Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 13 July	15 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep Wily D 10:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - per WP:NALBUMS. This article was previously deleted, recreated and a second AfD found no consensus (an editor claimed that the article was to be expanded, but no such work has taken place). This article is comprised of three track listing from three albums which have pre-existing Wikipedia articles. The bulk of the "Background" section is pure WP:PUFFERY as it contains information solely relating to the production of the three seperate albums (none of the sources mention this 3CD set) and this violates WP:SYNTH. We have just one verifiable, reliable and independent source that relates to the album directly; an announcement of the release that says "if the music isn’t enough to convince you, the exclusive topless poster may be worth the price alone". This source fails WP:ROUTINE and shows that the article does not have the multiple independent sources that are required to demonstrate notability. Because its three constituent albums are notable does not mean that the compilation in itself is notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Editors should note that album charting is not a requisite for notability. A sentence along the lines of "In December 2009, this album X was included in a compilation release alongside albums Y and Z, reaching number 80 in the US R&B Album charts" can be added to Good Girl Gone Bad, Music of the Sun and A Girl like Me (Rihanna album) if needs be. SplashScreen (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as this nomination is obviously a sequel of the one that nearly happened and people agreed that this article indeed should be kept. Also per all my comments there. — Tomica (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfDs were closed with 'Delete' and 'No consensus'; there is not precedent or consensus to keep this article. That the article should be kept because of previous AfDs is against WP:NOTAGAIN. SplashScreen (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same reason I !voted keep in the other nomination. P.S. SplashScreen, I formally invite you to not reply to my comment. Anything you say will be completely ignored. You are the one requesting an IBAN against both Tomica and I, so why are you still interacting with either of us? Statυs (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the above user is playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU, I'm sure he'll be rather apathetic about me indicating that his argument fails WP:NOTAGAIN. On Wikipedia, decisions are made through WP:CONSENSUS. This often involves discussion and, if a user does not want to partake in discussion with other editors, they should not enter into AfDs in which those editors are present. SplashScreen (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reasong to delete. The fact that it charted and was mentioned in the media is enough. Also, the first time it was deleted only one user voted. The second time, no consensus was reached. Regards. —Hahc 21 21:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:NOTAGAIN decrees that an article should not be kept simply because previous AfDs have (or, in this case, have not) come to that conclusion - consensus can change. You are also wrong in the fact that charting or being "mentioned in the media" makes a song notable - WP:NALBUMS makes no mention of charting as a requisite of notability and said coverage needs to be multiple, verifiable, reliable and independent within a non-trivial context. This article does not have such coverage. Hahc21, do you have any policy-based reasons for this article to be kept, or is this a case of WP:ITSNOTABLE? SplashScreen (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been skeptical about this article in the past and when I first saw that this was at AfD, I read the article again (without reading any of the above comments). I still don't think this article is needed. In my opinion, there is absolutely no point in having this as it's just a box set of three albums. I mean, a sentence in the lead ("the set contains Rihanna's first three studio albums: Music of the Sun (2005), A Girl like Me (2006) and the deluxe edition of her 2007 album entitled Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (2008)") summarizes all the article's info on this box set. The rest is just random stuff about the individual albums. Pancake (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the brief Rap-Up piece that's referenced in the article, I'm unable to find coverage for this release in reliable sources. The individual albums that make up the set are obviously notable, but I don't belive the set itself meets WP:GNG. The Background/content and Credits/Personnel sections take up most of the Rihanna 3-CD article, but the info contained therein is not only redundant to the individual album articles, but it does not discuss this release at all. So putting that aside, the remainder of the 3-CD article merely mentions the release date(s) and chart position, both of which are already listed at her discography page. If desired, a note identifying Rihanna's three albums can be added at her discography page, as was done with the similarly-themed Whitney Houston Triple Feature over at her discography page. Gongshow ^Talk 09:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources for this album. Majority of the sources in the article refer to the individual albums that make up this set and not the compilation itself. Charting, in and of itself, does not make an album notable - it represents a list of best-selling albums in a given week and is not "significant coverage". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Rihanna discography. Basic information that this set is the first three albums compiled into a set can be merged inot the discography article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the Billboard charting can be referenced as that would make it notable otherwise delete. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Again?? This contains enough information and it charted separately. It's independently notable. VítoR™ ^{Talk That Shit} 21:34, 20 July 2012 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jannik Olander

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a promotional article about a non-notable jeweler. The only significant coverage I could find were Danish sources, the first few of which were about him being sued as a "swindler". Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs rewriting, but from what I can see on Google Translate of the news articles, Olander does seem to have ongoing news coverage. Not extensive, and mostly contentious, but the fact none of it is in English doesn't mean that the sources are non-reliable. He also caused a stir for controversial/blasphemous T-shirts for Gorilla in 2005/06 which is in a couple news articles on G News. Granted, it's not extensive coverage, but it IS ongoing - if VERY borderline, notability wise. The "swindler" accusations seem to be from another jeweller claiming that he has stolen their designs for traditional 2000-year-old designs (which just seems to have had the effect of giving Olander publicity.). I also find sources like this and this (and this although I'm a bit dubious about whether it counts as a RS) demonstrating ongoing coverage since 2005/06. Mabalu (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – This person appears to meet WP:BASIC and WP:GNG per:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 16 July 2012 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Wolf

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Many Ghits, but almost all are social networking or promotional in nature. I'm not finding anything that indicates that she meets the inclusion guidelines, but as she is Dutch, it's possible that there is something I'm missing, but a quick look at w:nl:Lana Wolf shows the same reliance on non-independent sources as this version. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's had a top 40 hit in the Netherlands, and coverage from Google News suggests that she is notable: [1], [2], [3]. Non-English Wikipedia articles are often a poor indicator of available sources as for some reason unsourced articles seem to be considered acceptable in some WP languages.--Michig (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 14 July 2012 (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 to delete this article. This was a low-participation AfD, so I'm closing it with no prejudice against speedy renomination. NAC—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Masquerade (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

3 years with out a single reference. presumably a fan of the music would have been able to find at least one reference. content as stands doesnt indicate notability. declined PROD. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep. The band has released five albums, two of which were on Metal Blade Records. Guitarist Thomas G:son appears to be individually 'notable'. The lack of available sources is an issue. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - stil the band has released 5 albums, lack of sources is an issue but it can always be fixed.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 14 July 2012 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Star IMA Awards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indian music awards that started in 2011. Has not received any coverage in news. Fails WP:GNG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple news articles in Google News archives, including The Economic Times ([4]) and Times of India ([5]). Cavarrone (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TV show owned by Reliance Broadcasting, completed their second show this June. Article offers one cite, to the show's own website. Yes, there are Google hits--press releases and trivial mentions (such as Cavarrone's two examples), and various bits from non-reliable sources. Could not find the substantial coverage from reliable sources needed to evidence notability. If anyone can find something better amid the fluff, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2012 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Fabulous Bastard from Chicago

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. Director is red-linked, IMDB search shows that he's only directed a handful of small release B movies that are practically unknown today... 81M (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – References are available[6][7][8] so I believe it's notable. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was produced by David F. Friedman who was a notable producer - I should have put his name in the original entry, apologies.Dutchy85 (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

per The New York Times aka: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

and per The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures (page 318)

aka: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had never even heard of this film I did not even know it was the name of a film. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A 1969 film release with international release[9] and several searchable titles??[10][11] Pardon, but your never having heard of it is not a very persuasive deletion rationale. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improvable stub on an American genre film made 2 decades before the internet even existed. It may never get beyond start class, but that's okay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 19 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taste the Blood of Singapore Sling

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google searched and album has no independent coverage on notable websites/publications LF (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I hardly think that this is a well-known album. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 15:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the pop group Singapore Sling really are a notable group (and I have to confess that I had never heard of them), why doesn't this article just get merged with the article on them? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 14 July 2012 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voices from the Gathering Storm: The Web of Ecological-Societal Crisis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. No viable references available, no claim to notability provided. Most content provided by book author (see talk page). Contains copyvio review pasted from another site. Mikeblas (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found one book review but I am unable to access the full text of it:
- "A Review of: “Voices from the Gathering Storm: The Web of Ecological-Societal Crisis”." By: LAI, DAVID Y. Journal of Environmental Science & Health, Part C -- Environmental Carcinogenesis & Ecotoxicology Reviews. Nov2006, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p285-287. 3p. DOI: 10.1080/10590500600945566.

