Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 25

< November 24	November 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé Is...Sasha Fierce Tour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect to SD Gundam G Generation. The arguments relating to OR an Notability concerns (among others) outweigh the concerns of the procedural validity of the AFD. MBisanz ^talk 09:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was G3 by Gwen Gale, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Together Again (Jamahl Seden song)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

39th Street

Semi-notable street in Missouri. Not notability given. American Eagle (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the article was moved 39th Street (Kansas City) and the afd tag was never added. I fixed the nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article only mentions a list of irrelevant trivia and a route that can be gleaned from maps. There's no indication the street is worth including. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are reliable sources to be found such as this, as well as 211,000 g-hits. While I don't see anything particularly notable, given the low notability requirements of road and street articles, I'm not sure deletion is necessary. Cleanup is definitely needed, although that seems like it would be fairly easy. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing how this is notable. swa q 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have grave doubts as to notability, but am the wrong side of the Atlantic to know. The original title should be deleted and salted, lest we get articles on every other NN 39th Street (of which there must be hundreds). If retained it shouls be under the revised title, incorporating "Kansas City", but might it not be better being merged to Kansas City? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - as Julian pretty much said, there is a very low notability bar for road articles... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see external links; can be cleaned up. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 5 December 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 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

José Augusto Seco Machado Gil

If not for the article's history, this would be an A7 with no assertion of notability, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. There's no assertion of evidence of notability. He existed, yes. But is he notable? Note, if this is deleted, the following redirect will need deletion:

José augusto seco machado gil StarM 04:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established and this is an encyclopedia not a compendium of obituaries. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, no indication of why he might have been notable. Seems to be a simple obituary. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reliable third party sources of notability or deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 December 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was A7 by Texas Android, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Weaver

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Trail

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

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

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

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

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

The result was Keep - per WP:SNOW and rewrite/rename. -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namibia national ice hockey team

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly not a hoax, since the fact that Namibia is a member of the IIHF is referenced: [1]. The article states they are registered, and that they currently do not participate in any world championship events. I don't see any hoax. Reso lute 04:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rewrite: I created this article in good faith that there was such a team, based on the only source I had at the time. Other sources [2] indicate that Namibia only as an inline hockey team. I strongly suggest moving this article to Namibia Ice and InLine Hockey Association and rewriting it accordingly. Flibirigit (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Flibirigit. While Namibia may not have an ice hockey team, they are still members of the IIHF, and while they may not be active with an ice hockey team, they do have an active inline team. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename At the risk of being repetitive -- no hoax here. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename/rewrite Jamaica had a bobsleigh team and it does officaly exist --Numyht (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some rewrite based on the NIIH website, to reflect that this is a national inline hockey team rather than an ice hockey team. So far as I can tell, plans for anything other than roller hockey team are on ice. Mandsford (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Magioladitis (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rich girls (mixtape)

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

Delete - unsourced, no establishment of notability that I see. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mixtapes are generally non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Icewedge (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing to speak of, no assertion of notability. GlassCobra 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. , default to keep. At least it has sources, which is more than I can say for a lot of articles that come through here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left Field Lounge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Webmarketer

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

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

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

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

Weak Keep The article is expanded beyond a dictionary definition at this point. The term seems to be in widespread usage as well based on a google search. I am not positive that it should remain, as it seems to be a neologism, but the widespread usage pushes me to keep the article. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Internet marketing, where the concept is already covered in more detail. Rklear (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete – See Below The author does make a good point here. The article was created at 22:48 and proposed for deletion at 22:51 than AFD a few days later. Now that is efficiency. However, on to why we should keep. First, there is enough media coverage, as provided by Google News and shown here [3]] to establish that the term is Notable enough to meet the inclusion guidelines. Likewise, there is enough scholarly work, as shown by Google Scholar, and provided here [4] that the article can be expanded upon. May it need a rewrite, yes! However, that is not a condition for deletion. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Zeal to remove buzzwords, buzzword-wannabes, and marketing gibberish from Wikipedia is no vice. The instant article adds nothing that could not be added to our already existing article on internet marketing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the reference used for the definition states "an alternate term for Internet marketer". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. The AFD debate for the article this redirects to is here. In the event that article gets deleted this redirect can be deleted under CSD R1. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placement new

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westin Causarina Las Vegas Hotel, Casino & Spa

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watcher in the Water

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

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

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

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

Four cite in-universe LOTR encyclopedias.

