, as suggested by dab. It is true that the article is Wikipedia:Complete bollocks and, after more than 4 years, its only references are some guys' websites. However, the real reason to delete is that it does not seem to be notable; I couldn't find anything resembling a reliable reference. All I found were some lightweight websites, a thing on YouTube, an answerbag question, a casual discussion on www.BadAstronomy.com, this article, and its mirrors. The article should not be salted; there seem to be reliable sources for several social science theories of the same name, which are unrelated to this article, and which may be notable. Cardamon (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually did search Google Books and Google Scholar for "Novelty theory", with the results that I described. I have now searched for "Timewave zero" and "Time wave zero". This nonsense does appear to be somewhat notable, with the first term being more common. I now support redirecting to Terence McKenna, as the present article adds no value to Wikipedia. Failing that, the article should be moved over redirect to Timewave zero which is the more common name for this nonsense, and one that is not used by social scientists. Cardamon (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk's excellent reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CB. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, crackpot theory. If it was a notable crackpot theory, I would vote keep, but a ton of google hits of sites dedicated to this theory does not make it notable; lack of any historical or independent coverage makes it non-notable. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:CB Verbal chat 17:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Terence_McKenna#Novelty_theory_and_.22Time_Wave:_Zero_Point.22. Keep the edit history. Redirects are cheap. --dab (𒁳) 18:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google Web is not the only search tool in the world. Google Books turns up a book by Graham St. John, Postdoctoral Research Fellow the Centre for Critical and Cultural Studies at the University of Queensland, which addresses McKenna's Novelty Theory and Timewave Zero on pages 214–218. (The reported criticism of the idea by Gyrus is quite amusing.) ISBN 9781591796114 pages 20–21 and 309 discusses McKenna's theory and xyr slide-the-date-up-and-down methodology, and, amusingly, gives two different dates for what McKenna claimed to be the zero point. Daniel Wojcik, Associate Professor of English and Folklore Studies at the University of Oregon, deals with the subject on page 293 of ISBN 9780415263245. And those are in addition to the web pages linked-to by the article itself, including the criticisms by Watkins and Meyer. The answers to ScienceApologist's questions are in fact "yes". People other than true believers have noticed, and written about this idea; and we do have independent sources. Reyk's reasoning, echoed by others, may be excellent, but based as it is on the premise that there are no independent sources to be had, it completely falls apart in the face of the aforementioned books and web sites. Uncle G (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's do this the right way. Start writing the section in Terence_McKenna#Novelty_theory_and_.22Time_Wave:_Zero_Point.22 with those sources and then, when the section seems worthy of WP:CFORK, make the content fork. The current article is a travesty and not worth keeping. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Keep per Uncle G, who had the same idea of looking for academic sources, but was faster and more thorough. Looks to me as if McKennan was a precursor of postmodernism and Fashionable Nonsense. Simultaneously. I particularly recommend Autopsy for a Mathematical Hallucination? by Matthew Watkins. This is obviously a couple of scientists telling great bullshit with a straight face. It's an interesting sociological experiment.

Anyway, that's only an attempt to explain how it came to pass that this meets Wikipedia's notability standard. The only thing that matters is that it does.

By the way, there is also a serious "novelty theory" in psychology, which is probably a lot more important. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and I thought that's what it would be about until I read the article--so at the very least we'd need to change the title here. DGG (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it may be WP:BOLLOCKS but Uncle G's sources above show that it is notable WP:BOLLOCKS, so it should stay. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No matter how strange it is it's still a somewhat well known idea in the underground and is not very old so how do you expect there to be much more on the topic. Not to mention how foolish you would all look if he was right. Let's say if we make it to Dec. 24, 2012 then we get rid of it. --207.118.243.39 (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC) — 207.118.243.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Uh, Keep - Terence_McKenna is obviously notable, and this was one of his major talking points. If every one of his theories and ideas was treated with proper detail in his bio, that article would swell to an unmanageable size and there would be cries to start subbing out again. If i were to support any change in this article, it would be only to more clearly frame the subject as McKenna's brainchild, which i personally believe it already does adequately. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - DISCLAIMER: I am the creator of the article, thus biased. I am under no illusions about the nature of the material however. I vote keep for the reasons iterated repeatedly above.

Prior arguments boil down to two:

"Delete: The idea is poppycock I've never heard of."
"Keep: The idea is poppycock I've heard of."

The latter is the legitimate one. The primary source for Novelty Theory is currently published by Harper Collins.^[1] Another by Bantam.^[2] This negates the objections to self-published work. The McKenna bibliographies are, while mostly disreputable, extensive.^[3]^[4] Therefore notable. Therefore article worthy.