If someone can send me a copy of it, I will add it to the article. maclean (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aasman (2013)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, violates WP:CRYSTAL Man way 17:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no reliable sources in the article, should be deleted as WP:CRYSTAL.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom & WP:NFF. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing Admin: The creator had moved the article to Not Confirmed and that redirect needs to be deleted irrespective of whether this article stays or gets deleted. (Ofcourse unless the film is now named "Not Confirmed"!) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2012 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austco

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account Nbuzza (talk · contribs) (Nathan Buzza, COO of Austco )with no other edits other than Nathan Buzza related. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions per WP:CORPDEPTH. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The google search shows no coverage from independent reliable sources thus far. It may be a good company but just not very notable. --Artene50 (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2012 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Music

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources contains the term itself, only phenomena remotely related. It also says that echo music was "re-discovered and named by the Innov8or - Dr Karl Phillips in 2011. Probably original research and/or self promotion? Seelefant (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 22:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources that refer to this term. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, probably OR. AshLey ^Msg 13:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not referred to in any searchable news archives and even search for Echo Music and Karl Phillips brings up no useful results. --Dolphonia (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2012 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Li Gar Kao

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As noted in its header, this article has a lot of problems. Primarily, it's an unsourced article that fails to show this martial art has any notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the Wiki links are to articles that don't exist and themselves don't pull up much in the way of hits. There is so little real information in the article that it borders on nonsense.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's list of issues says it all--no notability, no sources, original research, etc. Mdtemp (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2012 (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. Consensus seems to be that Mason has done enough before & after winning his music competition, and has enough coverage in reliable sources, to be kept. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mason (singer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. Won a TV talent show, did nothing else at all. BLP prod removed in May, but the sources all date from his CMT Superstar win. He has done nothing at all since, or if he has, no sources have paid him any attention. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confirmed winner of a television contest, but one that is hardly up to Nashville Star or AI levels. No record release or much of anything else, so no real need for an article, and a redirect for a minor competition isn't needed. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CMT's Next Superstar as a plausible search item. Till 01:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Snow?) Keep, I doubt that winning a notable music competition meets the definition of BLP1E... otherwise clearly meets WP:ANYBIO#1 and WP:MUSICBIO#9 (Has won or placed in a major music competition). Anyway this is not even a BLP1E, as the subject was previously finalist in one another notable music competition in 2006 and for that he received adequate coverage at the time ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16]). So... surely passes WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO#1 and WP:MUSICBIO#9, probably more. Cavarrone (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is still a WP:BLP1E since literally 100% of the coverage centers around the time of his win. He fell off the face of the earth afterward and no one said a word about him. A brief flurry of coverage for winning a competition isn't enough if he did absolutely bupkis after the fact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Literally 100% of the coverage centers around the time of his win"? All the coverage I linked above is from 2006. Cavarrone (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see one local mention of a concert (not a sufficient source for notability as determined by WP:NMUSIC) and coverage from the time he was on Nashville Star. So far, all I see is "He was on Nashville Star and CMT's Next Superstar", literally nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I see...coverage from the time he was on Nashville Star". Sure, I wrote it above. He was finalist (finished fourth) in a notable 2006 music competition and received coverage for it (one event), then in 2011 he won one another notable music competition and again received coverage for it (one another event). = this is not a BLP1E. Cavarrone (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then he's a BLP2E. Literally 99.9% of the coverage ties him to one of two shows. He has done nothing else AT ALL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be hard to justify snowball clause for keep when there is a delete and a redirect (plus the delete of the nomination) as the only preceeding points. Snowball might have worked for close, but not keep (based solely on the preceeding entries). --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not requesting anything (see parenthesis). Cavarrone (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, local coverage or directly tied to the TV shows he was on. He has done nothing but fail at two reality singing shows. No CDs, no albums, nothing. Just being a low ranking contestant on one and a winner on another is not enough if he's done nothing else; compare Angela Hacker. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "nothing" is relative. He is doing many live concerts (and it is verifiable): [21], [22], [23]. Cavarrone (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that not fall under "as articles that simply report performance dates", which WP:NMUSIC clearly states as insufficient source? You can't build an article entirely on "He'll be performing here, here and here". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn... it seems you have a failure to understand.... you said he did "nothing" after the winning, I documented it is not true, as he is still pretty active. These sources were offered just to confute your statement. That said, nor the Roanke Times article (a review) nor The Maine Edge article are "articles that simply report performance dates". Cavarrone (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Failing to win a competition doesn't seem a notable thing (possible exception if it's a fight to the death or similar). That would leave the only notable thing being the other competition. That leaves a clear cut case of BLP1E. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLP1E better. The subject clearly fails the first two requirements. Cavarrone (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and my sincere apologies. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He won a major TV talent show. Explain how that doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. Just because he only won one talent show is irrelevant; that's like saying "X isn't notable because they only had one number one". --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:NMUSIC only says that someone may be notable for winning one. Plus, if you've done literally jack shit after the fact, then you're really not that notable now are you? Use some goddamn common sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per WP:HEY. I was not abusing AFD as cleanup; I really could not find a scrap of info on this song or Clay Boland. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too Good to Be True (1936 song)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably not notable. I can't find any information on Clay Boland. There are several versions of the song, but the only verifications of it are dubious-looking discography sites or Allmusic. Just because several people cut a song doesn't inherently make it notable. None of these artists' pages make any mention of the song. No version charted, no version was ever reviewed at any length. If there is literally no more that can be said on this song, then it fails WP:NSONGS.

(As an aside, the page went unedited for 2 1/2 years before a prod in April 2011. After that, BRG added a couple sources, but as I said, they all look dubious or say nothing about the song besides that it exists. After that, it had literally no other edits until now. The utter lack of traffic would also hint at non-notability.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Boland and the song are covered in detail in The Unsung Songwriters: America's Masters of Melodies. Warden (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course, the notability guidelines used to say that because several people cut a song, it was notable. It seems that one is trying to hit a moving target in attempting to comply with the notability requirements. This repeated challenge on grounds of notability to perfectly good articles is the main reason I hardly ever edit Wikipedia any more and have devoted my time to Wikia. I wonder what, by the way, TPH would consider a "non-dubious" source — the sources I gave are in fact the best discographical information available on the Web. -- BRG (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then what makes this one reliable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The site at [24] happens to be the most comprehensive online discography online. Do you know of any other that you trust more? -- BRG (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it most trusted? Is there any proof that it's overseen by an editorial staff? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to know what steps the nominator took to establish his confident statement that no version of this song was ever reviewed at any length, bearing in mind that the Internet postdates the song by a good few decades. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is just as invalid unless you can prove in some fashion that print sources exist on the song. We can't just guess that there might be print sources on the song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any argument, so my argument can't possibly be invalid. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Warden's comment just above, pointing to The Unsung Songwriters: America's Masters of Melodies. Is that not a "print source"? -- BRG (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's still just one. And I can't even see the preview, so I don't know how in depth it is. It could just be a name-drop. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the problems with Google Books. It seems to serve up different previews depending on your location, your browser, the alignment of the planets, your inside leg measurement and many other parameters. The preview that I can see says, "...first contributions for the production "Red Rumba" was a little gem called Too Good to Be True. This was promply slated for immortality with an outstanding recording by the Benny Goodman Trio featuring Helen Ward on the vocal. The original Victor 78 rpm record was reissued on Volume II of..." (copied as fair use). Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As a song published in 1936, sources available on the internet may be difficult to locate. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Some mentions: [25], [26]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NSONG that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Dream Focus 01:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone doubts these people song this song, you have only to check Amazon.com [27] or Google book search. [28] for the name of the musician and the song. "Charlie Barnet" "Too Good to Be True" Perhaps also search for the lyrics or the name of the song writer. Dream Focus 01:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONG only says that it may, MAY, FREAKING MAY be notable. All your sources do is confirm that versions of the song exist. Do you really think an article can consist entirely of "X recorded the song, and so did Y, Z, π, œ and Ø" with literally no other "meat" to it? Where did anyone discuss the song in detail? Where was it reviewed? Did a version ever chart? I'm not finding a damn thing on the latter two points. Regardless of the song's age, you should not have to search so hard to find any scrap of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't an article consist entirely of such information? Many, if not most, articles in print encyclopedias look like that. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it may be difficult to find sources, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not the editor proposing removal. Refs 1,2,4,6 are unreliable as primary sources. Ref 3 is a dead link. That leaves ref 5, which is a passing mention. The google book result would make 1 in depth source if it was an in depth mention. It does not appear to be so, being mentioned exactly once as best I can tell. If there were multiple such sources, it might be a keep. I do not see multiple such sources. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are not necessarily unreliable. For uncontroversial factual information that doesn't require interpretation they are often the most reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded the article using information from three books. There is enough verifiable material in online sources alone (including Google Books) to support a reasonably detailed article, and the subject appears to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Additionally, if the article is kept, it should probably be renamed Too Good to Be True (Clay Boland song), a la Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) and Blue (Bill Mack song). Gongshow ^Talk 08:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic appears at the very least to meet WP:GNG per:

Vaché, Warren (2000). The Unsung Songwriters (1st ed.). Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press. pp. 33–4. ISBN 978-0810835702.
Goldsby, John (2002). The Jazz Bass Book - Technique and Tradition. San Francisco: Backbeat Books. p. 54. ISBN 978-0879307165.
Chilton, John (2002). Roy Eldridge, Little Jazz Giant. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 320. ISBN 978-0826456922.

—Thanks to User:Gongshow for locating these sources and adding them to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 16 July 2012 (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. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Hope

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub article about a piece of fan-fiction. Nothing noteworthy other than a few minor legal mentions warrants this article existing. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the three sources already in the article at time of the nomination, 2 are clearly independent RS'es (Publishers' Weekly, SciFi.com). GNG is met. While most fan fiction is utterly non-notable, this bit appears to indeed be notable for its controversy regarding commercial sale. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The referenced sources would not be sufficient to establish notability on literary merit, but the copyright fuss just about makes it notable from the point of view the history of intellectual property & enforcement. Mcewan (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the article's talk page, this is the 3rd nomination. Mcewan (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Novel was part of a national news story due to author's complete disregard of copyright. News mentions from National Public Radio, SciFi Wire, Publisher's Weekly, the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Comic Book Resources, Ansible, and blog mentions from professional authors here, here, here, and at StarWars.com. Easily meets GNG. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that the notability rests entirely with the copyright controversy, so perhaps the name of the article should be changed to reflect this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG and NBOOKS#1. Cavarrone (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2012 (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. The comments that no reliable sources have been provided outweigh the assertions that the software is notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visual novelty

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no GNews hits, no reliable or verifiable sources found. Home page of software states it is still in Beta testing, perhaps too soon. GregJackP Boomer! 22:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article describes the software but wih no claim of achieved notability, nor can evidence of such notability be found. At best, as user GregJackP says, this is too soon. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neutrally worded, but not showing notability. Peridon (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not too soon. The first version was released in August 2008 [29]. It's called a beta only to emphasize that it's in active development. The official forums have 900 registered members. Additionally this article was misnamed by the original author - as I've stated in its Talk section. Searching for "Visual Novelty" will yield much less results than the software's actual name: "Novelty visual novel maker", in case this is why no notability has been found. In my searches I find Novelty often discussed along side other Visual novel engines for which there are existing Wikipedia articles. [30][31][32] 213.21.96.10 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Angry Keep Because it does have references. Well, not online news references such as CNET, etc. But it does have non-primary references. References that aren't from the site itself, or promoters of the site / software. Bloggers are independant. 68.190.116.202 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a rule, blogs are not reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 23:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then CNET shouldn't count either. All of its "News articles" are basically blog entries of CNET Staff. Yet, it still counts. 68.190.116.202 (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference is that the Wikipedia Community has decided to accept CNET or other web sources where there is a paid staff and strong editorial control, but not to accept other blogs. That discussion is more appropriate at WP:RSN, not at this AfD. GregJackP Boomer!

Keep. It's a pretty well known program within the community as one of the chief alternatives to Ren'Py. Any discussions of notability / sources should be reconsidered once the page is moved to the correct title. I suggest Novelty (visual novel engine). --AlexChurchill (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any refs from WP:RS to support that? I would be happy to withdraw my nomination if there is anything to indicate notability. GregJackP Boomer! 12:40, 19 July 2012 (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 - policy based arguements outweigh dislike. Merging individual articles is possible, but forcibly merging all and redirecting is not - mergers should be decided on an article by article basis by local consensus of editors. Wily D 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that the individual sites have sufficient notability to support separate articles -- only a list article would be appropriate, in my opinion. See the NPS Multiple Property Submission for more details.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an active, productive editor developing articles on North Dakota's NRHP-listed historic sites. I don't care for SarekOfVulcan choosing now to follow closely and to begin contention in this way. SarekOfVulcan has followed closely my edits during the last year or two, opening numerous ANI reports. Coming off a block that he contributed mightily to setting up, I recently asked him not to engage in such shenanigans, and I appreciate that he refrained for a few days, until this. I ask for other editors not to condone what I think is reasonably interpretted as wp:wiki-hounding.