One is just citing an alternate name.

Two cite online stores just to prove certain merchandise exists.

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Clean Start Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Marshall

Contested PROD where my rationale was "Subject lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources that would establish notability and allow for a full, neutral, biography to be written about this individual". The PROD was removed and eight sources were added that, at first, I thought was fairly impressive. When I looked at them, however, none actually addressed the concerns for my original PROD, save for the fact that they are reliable, third-party sources. Here's a quick look at all of them:

An article about Raquel Welch - Contains a quote from Marshall in the context of him being her former publicity manager
An article about Frances Farmer's alleged lover - Has a brief mention of Marshall in his role as executive producer of the Exorcist
An article about Tippi Hedren - Mentions Marshall as her ex-husband
Another article about Tippi Hedren - Again, nothing more than a mention of Marshall as her ex-husband
Yet another article about Tippi Hedren - Another fleeting mention of Marshall
Website about film flops - Notes Marshall as a director of one of them
Same reference as #3
IMDb-style profile of Marshall from the New York Times - Nothing more; perhaps less, than what one could find on an IMDb-profile

None of these sources provide non-trivial coverage that would be required to establish notability and allow for a full, neutral biography to be written. A quick Google search does reveal a lot of hits, but most of them relate to The Exorcist, providing little more than his role in the film if that, and none of them provide anything more than trivial coverage. At best, this should be a redirect to Tippi Hedren, although I doubt that anyone would type in Noel Marshall to get to her page. Cheers, CP 02:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Based on Creative Notability Guidelines where is states: “…The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews”. I believe the Exorcist qualifies, as a well know work. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Do sub-guidelines override the general notability requirement? In any case, for the reasons stated above (lack of non-trivial coverage), I see no evidence that a proper article could be written about this individual. Could we not keep the material as a small section of The Exorcist (film) rather than have a perma-stub? Just a rhetorical question or two. Cheers, CP 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Hello CP Ahh the eternal question :-). 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 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 is notable under this Academics guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other notability guidelines is irrelevant. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as disagreeing, but as an alternative way of saying it--they need to be read together, in the understanding that they are all of them guidelines, not fixed rules, a guide to how we judge individual articles. The way we evaluate the possible conflicts in guidelines and policies is to discuss articles here at Afd. DGG (talk) 03:03, 26 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, Cirt (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the basic common sense rule for notability is whether someone would like to know about the person. In this case the answer is "yes" (exetive producer of several films; hence part of the history of Hollywood), and verifiable information, however scarse, exists. Twri (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete after looking at the available sources, both in the article and on a couple of subscription-only newspaper databases. Noel Marshall's name comes up often in producing Roar, which I do not think can really be considered "a significant or well-known work" per WP:CREATIVE. In resources other than those covering Roar, he is only mentioned in passing. The Wikipedia article as it stands feels like a forced hodge-podge of these brief mentions and information better suited for the article for Roar. I think that his involvement with Roar should be detailed at the film article, but I don't think that there is enough information about the person himself to warrant a biographical article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:39, 1 December 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)

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

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

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

Keep - I am sorry to ask this question, but did anyone do a quick Google search to see if this may be Notable enough for inclusion? Just a quick entry, under very specific parameters produced these results, [5]. I believe they fulfill the requirements of inclusion here. Rewrite yes, deletion, No.ShoesssS ^Talk 02:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree If this article is rewritten using these sources, it may be notable enough to keep.--65.8.237.87 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those sources look more like reviews of RATM shows that mention the song. I didn't see any evidence of the "media furor" claimed in the article. Even the Spin reference given in the article only mentions a single show that attacked De La Rocha's speech during a live performance. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the band's best known songs, even if it wasn't released as a single. Use as closing theme in a highly influential film also suggests notability. JulesH (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Good Omens. I too saw no reason to delete prior to redirecting; we'll just keep an eye on it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Crowley

