< 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]

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

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:12, 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 as G3. Magioladitis (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Det stinker fisk![edit]

Det stinker fisk! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]


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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

João Sousa Valles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]


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]

J. Kevin Draves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claim to fame consists of

Delete Not notable. Mwanner | Talk 22:30, 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) 05:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Slovaks[edit]

Afro-Slovaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

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

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]

"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]

discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 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) 05:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian footballers in Europe[edit]

List of Asian footballers in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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. GiantSnowman 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese footballers in European clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Chinese footballers in European clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of South Korean footballers in European clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Iranian footballers in European clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Iranian expatriate footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Tajikistani footballers in European clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

GiantSnowman 22:00, 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. GiantSnowman 23:43, 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. WP:SNOW applies here. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson News![edit]

Michael Jackson News! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

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

Vanity article with no real assertion of notability. faithless (speak) 21:52, 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) 04:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emotronic[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Emotronic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:47, 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, after a very impressive salvage job by UncleG. Good work. DS (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niggerati[edit]

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

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]

  • 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]
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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

Shoot To Kill (DS Mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

Nothing on Google apart from the article itself... original research TeapotgeorgeTalk 20:22, 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 merge to Principia Discordia. MBisanz talk 09:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aneris[edit]

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

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]

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]

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

A brief fragment from Principia_Discordia does not seem to warrant its own article. Pcap ping 20:25, 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CZ-550[edit]

CZ-550 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 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]
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]

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

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]

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]
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]

Take Me Out To A Cubs Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

This Is Me Smiling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This Is Me Smiling (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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]

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]

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

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]

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]
  • 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]
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.. Someoneanother 04:01, 26 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? Someoneanother 15:48, 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 speedy delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation[edit]

Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

List of Sabrina the Teenage Witch cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

Homosexuality and Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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

AfDs for this article:
Scientology and sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
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 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. Jayen466 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? Jayen466 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]
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]

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

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]

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]

List of characters in the Harvest Moon series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

Rules for the game of Throw Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

Lebensbedingungen der kirgisischen Minderheit am Ausläufer des Pamir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

AfDs for this article:
List of InuYasha terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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. —Dinoguy1000 18:46, 25 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]
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]
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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

Chile number-one hits of 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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:
Cruisin' 'N' Losin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

Melua Melna Meia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]
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]
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]

Bradford elementary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The one-sentence article has no sources   —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 17:30, 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]
Keep the new dab page. - Mgm|(talk) 19:35, 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]

Upcoming Jennifer Lopez projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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]

Sian Alice Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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 Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 01:05, 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]
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]

Fr Thomas kottoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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:

Fr. Jose Pithrukayil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fr. Thomas Kottoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:22, 19 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]
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]
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]
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]

The Tragedy of Federico Garcia Lorca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable play and article that seems only to serve as an advert. Paste (talk) 15:37, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Grisafi[edit]

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

No coverage in third-party reliable sources to demonstrate notability. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 15:14, 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]

Pranav Kumar V.V.S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

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

WP:ESSAY. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:46, 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 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]

DC3 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

Mark Jones, Aberdeen South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not yet elected. No sign of considerable local notability in article per WP:POLITICIAN. Dweller (talk) 13:29, 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) 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British BJJ Blackbelts[edit]

British BJJ Blackbelts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

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

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]

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]
  • 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]
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]
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]

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

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]

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

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]
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]

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

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. roleplayer 11:13, 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 Already speedied. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Cope[edit]

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

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]

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]

Toe Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  1. 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.
  1. 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”
  1. 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]

  • 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]
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]

The Liquid Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]
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]

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

Small-time businessman, also WP:COI. Punkmorten (talk) 09:19, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Windman[edit]

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

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]

  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.--otherlleftNo, 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.--otherlleftNo, 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."--otherlleftNo, 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]

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.--otherlleftNo, 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]


References[edit]
  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
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]

Chris Moore (Australian footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

Apparently unremarkable or non-existent. No sources available to assert notability. Contested prod. BradV 06:41, 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) 04:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé Is...Sasha Fierce Tour[edit]

Beyoncé Is...Sasha Fierce Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]
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]

List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]
  • 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]
  • That's this article. Several others have already been merged into this one. GlassCobra 10:45, 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 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]

Together Again (Jamahl Seden song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

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]

This is My Milwaukee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

  • 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]
  • 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]
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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

Namibia national ice hockey team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

Rich girls (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable mixtape, though the artist appears notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 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]

Left Field Lounge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]
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]

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

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]

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:
Westin Causarina Las Vegas Hotel, Casino & Spa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]

Watcher in the Water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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.
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]

Canadian Clean Start Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]
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]
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]

Wake Up (Rage Against the Machine song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Surely there is more to notability than just that... Drmies (talk) 01:57, 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 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]

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

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

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

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

2000–2001 fires in the Western United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a article that is primarily un-sourced original research βcommand 08:59, 20 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]
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]

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

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]

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:
The Reformation (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]
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:
Novelty theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

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]
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]

References[edit]

  1. ^ The Invisible Landscape, Amazon Copyright page, retrieved 2008-11-27
  2. ^ Food of the Gods, Amazon Copyright page, retrieved 2008-11-27
  3. ^ Chris Mays, Terence McKenna Bibliography, author index, retrieved 2008-11-27
  4. ^ 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]

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

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]

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]
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]

114 Squadron ATC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]
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]
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]

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

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]

  • 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]
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]
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]

Robert Reynolds (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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]

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]
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.
More