About the articles: I recently started multiple articles, bringing into wikipedia what is, I believe, the first coverage about these interesting historic sites displaying Ukrainian-, Russian- and other heritage in funerary wrought-iron crossess. About the first-draft articles, let me and other editors develop them. They are wikipedia-notable topics; there exists full NRHP nomination documents (which I have not yet obtained) with more detail about these sites. I have made an initial editorial decision to combine several sets of iron cross sites listings into combined articles, but I did not choose to make one combined article of them all. It is a subjective decision. I think wikipedia works better if editors give some deference to productive editors developing articles, and not second-guess them immediately on some other way to develop the local area, which is just different, not obviously better. Or even if you have an idea about a way to make something obviously better, you can just make a suggestion, and not begin wiki-legalistic processes to drag down a targeted editor. --do ncr am 20:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought that the articles could be improved without copying the same background information into each article and severely unbalancing the data referring to the site in question, I wouldn't have nominated them. I agree with you that the subject of Russian-German crosses in North Dakota is very interesting, but disagree that any individual site (except maybe St. Mary's, if the 10K crosses turns out to be accurate after all) is notable enough for its own article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and make a list. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek, please could you explain why it's necessary to use the delete tool when you could simply redirect these titles to the list?—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Sarek, but I know that past history of interactions with the creator of this article suggests that it is inadvisable for any individual editor who has ever disagreed with him in the past to attempt to alter his work without support from a community discussion, such as this one. --Orlady (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. It's a bit of a pity we're using AfD for cleanup but I can understand why. Redirect all to a combined or list article.—S Marshall T/C 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't see any value in redirects with these titles pointing to the list either. Believe me, it was more than predictable that Doncram would start in about wikihounding, and I wouldn't have set myself up for that if I thought there was any reason to keep these titles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still "redirect all" from yours truly; there's no reason to delete that survives WP:ATD.—S Marshall T/C 00:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the principal reason for redirecting all of these articles instead of deleting them has to do with the way that all of the individual titles are assiduously tracked by the NRHP Wikiproject and listed as links in National Register of Historic Places listings in North Dakota. (BTW, I believe that the obsessive way that many Wikpedians focus on systematically creating articles to correspond to every entry on some list or in some database is one of the Wikipedia behaviors that cause so few women to be active in Wikipedia. I see this as a form of male behavior that is off-putting to women. But that's not relevant here.) Keeping the titles as redirects is far simpler and more straightforwrad than piping every link that points to one of these titles. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand the point you are making, but I think it's a stretch to take one type of editing behavior out of the many types that exist and turn it into a causal factor for why women do or do not edit here, imho. dm (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer on the AfD talk page (because this is an interesting tangent but there's no need for the closer to read it).—S Marshall T/C 09:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To S Marshall: There is no existing list-article to which all these could be redirected. I rather think there would be problems with any list-article that is created: why not include South Dakota iron cross sites, for example? Your comments at Talk page to this AFD, which seem quite reasonable to me, suggest you should be voting Keep here. Could you please clarify? --do ncr am 02:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point about South Dakota. Indeed, it seems that wrought iron grave crosses are a form of folk art found throughout the Great Plains,"from the Mexican border to the Prairies of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan", according to this article from the Encyclopedia of the Great Plains. There are multiple ethnic traditions involved in creating them in different parts of the region (e.g., Russians, Volga Germans, Czechs, Métis, and Mexicans), so coverage undoubtedly requires more than one article. In any event, the traditions don't stop at state lines, so the articles shouldn't be arbitarily defined by state lines, either -- much less by county lines or the property boundaries of individual churchyards. --Orlady (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create an article about wrought iron crosses in North Dakota, including a list of the individual sites, merge/redirect all of these titles to that article, and protect the redirects to prevent re-creation of the articles.. These articles all appear to be based on one source, with separate articles created based on the presumption that every individual National Register listing is individually and independently notable. The source is very interesting, but it has essentially no information about the individual sites. Accordingly, in this instance that presumption of individual notability is not supported. --Orlady (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found another marginal source for the first one, I presume we could find similar genealogical pages about each of the other sites. I guess I'd ask why the article is about the "cross site" and not the church, cemetery, cross sites, etc all rolled together. Unfortunately, this sort of series of very short articles is not what I was hoping to see. dm (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create an article about all of these crosses that are on the NRHP. I would not protect the articles in case an editor finds plenty of coverage and writes an article about a specific site. --Oakshade (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I notified the corresponding WikiProject of this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and allow content editors actually interested in development to make sensible decisions about merging or not later, as the material they find leads them. Wikipedia-notability of these topics is not questioned, is it? There are extensive NRHP nomination documents available (not online, and not yet collected by me or anyone involved here). So what policy or guideline supports deletion of all these, besides "I don't like it"?

Anyhow, the treatment of historic architecture and craftwork of Ukrainian-, German-, Russian-, Norwegian-, and other-European immigrant pioneers in North Dakota, and about other historic topics and sites in North Dakota, is barely begun in Wikipedia. It is a Good Thing to get started by developing short articles with links to great NRHP nomination documents for the NRHP-listed historic sites in the state, indexed at List of RHPs in ND. I have been doing that, and recently filled in all missing redlinks from List of RHPs in ND#Bottineau County, List of RHPs in ND#McIntosh County, List of RHPs in ND#Benson County, List of RHPs in ND#Adams, List of RHPs in ND#Barnes, National Register of Historic Places listings in Emmons County, North Dakota and List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in North Dakota. For all the bridges, houses, and many other types of historic sites, the great NRHP nomination documents are available on-line, and I link to those documents and begin to draw from them. It happens that for the iron cross sites targeted in this AFD, that the NRHP nomination documents are not immediately available on-line, so these targeted articles are less good and harder to develop immediately. I imagine that many of these topics can and should be absorbed into bigger articles about an entire church and its grounds, or larger historic districts, as Dmadeo suggests in his comment above.

For example, I would be happy to see a local historian or other positive content developer choose to cover the NRHP-listed Old St. Mary's Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site topic as a section in NRHP-listed St. Mary's Church Non-Contiguous Historic District. That's the only one where I immediately see that there is an article (a new one created by me) about the corresponding church. --do ncr am 13:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, Doncram, I am questioning the notability of these articles, which I specifically stated twice above. Wrought-iron crosses designed by Russian-German blacksmiths in North Dakota -- obviously notable. Particular crosses, or collections thereof -- not so much, as their notability is NOTINHERITED from the parent topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepJeffrey Beall (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Now also notified WikiProject North Dakota--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I see it, editor 1 writes articles in one acceptable way; editor 2 says it should be done another acceptable way. The issue is quickly raised for the community to consider deletion.

The notability issue was solved by the NRHP registration. This involved a state and national level review. One can argue that the decision was flawed, but we can no longer argue that an independent body decided that the site should be on the National Register of Historic Places. The current articles are little different than those for many NRHP churches, cemeteries, and other buildinga from both rural and urban areas. The article may be considered uninteresting or the site be considered not notable to some individuals, but each site was reviewed and put on the Register.

The advantage of individual listing is the hope that local people will take interest, take photographs, and help fill in the information that led to the individual listing. This may be done by obtaining the actual nomination or other documention for the site.