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

Delete, then reinstate as a redirect to Good Omens. Being a sourceless, excessively lengthy, biography of a fictional character who appears in just one book, this article is almost certain to be kept but I think those are good reasons to delete. Reyk _YO! 01:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I see no reason to delete prior to redirecting. If the redirect has trouble sticking, the redirect can be protected. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Good Omens. I didn't add in the material because Aziraphale already is mentioned at the target, and nothing here was sourced; it's all here in the history if needed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aziraphale

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000–2001 fires in the Western United States

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

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

Delete unless the article can be sourced and expanded tremendously.Hairy Perry 16:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: References are provided at the bottom of the article, they just aren't included as in-line citations. Could someone check those references and determine the article's accuracy? Everyking (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Newsweek article is available online.[6] The 2000-2002 Forest Fires in the Western United States has a preview on Google Books.[7] -Atmoz (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the strength of those sources, I'd say this is a clear keep. Everyking (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Meets WP:V and WP:N. -Atmoz (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SubRip

As WP:USEFUL as this software may be, it is not notable -- it lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. The sources currently being cited are blogs and chat forums. JBsupreme (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Third party sources here: [8] [9] (I consider the non-forum sections of both of these sites reliable, as they are basically the go-to sites that everyone recommends for video encoding related subjects; I'll accept that this might be a somewhat controversial classification, but I'd say they are reliable for this subject). JulesH (talk) 15:07, 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) 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the sources provided, as small as they can be. Marlith (Talk) 04:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like good software, but references to substantial coverage in reliable media? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep References are enough, just needs cleanup and expansion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the sources provided are not sufficient to establish notability in my opinion. "Tutorials" and "Specifications"? No. What's needed are reliable secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above editor, user guides and directory entries are just not good enough for notability. --neon white talk 03:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a case of "give it a chance"- while notability may not be established, .srt has become a standard for subtitle files in both the legit videophile scene and in fansub/piracy scenes. The former is rather specialized, with most of the major discourse residing in a few discussion forums, while the latter would naturally receive little mainstream attention. I'm sure something significant exists out there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the multiple relists here are chance enough. There is no evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable third parties. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article references are not acceptable references as per WP:RS and the software is not notable as per WP:V. The software has not attained any notable level of acceptance and probably never will (since it is kaput). - DustyRain (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The references look like barely enough to establish notability, though I think it's borderline. Xihr 08:33, 3 December 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Pasadena Rugby Tournament

Came across this while working through speedy deletions. Declined the A7 speedy because it's about a sporting event rather than a group, but a gsearch hasn't turned up evidence of notability. Article creator contested the speedy with "It is one of the largest non-collegiate sporting events of the year in Pasadena and the San Gabriel Valley.", so I'm taking straight to AfD instead of prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:45, 30 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 03:24, 5 December 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. This is a very messy AFD, so I had to evaluate each and every discussion. With the keepers, it's seems just because they created the internet mine, therefore Notability is inherited, but on the contrary it isn't thus I discounted those. "Also seems notable to me" isn't a reason to keep any article. The few remainding discussion is about the sourcing. Looking at the sourcing, the first link is a reliable source, but to the video not the company. The second source is a promotional website, therefore not reliable, also and has nothing to do with the company. The third source is YouTube, not reliable, and the fourth source was a interview with the founders of the video in a local entertament magazine, nothing with the company as well and not really "significant coverage".

Finding Consensus in AFD is by policy based reasoning, and the keep/merges doesn't evaluate the sourcing enough while the delete side does it, and those were rebutted wrong. The company "itsself" never had the reliable sourcing, and none can't be found, therfore the article needs to be deleted. But in the future the article can be recreated with reliable sources dealing with the company. A redirect won't hurt as well. Secret ^account 13:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brownmark Films