Stop nomininating this article for deletion simply because it's about a crackpot theory. It's a famous crackpot theory. End of discussion.— Clarknova (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A basic understanding of the theory is necessary to make a legitimate argument either way. If it's a farce of scientific theory as the disclaimer in Fractal Time states it's still notable, even merely for entertainment. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. This page isn't for discussing weather or not he was right. And as far as ideas invoked by psychedelic drugs this one is fairly conservative. There isn't really anything to argue about here. Keep it. End of story. --Jyffeh (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC) — Jyffeh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per Uncle G. I think his citations satisfy WP:RS and as far as crackpot theories I think we can do far worse. This is not such a bad specimen and it makes for an interesting read. What more can you ask for? Dr.K. (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable enough to appear at least on McKenna's article. However, McKenna's article is already quite long. The most "correct" action would be merging, to eventually make a fork, and wind up with the same article that we started with. Let's skip the useless bureaucratic steps on behalf on the encyclopedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Uncle G--there are reliable sources, and the topic is, in fact, notable, making Reyk's reasoning to be moot; and as per clarknova--whether or not it's poppycock has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's notable. "It's a famous crackpot theory" is a perfectly legitimate reason for an article's existence. --he ah 21:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G et al. I don't see any claim of objective scientific truth in the article (nor did McKenna make that claim himself AFAIK), and WP has no brief to ignore crackpots -- at least not notable ones. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Chris Mays, Terence McKenna Bibliography, author index, retrieved 2008-11-27
^ Chris Mays, Terence McKenna Bibliography, journal index, retrieved 2008-11-27

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Calloway[edit]

No notability outside the show. No references, no media coverage, no real world information, tagged for notability since September 2008. A google search show that "Rod Calloway" can be a common name and having a redirect may cause confusion problems. Magioladitis (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This too looks like a speedy delete or redirect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I would support a redirect, but in this case there are sufficient possibly notable people to take the place of that title instead which would cause problems if a redirect was put in place.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even most of the Google hits are just to list-type sources. --John Nagle (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Mentioned on the TV shows main wiki page, no need for a whole article on him. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2008 (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. After padding with RAF information was removed, commenters were nearly unaninmous in the idea that individual scout troups are not notable. Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

114 Squadron ATC[edit]

Contested speedy. Another article on a local branch of the Air Training Corp (youth movement like the Boy Scouts for those outside the UK). No notability, although there has been attempt to pad the article with the history of the RAF 114 Squadron. Nuttah (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable cadet organisation. Although the Air Training Corps itself is notable individual squadrons have generally not been considered notable in past AfDs. I have removed the history of the RAF squadron as apart from the number it is not related. 22:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

~~Neutral.~~ I declined the speedy because the article appeared to assert notability through the history mentioned above by the nominator. Unless some source can be produced which substantiates that history I will suggest deletion. JodyB_talk 23:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this established youth group is notable. I also think their activites are covered in the local papers. But maybe I'm wrong? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the UK-RAF-ATC article. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been involved with many discussions about the notability of individual Scout Troops or other Scout units, and other individual youth organisation units. Only a very small fraction indeed are notability and the great majority of such articles are deleted or merged. This ATC does not even approach getting in the small fraction that should be kept. The very first ATC unit in the UK might get there, but this one does not.--Bduke (Discussion) 01:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inasmuch as there have been no further additions to the article and no sources to substantiate the original claims of notability. JodyB_talk 00:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very worthy organisation, but no need for separate articles on all of the different squadrons. Most of the detail / description already on the ATC page and the squad number is included in the list of ATC squads. Recommend the author try to contribute and improve the main ATC page instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual cadet units are almost never notable; this doesn't seem to be an exception. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2008 (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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bizographics[edit]

This article exists to promote a neologism that does not appear to have become notable outside of the website that invented it. The article appears to exist primarily to promote a particular website, and is of no value to an encyclopedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the neologism, but there is no other word in the english language to describe the principle of the business demographics of a person. Given the importance of this principle, it seems to be an appropriate addition to the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Russell Glass

That's what WP:NEO is about - Wikipedia is not the place to promote a new usage or introduce new words to the language. It's an interesting topic, but when enough third-party sources discuss it, it will have an accepted name, and we will have sources for an article. Until then, I vote delete, I'm afraid. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Russell Glass, creating an article for something you promote, and have done an interview in Reuters about, sounds like advertising, which I believe the rules clearly state means it must be deleted. I vote delete based on self advertising. Reuters does count as a notable 3rd part source, so if someone else had written it and linked to that news article, then it would've been fine by me. Dream Focus (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. GlassCobra 11:25, 25 November 2008 (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 02:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reynolds (journalist)[edit]

Unnotable news correspondant. Little third party sources exist for him and fails WP:V at the moment. Tavix (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on some additional sourcing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable to me, a few hits at google, and I think he's notable enough. Malinaccier (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - There are plenty of less worthy reporters on wikipedia with articles, my concern is everything on the article just appears to be copied and pasted from the Al Jazeera website, cant find any 3rd party sources (except for the "International Citation, Robert F Kennedy Memorial Journalism Award) BritishWatcher (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Added some sources to the page and one source provides quite a bit of detail on Reynolds Career. This article just needs rewritting not deleting.BritishWatcher (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2008 (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.

[1] Merriam-Webster [1]

[2] Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.

[3] An obscure pun to Don Quixote

[4] The Invisible Landscape, Amazon Copyright page, retrieved 2008-11-27

[5] Food of the Gods, Amazon Copyright page, retrieved 2008-11-27

[6] Chris Mays, Terence McKenna Bibliography, author index, retrieved 2008-11-27

[7] Chris Mays, Terence McKenna Bibliography, journal index, retrieved 2008-11-27

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]