Wrought Iron Crosses in Western North Dakota, Wrought Iron Work of Jeff Malm, Survey of Iron Cross Cemeteries in North Dakota, Wrought Iron Crosses, Wrought Iron Cross, Plains Folk: Iron Crosses, etc. show that there is existing academic and artistic interest in wrought iron crosses and their place in our history and culture. KudzuVine (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NRHP listings are notable, documentation is available (if not always easy to access). If proposer thinks articles should be merged or replaced by redirects, there are other protocols in WP for having that discussion. Magic♪piano 18:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The general interest in the topic of wrought-iron crosses does not make every place where one happens to be located automatically notable. It looks to me like most of these are never going to be more than two sentences long, and that does not justify a separate page for each. If the sources are just lists, where each is mentioned only as part of that list, then they are not notable individually. There should just be a list, and if an individual cemetery (the whole cemetery) merits a page, then that page can mention that the cemetery is the site of wrought-iron crosses, but the nomination is correct here that solely as sites of wrought-iron crosses, these are not individually notable. The naming of these is also odd - why Old Mt. Carmel Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site and not simply Old Mt. Carmel Cemetery? - appending to the name of a location the reason you happen to be interested in it is not exactly the preferred method for picking a page name. As redirects, these are not very likely namespaces, and there is no justification for creating a separate page for the part of a barely-notable (if that) cemetery that happens to have this type of monument in it, rather than (or in addition to) one for the cemetery itself. Agricolae (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is believed to exist one to four separate, long NRHP nomination document(s) (not yet obtained), say like this one for a North Dakota church. but perhaps longer plus corresponding photos document(s) such as this, but perhaps with more pics for each of the targeted places, giving more information for each separate article. Plus additional other local historical papers. The deletion nominator has not requested any of these, which are available upon request, for free. The belief of me and some others is that there is the possibility for multiple new local photos as well. Merging into any separate article about the corresponding cemetery or church, if it exists, is fine by me, and does not require a world-wide AFD imho. --do ncr am 00:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't those NRHP submissions be primary documents? That's a problem, policy-wise. Agricolae (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're secondary -- they normally cite the other sources that were used to prepare them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments of Magicpiano, and also so these articles will show up in handheld applications displaying Wikipedia geolocated articles. I go out of my way to look at cultural heritage sites wherever I am, and have spent time in graveyards in (among other states) Wyoming, South Dakota, and Missouri. This nom for deletion is exactly the sort of thing I personally find highly discouraging in my work on Wikipedia, though I don't believe this is a case of hounding (I have never heard that term before here). I believe it is a miscommunication and it is necessary to state somewhere that all NRHP listings deserve their own article just on the basis of the listing, no matter how similar the object is to some other object at some other location. I have had similar problems with WP:WLM articles in the past, so this is a generic cultural heritage problem. I believe the only proper resolution is to create an article on the cultural heritage of South Dakota which explains the bureaucratic process of how objects obtain a listing. These articles can then link back to that article. Starting from that basis, you offer article patrollers a general quick-reference as to why these objects are notable, so that these AFD's won't occur. As for naming conventions, the title should be as listed here, which is correct. Jane (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue of wanting the coordinates to show up in handheld applications is an interesting and important one, albeit unrelated to WP:Notability. This is the first time I've seen this raised in an AfD (although I don't follow nearly every AfD). Since many topics that are geolocatable are traditionally covered in broader articles, this concern is one with the potential to affect many other corners of Wikipedia. IMO, the best way to handle this general concern would be to create some sort of link/redirect function that includes the geolocation data. If this hasn't been raised with Wikimedia technical gurus, that needs to happen. --Orlady (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to add geocoordinates to a redirect, and that is completely unnecessary when you create well built stubs like these are. There are lots of stubs with geocoordinates, though most of these are in Europe where the stub is interwiki-linked to a longer article in the native language wikipedia. I really don't understand your need to merge, though I am relieved to see that notability of NRHP is no longer in question on this issue. Jane (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. All of these sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which has much higher standards for inclusion than Wikipedia does. If these sites are all significant enough for the National Register to deem them worthy of preservation, they will pass the general notability guideline, and documentation of their notability exists in some form. That being said, I have no objection to merging if they turn out to all be on the National Register for similar reasons; however, there's no article to merge these to yet, and the titles should at least be kept as redirects. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 09:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, all of these sites are indeed listed for the same reason, as documented in this one multi-site nomination. These are graveyards that include one or more wrought-iron-cross grave markers. The fact that there is no general article about the gravemarkers is the reason why several of us previous !voters have included a statement like "create a general article" in our statements. --Orlady (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt you're interpretating that correctly as Multiple Property Submission states that a MPS consists of related properties that share a common theme and can be submitted as a group Thuis, the nomination of individual properties in an MPS is accomplished in the same manner as other nominations. And that's what the German-Russian Wrought-Iron Cross Sites in Central North Dakota MPS is doing, to establish the basis of eligibility for related properties. However, Doncram might not obtain the individual National Register of Historic Places Nomination Forms as for those properties I looked up an the NRHP focus database website no coordinates are given and the adresses are restricted (though they are entered in the USGS database, obviously one government agency does not take care of the measurements of another). --Matthiasb (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all, individual notability has not been demonstrated, but there is no obvious reason to delete anything. If more sources on one of these places can be found, I don't mind them having individual articles; as they stand, they are all a bit weak (and repetitive). —Kusma (t·c) 14:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing wrong with the article topic, but the creation of these substubs is disruptive behavior by the creator that has repeatedly been the basis for substantial blocks, due to his persistence in creating them against opposition from virtually everyone else who's weighed in on the subject. We don't need substubs that tell us nothing substantial, especially when they're text dumps that will take longer to clean up than to create anew. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles in question are about sites that have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. For a site to pass the review process and receive such designation, I believe there should be a presumption of notability. While the articles could use further development, they are not "bare bones" one-sentence stubs that previously created some furor. St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site in paticular is in pretty good shape for a newly created article. I perceive these articles as a postive contribution to Wikipedia rather than "disruptive behavior." I'm not aware of any policy on how we should or must deal with National Register of Historic Places#Multiple Property Submisssions such as this (is there such a policy?). If the articles are not kept, then another reasonable alternative would be to create an article for the German-Russian Wrought-Iron Cross Sites in Central North Dakota MPS and merge the content there. However, the content should not be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into single article on the MPS. My guess is that if you do get the individual nomination forms, they'll all be single paragraphs that refer back to the cover document. Einbierbitte (talk)
Comment I've added a bit now to each of the articles, mentioning in most of them something about the individual named blacksmiths whose work is identified. I expect that the individual nom forms are actually pages from a Section B of the MPS document. They might be extensive or brief. I hope/expect that they would include photos of the iron crosses, possibly 62 photos for 62 objects at one site, and more particulars about which blacksmith artist did which one, how you can tell from the individual style of work.

I also imagine that there exist local histories and compilations of works of different blacksmith-artists out there. We have only just started something here. Leave the pages up, and more will be added as local historians see that it is acceptable to add about particular blacksmiths.

Imagined (or imaginary) sources are not suitable sources for Wikipedia articles. --Orlady (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About accusation of these being "text dumps": that is hogwash. No one present here besides me created any one of these. I used expertise developed out of years of work to do these relatively efficiently and effectively. The very first draft of each of these is improved considerably upon what any available automatic article generator would enable a novice to do, and it is nonsense to say that what is present would be an obstacle to someone who wanted to create a "real article". Go ahead, try it. Fill in some other of a remaining 100 or so unstarted articles in North Dakota.

Is there any North Dakotan present, by the way? Who are the critics here? I imagine that local North Dakotans, when they notice these articles, will be thrilled to have some information provided, something good started.

About a possible MPS-based combo article, I don't happen to like the idea of it being titled the name of the MPS. This is a criticism of a few existing MPS-based articles: the MPS is one study, one work, one report, like a book, which I don't think should be exagerated in importance. We don't write a wikipedia article about every nonfiction book out there. The appropriate topic for a wikipedia article should be general, accomodating other instances of iron crosses like the MPS author Timothy J. Kloberdanz discusses must exist. And probably not limited to North Dakota. Or, it could focus upon the blacksmiths themselves, many of which are individually notable I bet. If an article about the MPS is created, that should not preclude there being individual short articles on the sites, as have been created, which should link to the MPS one. These individual short articles serve good purposes, among them being to clarify to locals that they can add photos and other material to them. --do ncr am 21:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone wants to listen to a reasoned argument, but I'll post it here anyway: Merge unless and until enough unique data can be found on each of these sites, as opposed to the multiple property submission in general. For example, in Cuyuna Iron Range Municipally-Owned Elevated Metal Water Tanks, I created one article for all five of the water tanks in the Cuyuna Range, even though each of the towers is separately listed on the National Register. I didn't feel it was necessary to create five separate articles when the rationale behind nominating each of them was so similar. Now, on the other hand, if I had enough information about each of the buildings in University of Minnesota Old Campus Historic District, I'd consider breaking them out into separate articles about Eddy Hall, Burton Hall, Shevlin Hall, and so on. (Oh, and Pillsbury Hall, which is a really neat Richardsonian Romanesque building.) But, nobody is reading at this point, so I'll let you guys continue arguing. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading, and I think Elkman has given some excellent examples of how these topics should be handled. --Orlady (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the kind of article I think the sourcing we have would support. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading and again I disagree with the merge proposal. Though I appreciate your work with the water tanks, I feel each water tank should have its own article that links back to the one you created. We are discussing specific heritage locations and these need to have their own article page with geo coordinates, otherwise this information will not be found easily by people in the field in or near the locations. Please see this link for information on how to view Wikipedia articles based on geocoordinates in Google maps. Jane (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge - I think we should keep the majority of the content but merge it into one article. If we merge the information together I think there is enough to present a decent article on the subject(s). I agree with some of the comments above that being NRHP sites they are notable but I'm not sure if we A) need them all to be individual pages and B) Have enough info/references to support them as individual pages without them being Permastubs. Kumioko (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all individually. Each of the articles describes a cemetary (at least those six or eight I looked at). Cemetaries are geographical features per se (compare feature class definition on the Geographic Names Information System website) and notable of their own. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: For example, the first of those article above is most likely identified as U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: St. Boniface Cemetery and located some 7000 yards to the northeast of Selz in neighbouring Benson County already (that's the nearest of the six St. Boniface Cemeteries in North Dakota), so also a merge with the article Selz, North Dakota is not appropriate. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge Inclusion in the Register is an official declaration of notability which I see no reason not to honor. That said, this was added to the register as a group nomination, and we have ways for dealing with lists of locations. If this causes some issues with the rest of the internet, well, let them deal with it. Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Mangoe's argument above. These sites are best covered in a single, all-inclusive article. Bms4880 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a single list/article, or to articles about the individual cemeteries if the cemeteries are notable. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the content and redirect the individual pages to a single merged article. FonsScientiae (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An observation on the article naming