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Notability not established. Suggest merging article with parent production company Special Entertainment. SERSeanCrane (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close nomination. Suggesting mergers is supposed to be done at Wikipedia:Requested mergers. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To be clear, I suggest outright deletion of the article. If merging makes more sense, so be it, but I'm not sure this production company is of note to anyone but the author.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SERSeanCrane (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Rather confusing nomination. If the company is known undertaking of another notable organization, I don't see any problem with the merger. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 16:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs more than the one article on the creator of What What in the Butt. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are noteworthy external links about the company and several internal links as well. Shatner1 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This production company has been written about in several traditional mediums, and has created a viral video which is itself considered notable by wikipedia. Merging with the other article seems odd because I'm not sure how notable the other company is compared to this one. 76.230.248.133 (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 76.230.248.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment. Could you add those sources, then?SERSeanCrane (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added a little more information to the article, although I feel like notability was already established before the article was put up for deletion. The article is concise, noteworthy, and has a lot of internal links, so I'm not sure why it's being singled out. Shatner1 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep we don't know that one company is the "parent" of the other. apparently this company makes videos for/with samwell. they have a popular utube channel. the article does not seem blatently self-promotional. just a simple chunk of wikiinfo about who who behind samwell and his vids. merging would make this info less clear, harder to dig for. just my 2 centimes.. 32.145.41.229 (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 32.145.41.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 09:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 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 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three re-listings? Wouldn't it make more sense to just close this as no consensus? Reso lute 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with this assessment. No consensus would really be the most appropriate avenue at this time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think plenty have weighed in to reach some sort of consensus by now (8 December). SERSeanCrane (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. I can't really see this passing WP:CORP. Company with one popular-on-youtube video and a small handful of other related but less-successful youtube videos. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added some more information to the article. Three re-listings seems like overkill. How long does an article stay up for deletion? It's been listed for a few weeks. Shatner1 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure imdb entries suffice for establishing notability. I may be wrong, though...anyone?SERSeanCrane (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, the article references a supposed YouTube "partnership," as well as a non-notable internet tabloid as the source of its notability. The parent company, Special Entertainment, references the tabloid as its major independent source as well. Maybe they should both be afd'd. SERSeanCrane (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: the referenced tabloid is no longer operating. (see mkeonline.com)
- Comment. SUPPOSED YouTube Partnership? The company is listed as a Partner on YouTube's site. Furthermore, anyone with ads on their channel is a YouTube Partner and all of the company's videos have ads. Shatner1 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this partnership constitute notability? From what you've described, seemingly, anyone can become a partner. SERSeanCrane (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't constitute notability, but it adds to notability. To become a Partner with YouTube you have to have multiple videos with an unusually large number of views, and you must be accepted into the YouTube Partnership Program after review from a rather strict application process. Shatner1 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Furthermore. Why do you deem MKE Magazine a non-notable internet tabloid? It's a print (printed on paper!) magazine that was put out by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the largest newspaper in Wisconsin.
- Also: Plenty of noteworthy publications are no longer operating. The article is still available on the internet and will remain there indefinitely.
- Comment Gosh, I hope inclusion in IMDB doesn't establish notability. That would be like every U.S. lawyer being notable because they're all listed in Martindale-Hubbell, or every person with a landline phone being notable because they're all listed in the phone book. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't establish notability, though it might verify such an assertion if otherwise sourced. No matter though, as I have replaced the IMDB reference with a more suitable one and moved IMDB moved down to external links. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While What What (In the Butt) was an instant classic, and probably merits coverage, this production company is WP:ONEVENT at best. No significant third party coverage of the company itself. Bongomatic 01:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage has been added since your comment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From WP:Corp - ...attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. SERSeanCrane (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are many non-local places that have mentioned the company, but the MKE article happens to be the most in-depth. Shatner1 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then why haven't these been included in the article? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are now included. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into parent company Special Entertainment. As stated above, article is not WP:ONEVENT, and just doesn't appear to me to establish notability for a seperate article. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 02:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant, sourced information in to the parent article, Special Entertainment. I can't find any reliable, third-party, sources that directly support standalone notability per WP:CORP. While they may be the distribution company for Hamlet A.D.D., it's only through the parent company, and notability is not inherited. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been further sourced and meets the requiremnents of WP:GNG. Further, if the productions are notable, the producing company has that same notability if they have coverage in reliable sources, as does Brownmark. If there had been no articles about the production company, I'd be saying delete or merge, but since that is not the case, its now a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the minimum criteria for notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Special Entertainment. Precious Roy (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is greater specific sourcable notability for Brownmark than there is for the parent company. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you recommend merging the parent company into the subsidiary? Does Special Entertainment even have notability? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see any reason to delete this. The references establish notability. Merging would be inappropriate as it appears that the subsidiary has greater notability than the parent. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The chief claim to notability for this business is having created an Internet meme video that also has its own article. The subject seems to be adequately covered either there or in the article about the parent business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is greater specific sourcable notability for Brownmark than there is for the parent company. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you recommend merging the parent company into the subsidiary? Does Special Entertainment even have notability? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — (edit conflict) Notability is not inherited. I contend that What What (In the Butt) is notable and can possibly be reliably sourced as such. However, the company is not reliably sourced, nor could I find any in a cursory Google search. Hence, a lack of notability with the company, not the video. MuZemike (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what would make a production company notable if they did not produce notable products? Per WP:CORP and the coverage in reliable sources as provided in this article ensure that notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was invited to participate here by User:SERSeanCrane to attempt to get a consensus on the article, I'm not sure if that's borderline canvassing or not. Anyway, I can find nothing on google news that talks about the film company, nor can I find much definite information about the company. Where is the location? The article claims Milwaulkee but I can't find any address on the website or on the internet. The article also says that the studios were created by Special Entertainment, but the citation doesn't hint about the creation at all. Perhaps Special Entertainment bought them? Anyhow, the article is very poorly cited and misleading. "Brownmark Films" seems to be less of a company and more of an advertising phrase used in lieu of the producerss names. How many employees work at this company? By my understanding this "company" is little more than the name of a youtube channel and a signature for the producers of the videos. What, What in the Butt is definitly a notable song, but the company that created it is not. The company is squished between the famous song they created and the notability of their parent company, Special Entertainment and there's not enough coverage showing that the company has any notability apart from those two entities. Themfromspace (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An address for Brownmark Films can be found HERE. However, WP:CORP does not mandate a set address or a minimum number of employees or even that the "company" be more than just a name. Brownmark Films meets the criteria because of substantial coverage in reliable sources inpendent of the subject. And actually, Browmark has developed a much greater and sourcable notability than the parent company. Their continued productions, and the coverage of this pushes them past WP:ONEEVENT. Small they may be, but notable they most certainly are. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you recommend merging the parent company into the subsidiary? Does Special Entertainment even have notability? SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not suggesting that reverse merge... not at this time. Was simply addressing the suggestions that the more notable company be merged to the less notable. One AfD at a time... one AfD at a time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to canvassing. I've been told I could get my "pee-wee schwacked" if I don't address the issue. As User talk:BQZip01 pointed out here[[10]] I sent out requests to various users that had previously contributed to recent afd media-related discussions. I was not seeking a vote, simply consensus, which I pointed out in the requests I left with editors. Furthermore, prior to this canvassing allegation, I had a nice exchange with MichaelQSchmidt thanking him for contributing and, as you've seen here, he's probably the best proponent of the article in the debate. And that's that. I'm glad I did what I did because it stirred up this afd to an actual debate. Keep it up! SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Nutshell" of WP:Canvas is "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." You did keep the number of notifications small, you were neutral in your request for input, and received this input from editors that both agreed and diagreed with the deletion nomination. So, you did not violate the behavioral guideline... but BQ is correct in his friendly advice, as perception is everything on Wikipedia. I can appreciate your wishing to get this AfD over once and for all, one way or the other. Indeed, that was what MBisanz had in mind by the relisting... wanting to finally reach a consensus. Similar goals... different means. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable to me. Tarheel95 Tar-Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC). [reply]
Do not delete (keep or merge) - the company seems notable, the fact that it's an internet company doesn't make it automatically NN as some seem to believe. I don't oppose a merger however, because this and Special Entertainment seem to be highly related, but if someone knowledgeable in the field can expand both articles to clearly convey difference, a merger won't be necessary. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to viral video and keep article history or very weak keep. If after a redirect the editors want to undo the redirect and redirect the viral video to here that's fine too. The video is probably more notable than the company now but that is likely to change in the future. If they have even a modicum of success with their 2009 project, they will be considered notable and I'd vote a straight-up keep. But that's then and this is now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems notable to me. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:12, 10 December 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Reformation (album)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novelty theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior arguments boil down to two:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JobTiger

Maybe its not notable? notability tagged since January 2008 The Rolling Camel (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find any notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 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) 00:19, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep If those awards are sourced, then I think the article could be kept and cleaned up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, heavily tag for citations needed. Twri (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See reference: Microsoft Bulgaria and JobTiger Launch Career Project. Also 3rd party references (computerworld.bg) but in Bulgarian, when I used the Google translator the articles seemed to be valid. I cannot understand why references were not provided when they are so easily found. - DustyRain (talk) 07:12, 3 December 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 14:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Umpires

Proposed deletion because "Non notable group, no evidence (in article or through Google or Google News) that this has received any attention in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:NOTE". ProD contested with reason "the fact remains that many artists part of this are in wiki already & the info is notable because they were huge on the WORLDS largest online indie network." However, no evidence that they are actaully huge, or more importantly that this has received any attention in reliable independent sources, has been provided. There are only 77 distinct Google hits[11], most from mspace, their homepage, self-released press releases, .... The one Google News hit[12], also included in the 77 previously mentioned results, is just a repeat of the press release, not a journalistic article: not surprising, from a site where you present your own news articles anyway[13]. Fram (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be a speedy candidate... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:54, 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) 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantive mentions that I could find in reliable sources to establish notability. gnfnrf (talk) 00:27, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Twri (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 December 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]

Rod Calloway

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I would support a redirect, but in this case there are sufficient possibly notable people to take the place of that title instead which would cause problems if a redirect was put in place.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even most of the Google hits are just to list-type sources. --John Nagle (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Mentioned on the TV shows main wiki page, no need for a whole article on him. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After padding with RAF information was removed, commenters were nearly unaninmous in the idea that individual scout troups are not notable. Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

114 Squadron ATC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bizographics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reynolds (journalist)

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

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

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

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

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

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) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hotwax_media

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hotwax media

The article originally read like an advertisement without corroborating, reliable sources. I discussed the issues with the author on Talk:Hotwax_media , but am now requesting further discussion. It also seems to be a non-notable company under WP:NN with virtually no Google hits other than the company's main page. Initially filed for Speedy Delete under WP:G11. Macrowiz (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google returns 13,200 search results when I search for "Hotwax media" in quotation marks. Does anyone know the names of any computer programming magazines or other notable websites that could be searched for topics on this? If its that popular, there should be an article about it somewhere. Dream Focus (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I Google searched "hot wax media" (with quotes) with a space between the "hot" & "wax", so discount this specific part of my note above. --Macrowiz (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps the article should not be about hotwax, instead, about Apache OFBiz. If you Google "hotwax media" -hotwaxmedia.com -wiki -blog -linkedin (which removes self published, wikipedia, blog and linkedin results), 79 matches are found, mostly self published pages, speaking engagements and website pages created by hotwax. I don't see any indication of notability for hotwax. However, on the main page of http://ofbiz.apache.org/ there's plenty of major 3rd party coverage. - DustyRain (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't see any indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to be google relevant? Here are two articles that I have found: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ofbiz-apachecon-us-join-forces/story.aspx?guid={1BE59ABE-6FD1-4D80-8BA9-015EC202EA5D}&dist=msr_19 and http://www.us.apachecon.com/c/acus2008/sponsors/sponsor. Again, I believe this to be a notable company that deserves an article written about it. Dcunplugged (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)DCUnplugged[reply]

Those articles aren't about this company. I think they might be worth including to establish that the company is a platinum sponsor of something or has been interviewed about OfBiz, but I don't think either article offers much to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Only found ~~two~~ 1 source s, as shown here [14]. Need a tad more to claim Notability ShoesssS ^Talk 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 2nd link of the source above returns a 404 - DustyRain (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - LOL- I cahnged to one source :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 December 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 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to pass WP:CORP at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] 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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]