All of these articles seem to be based on a very small set of sources, and in particular the nomination form itself. It's possible that I am mistaken, but I did not find a list of specific locations in it. It lists the counties involved, and it lists certain towns, but I saw no specific cemeteries named. I therefore have to question the articles listed here because I do not see evidence that any of them are actually encompassed in the NRHP listing. Without a source that names these cemeteries, I think they ought to be deleted in favor of an article which does not name specific sites. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To respond:

There exists an individual nomination form justifying the national historical significance of each site, but not one of them has been obtained by anyone commenting here. For a property to be listed on the National Register, it must meet local and national criteria for one or more of four types of significance; there is a public manual (linked from National Register of Historic Places article, I think) which details these types and the processes which must be followed. Each site actually listed must have passed state (and perhaps local) review by multiple persons, and then pass National level review.
Years ago, it was publicly argued that the National Register nomination process was not systematic. Addressing that, the National Register adopted a process of commissioning studies of historical resources sometimes known as Thematic Resources (TR) studies or sometimes known as Multiple Property Submission (MPS) studies. These studies consider a historical topic and/or geographical area. They often explicitly consider a number of individual historic sites and come up with criteria to distinguish between which sites are of national historic importance vs. which ones do not. For example, of covered bridges in a given state, it may be determined that bridges which are intact and have never been disassembled and moved by preservationists will merit National Register listing, but that others do not maintain sufficient historical integrity to be listed. Maybe ones that have been reconstructed with less than 20% new materials will be allowed, say.
The on-line document already linked from each of the AFD-targeted articles is one of those studies. Such studies sometimes only define the criteria for listing of future individual sites. Some such studies embody, within themselves, the listing of sites that are immediately deemed to meet all criteria and to pass all administrative hurdles. It is often the case that ownership questions or other issues prevent the immediate listing of certain other sites. Associated with each TR or MPS eventually are numerous individual historic site listings. For each one, there exists a passage, page, or multiple pages within the original TR or MPS itself, plus accompanying photos, or there exists a later, separate individual NRHP nomination document that references the TR or MPS.
IMHO, there should be a strong presumption of wikipedia notability for any individually listed NRHP historic site. This does not dictate that every individual site must have a different wikipedia article. I prefer, personally, to leave a lot of discretion to individual content editors such as Elkman or myself or Pubdog or Daniel Case or Cbl62 or SmallBones or others, whether to choose to create a combined article unified by the theme, or not. The existence of a list-article, too, does not dictate that each site article should be eradicated. Each site has, actually an atomistic, undivisible independent nature, with a specific location and other unshareable facts that . Each atom is usefully linked from the local town article (as each of these is already), from a List of NRHPs in the county (as each of these is already), from an architect article if relevant (there does not yet exist an article about Krim or any one individual blacksmith-artist here), from list-articles of cemeteries or of cemeteries having iron-crosses or of others. It often doesn't work to sweep them all into any one list-article (which relevant list-article, for each one?). Would you merge one into a church article, others into a list of cemeteries, others into NRHP geographical list-articles? A redirect to a general list-article serves poorly for the link from a NRHP geographical list-article, or from a town, IMHO. Some sites could be members of multiple TR or MPS studies, hypothetically such as a courthouse designed by an architect having an MPS (like Buechner & Orth) which is also a courthouse in North Dakota (which has an MPS) which is also in a geographic area having a geographical-area-based MPS.
Editing by AFD proposal, immediately upon creation of new articles in an unexplored area, seems like a poor practice. There is a fallacy of reasoning here, that if there were a wonderful list-article, it would be wonderful to have everything covered there. This is like a common fallacy in government program planning. It is unfair to suppose that some new program, operating perfectly, will be started successfully, justifying the cancellation or merger of typically-poorly-functioning programs that are just muddling along. The new program will not function perfectly. Here, if I had first created a list-article, I believe it is quite likely that someone would have nominated it for deletion. There is an issue of appropriate scope, of name, and so on, for such an article, which could be criticised.
There is a rush to nominate for deletion and to rush for judgement implementing a coercive "solution" here, which the community should be wary of. I do support someone actually interested in North Dakota history to develop, first, an article or series of articles about the iron crosses of the region and perhaps about the artists and peoples/congregations that created them. It could naturally include links to these separate articles, which can naturally carry additional detail not suitable for an overview article. --do ncr am 14:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I was with you all the way up to "Editing by AFD proposal...". Too bad you couldn't resist adding those last two points. Jane (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i just changed one word in what i wrote there which could possibly make a difference for you. What's wrong with the analogy about government program proposals, or about supporting someone beginning by developing an article about the topic of iron crosses (without at first merging these new articles into it)? --do ncr am 15:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could have done without everything past the statement that "there exists an individual nomination form justifying the national historical significance of each site." I see that, as usual, NRIS doesn't actually produce any of the documentation submitted for the sites, nor can it even find some of the sites, at least not by reference number. I'm therefore having a bit of a problem here because it appears you have created these articles from documents which you haven't cited: they don't actually exist in NRIS, and the information that we can see on the multiple listing documentation doesn't say what's at each site or even what the sites are (the latter association only comes from the NRIS listing on each location). I would also note that of the ones I've found in NRIS so far, they are all listed as "address restricted", which would make producing geolocation data for them rather difficult. So I'm having problems getting past the arguments here. I don't think an article on the multiple listing would be seriously challenged; right now, though, I'm having to assume good faith that some of these sites even exist. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Private website "NRHP.com", which posts public domain NRIS data plus a few ads, lists the St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site one at http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/nd/Benson/state.html. Navigate from state-level http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/nd/state.html to get to all others; you have to know which county each is in. Does that help you? --do ncr am 20:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote above that most if not all of those site mentioned above are listed within the Geographic Names Information System maintained by the United States Geological Survey, search page ist at http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/ and just enter the name of the cemetery, Saint spelled out and without the NRHP-added appendix after the comma and without the prefixes like old, I guess. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see those listings, but they don't seem to have anything other than what would be in NRIS if they appeared there. That leads me back to (a) why doesn't NRIS show them? and (b) I'm still left wondering where the article content is coming from. Mangoe (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome maybe?? Enter St. Boniface Cemetery in search field, click on search, find one result for this specific one, click on it and voila. (It isn!t possible to link directly, only to the PDFs which would be at https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/89001686_text and https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/89001686_photos but in this case they're only placeholder files. Or search for Wrought-Iron Cross Site and you get a longer list, probably all of those (didn't check it). --Matthiasb (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searching where Mattiasb suggests on "iron cross" within state=North Dakota yields mention of all these sites (but not all of the fields of NRIS data) and a link to the MPS document. The links to the individual site documents do not work, unfortunately, for these NRHP listed sites (while corresponding links do work for most North Dakota sites to get you to their actual nomination documents. Note i combined several sets of 2, 3, or 4 NRHP-listed sites into combo articles already. There are 14 articles covering 21 sites, or somehting like that. Wrought-iron cross sites of Holy Trinity Cemetery (Strasburg, North Dakota) is a title composed by me to cover four NRHP sites, Holy Trinity Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site A, B, C, etc.

Mangoe, I don't get what you are driving at. NRIS is a database, which requires database software to read and use, if you don't want to rely upon others' reports from it, such as the "NRHP.com" reports. The National Park Service does not provide any web interface that gives access to all of the fields of the database. A few parties here, including me, have the database downloaded and use software to extract info. The info cited to NRIS appears in the database. I put the info into sentences, e.g. from a date field for listing date I expanded that to state in words that it was listed on that date. The info cited to the MPS document appears in the MPS document, linked, at page number given in the reference. And now there are additional other sources linked from several of the separate articles. If you want to download and use the NRIS database yourself, you are welcome to get assistance, perhaps posting at WikiProject NRHP. If you want to question what appears in the standard wikipedia reference to NRIS, post there and/or at Template talk:NRISref (where u can see links to some past discussions). I think this is going off-topic, unrelated to the AFD? --do ncr am 00:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some sort of documentation will always exist for NRHP listings. It's not always immediately available online, but if something is on the register, someone already did a lot of research. You can't always write a FA-length article, but you can write something that's reasonably informative and interesting. Perhaps a merge is appropriate, especially if the sites are similar and in the same general area, but I don't think there's an immediate need to make that decision. See how the articles develop. Zagalejo^^^ 00:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close blah blah blah what does it take to get a damn article cleaned up anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of building materials

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Confused list, overly vague definition. Contains huge numbers of redlinks, unlikely to be improved. Spam magnet. Deprodded in bad faith by a user who suspected that I was prodding just to prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic passes WP:LISTN, because this information has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Among the numerous sources available online, some examples include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000 and cleanup. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do you plan to clean it up, or is it just going to continue gathering cobwebs until Armageddon? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion regarding List of building materials. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TPH seems to be suggesting that this page be deleted because it contained redlinks; redlinks such as building safety and ornamental woodwork!?! Northamerica1000 seems to have fixed these up quite quickly by ordinary editing — bravo! And Northamerica1000 has listed numerous sources which demonstrate the notability and clarity of the topic — encore! Warden (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. "Contains red links"? "Unlikely to be improved"? Accusations of bad faith in an AfD nom? And just above, an attempt to use AfD to coerce someone else to clean up? Oh, please.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, the nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian Standard English

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article adds no value to "Nigerian Standard English". It describes nothing about the topic. A redlink for the term would be better than a non article. All it appears to be is something to turn a redlink blue. It isn't even as useful as a stub! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep legitimate topic and reasonable stub. Many sources are available which could be used to expand and improve the article. Google Books has thousands of useful looking sources, a small handful of which I've identified below:
1. Gut and Milde, "The Prosody of Nigerian English", Univ. of Bielefeld
2. Ajani, "Is there a Nigerian English?", J.Humanities and Soc. Sci.
3. Ekpe, "The English Language of Nigeria", Nat. Open Univ. of Nigeria
4. Wolf English in Cameroon. Contributions to the Sociology of Language 85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Pburka (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pburka. Dialect of an important English-speaking country. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So long as there is a genuine degree of standardisation and this standardisation has RS coverage then it is a legitimate subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination does not dispute that this is a legitimate topic, but argues that the article is so bad as to fail as a stub. As pointed above, there are sources with which to expand the article, and the stub itself, contrary to the nominator's assertion provides some basic information. It provides a basic definition; provides prevalence of usage; provides basic history (derived from British English); provides information about modern influences to the language; and contrasts with Pidgin usage. I'd say that makes for a decent informative stub; a proper base from which we can build a better article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note with wry amusement than none of those who assert that the article might be referenced appear so far to have made any attempt to so reference it, nor has anyone made a substantive expansion of it to render it useful. I stand by my nomination on the basis that this article has no current merit. Keeping it for the sake of keeping it is banal use of consensus and devalues the encyclopaedia. Make it worth keeping or approve its deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Whpq says, it is not a terrible stub. It has enough information to be better than nothing. I think a stub is more likely to encourage expansion than a red link. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is better than nothing. By existing in this state, a state that says next to nothing, it encourages people to think it is fine as it is. It is not fine. Even as an opening paragraph in a paper it is not fine. It contains no information but the contents is dressed up as information. The only reference link in it is a dead link. It is, among other things, original research. It is not of the quality expected here, even for a stub. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying goes completely against our editing policy of collaborative editting, and policy in fact expects that we may have articles in sad shape as they develop. -- Whpq (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborate, then. Edit. And create a decent article. Or opt to save trash. I'm easy either way. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborating does not consist of demanding that others edit specific articles or make specific improvements. Editors have various areas of interest and can choose to work in their areas of interest. -- Whpq (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you are interested in !demanding that the article be kept with your !vote to do so. You seem to be interested in that aspect, yet not interested in improving it to improve the project as a whole. Why not stretch yourself and do things to this article you feel is good enough to remain when it patently is not in order to ensure that your opinion holds sway? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled by the assertion that the article is worse than nothing. The current stub provides the following information:

the dialect is most widely spoken in Lagos and other urban areas
the dialect is derived from British English
there's another dialect called Nigerian Pidgin

None of this appears to be inaccurate, and it's completely consistent with WP:STUB. There's a school of thought which says that stubs are superior to red links as a new editor is more likely to improve a stub than create a new article, as the barrier to entry is lower. Sometimes an article is so bad that the only solution is to WP:BLOWITUP, but this one's not even close. Perhaps the nominator is trying to make a WP:POINT about stubs, but if so I've missed it. Pburka (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have brought some references here, to this discussion. Perhaps you are in some manner unwilling to add those to the article you feel has merit? I do like the snide suggestion of my making a point against stubs. So let me remain totally unpointed and open. Editors who just bring references to deletion discussions to seek to save articles that are most definitely lacking in quality and references do the project no good. The point, and not a WP:POINT, is to enhance the project. Save the article by editing it and adding the references if they are useful ones. Bringing them here is oratory and rhetoric, and even interesting, but is of no practical use to a reader of the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What good is done for the project by nominating articles which could so easily be improved, instead? Pburka (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of rubbish is an important task. This pseudo-article I chose to nominate for deletion. You think it should stay, brought some references here, but seem unable to add them to the article to reinforce your opinion. By inference you care simply about keeping the rubbish, not about turning it into something worthwhile. I judge this by your selective action. You are not alone. This is a common trait among editors. So many people fire from the hip to show that they have found references and fail to add them to articles. Now I care enough about the article to flag it as rubbish, but am uninterested in anything apart from the deletion or retention process with regard to this article. I'm not about to add the offerings you brought here. But you, if you think they are valid, truly should add them to the article. If you (or others) choose not to add them the inference is that they are not good enough to save it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep insisting the current version is rubbish. It isn't. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I agreed with you we would both be incorrect. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the term "Nigerian Standard English" is well known and has been widely used for several decades by scholars. There are scores of reliable sources for this term and its definition, some of which I have added into the article. Amsaim (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All it takes is one editor with public spirit. Thank you. I withdraw my nomination on the basis that the article now has adequate references. I still see it as appalling quality, but that is a different matter from having references. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2012 (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 Wily D 10:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Western

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contents violates WP:PLOT. The book may be notable or not (I cannot tell from the existing references), but the current contents do not support it. BenTels (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Speedy close. The nominator hasn't given a valid reason for deletion, as opposed to cleanup. There are four off-line references, for which we should WP:assume good faith without evidence to the contrary. I've also found A Step Over the Edge: the Image of Sport in Klise's the Last Western, published in the Journal of Sport & Social Issues. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator apparently wasn't aware of the previous failed Afd a few weeks before. Nothing's changed. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep and speedy close per lack of WP:BEFORE. Tons of sources listed in the article and in the previous AfD of few weeks ago (392 entries at Google Books, multiple articles on Los Angeles Times: [33],[34]). Clearly passes WP:NBOOK#1 and WP:GNG. AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to be clear, I was aware of the earlier AfD and I am not objecting to notability but to content. For clarity, I came across the article while patrolling and it did not impress on content right off the bat. This article has been nothing but a plot summary stub (which is objectionable on WP for completely different reasons than lack of notability) for a month. Now, I'm not going to fight to get rid of the thing, if people want to keep it they want to keep it; I'm just laying good odds that this stub is still going to be a plot summary five years from now... -- BenTels (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOEFFORT and you will find the answer. WP:PLOT is not a valid reason to delete something, but rather to improve it. You yourself can fix these lacks through regular editing, above there are all the sources you need to improve and expand this stub, and your updates will be much appreciated. But, for sure, deletion discussions are not for this sort of things.Cavarrone (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If *I* start editing that article, that will just make things worse, not better -- I don't have any expertise (and no, just having access to sources is no substitute). Beyond that, again, I'm not going to fight to get rid of the thing. However, WP:NOEFFORT is admirable but often unrealistic... so I *am* still taking bets. :-) . -- BenTels (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't imagine that your own inability to improve the article equates to the inability of anyone to do so. You are not the only editor in town. Whether such improvement takes place in the next five minutes, five years, five millennia or ever is immaterial, as this is a valid, sourced article as it stands. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PLOT. Although articles should not be "summary-only descriptions of works", the remedy to such a violation of WP:NOT is that "such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." I have no comment on notability as nobody seems to be challenging this subject on notability grounds. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2012 (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. No prejudice against recreation if notability is established after release. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amphigori

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without comment by article creator, WP:SPA and probable WP:COI account (based on similarity of username and filmmaker's name). I can find no reliable sources indicating notability for this future film. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB tells us this film is to be released in 2013.[35] Teaser trailer shows a promising indie film.[36] Let the article return if sources cover it upon its release. AND if returned to its author, send him to WP:NAY for education. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:21, 14 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groovology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groovology is not a recognized term (no more than Greenology would be). The only links to this article are from a couple of user pages, Groove (a "See Also" link), and Gerald Albright (his Groovology album). Dan Griscom (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (in case my listing this issue doesn't imply an opinion) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2012 (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. v/r - T P 16:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subaru Kimura

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This person does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. BenTels (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has a significant role as the voice of Takeshi Gouda in Doraemon, the most famous TV cartoon for children in Japan, and a long list of other credits as found on Japanese Wikipedia. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Normally, I would say that he isn't notable despite meaning criteria #1 of WP:ENT since I have a very high standard for it (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachi Matsumoto), but this is different. He plays a major role in Doraemon, one of the longest-running and most-beloved anime in Japan. His role in Doraemon should probably be just enough to establish notability, but more coverage would be appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per NLH5. There are undoubtably Japanese-language sources that can be used to improve the article; hopefully this will be done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JoshuSasori and NLH5. Cavarrone (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDB and the subject's own blog do not constitute a level of in-depth third-party coverage or sourcing adequate to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have you tried a Japanese search? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay International Airport

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propose deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. The airport is proposed; it hasn't been granted permission to be built. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. No indication that this is anything but the author's wishful thinking. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow. An airport "in the extreme preliminary planning stages" isn't going to exist for years. We need not wait until the first flight takes off, but we do need to wait for a point where there's ample coverage in WP:RS, perhaps when construction begins. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above; the fact that this project apparently doesn't even get a single Google news hit is particularly damning. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be pure fantasy. Why would Green Bay, Wisconsin, currently served by an airport with only 12 gates, require an enormous airport such as the one described here? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Blanchardb. No evidence this proposal is even real. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Austin Straubel International Airport, possibly a hoax - editor has only one edit. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G3 as a hoax. Imzadi 1979 → 19:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mitchell Johnson (cricketer) . Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He Bowls To The Left

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At best this should be a paragraph in Johnson's article. Not notable. The-Pope (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:GNG. Significant coverage in reliable third party (and some international) sources. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two refs that mention the chant in detail are both written by a member of the barmy army, the supporters group that created the chant. Not really independent. This article is currently in a DYK prep area witha hook that I think is inappropriate and against our NPA/BLP principles. The-Pope (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utter non-notable. Receives no reliable third party coverage. Worthy of a mention perhaps in the main player article, but a chant directed at one player based on one Test series in one year is not notable, no matter how many pro-Pom sites want to mention it to razzle the Aussies, or how often CricInfo includes it in its interesting curios section. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that several national newspapers in the UK and Australia are not reliable 3rd party coverage? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does every chant about a sportsman require its own article? Plenty of chants receive media coverage because the player gets media coverage. That doesn't make the chant worthy of its own article IMO. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the reasons given above. JH (talk page) 19:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Partial source list for rationale. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Fans have long history of sledging, Geelong Advertiser (Australia) - May 20, 2011, Length: 241 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) RUSSELL Robertson's campaign to stamp out unruly crowd behaviour at local footy matches has created a big stir around Geelong. The former Melbourne AFL star, who is currently coaching St Joseph's, wants fans to dob in a yobbo if they hear offensive language coming from over the boundary. It prompted In & Under to recall some famous incidents of sports stars copping unwanted abuse from crowds. Unfortunately,...
  - It's Waugh time, Jones urges Aussie selectors - Sport ASHES DIARY, Independent, The (London, England) - January 8, 2011 Length: 475 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) Aussie cricket chiefs can expect plenty of advice over the next few weeks. Former Baggy Green batsman Dean Jones, who scored a legendarily gutsy 210 in intense heat during a Test at Madras in 1986 (and ended up on a saline drip as a result), has got the ball rolling with the suggestion that they turn to Steve Waugh. "Cricket Australia needs to sign Steve Waugh as the head coach of the Australian cricket team immediately," Jones says. "Australian...
  - Barmy Army enjoy chance to blow their own trumpet Times, The (London, England) - January 8, 2011 Length: 433 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) It was not possible to get a precise figure because entry was free on the fifth morning, but Cricket Australia estimated that more than 17,000 watched England's momentous win at the Sydney Cricket Ground. Unsurprisingly, only a few hundred were Aus
  - A WEEK AT A TIME Weekend Australian (Australia) - January 8, 2011 Length: 881 words (Estimated printed pages: 3) England's run of success not over NOW our Ashes shame is complete, the AWAAT team has decided to bow in humility, man up and accept that the sporting world has changed forever. It is now a fait accompli that England will win the next soccer World Cup. It is also inevitable an Englishman will win the Wimbledon tennis tittle and that the Land of Hope and Glory will produce a surfing world champion. The least we at AWAAT can do is to salute and dedicate...
  - Going Barmy as a one-man army - - The Ashes Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) - January 7, 2011 Length: 497 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) TO TRULY understand how low Australia have sunk, you need to sit in the middle of the Barmy Army decked out in canary yellow cricket attire. The reaction of the Barmy Army is spooky. Instead of pointing and singing in your face, they don't even notice you are there. Worse, they seem to take pity. This was the horrible predicament I found myself in while watching the Barmy Army soak up the action from Bay 11 at the SCG yesterday. For the first time in more than 20...

None of these sources even seem to mention the chant. I'm assuming they must later on in the articles, but a passing mention is a long way from significant coverage. Jenks24 (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Significant breach of WP:BLP at the very least. This sort of pis-taking is funny at an Ashes game when Johnson is actually bowling but it is entirely inappropriate as an article on WP. Would the site allow articles called Ole Whisky Nose or Shrek (hair transplant) to wind up the MUFC supporters? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it received enough coverage then yes. - Basement12 (T.C) 23:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - gets enough press coverage, e.g. Times of India & The Australian, in addition to those already in the article. Created by The C of E, nominated for deletion by The Pope, if I didn't know better I'd suspect that was a wind-up- Basement12 (T.C) 23:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

those two articles are the same AFP report published by two papers. User names have nothing too do with this. Apart from the articles written by one of the chant's creators all the articles are about the effect of the chant on Johnson, and as such it only deserves to be a paragraph in the Johnson article, not a stand alone article. No independent notability. We don't make articles about every topic that appears in the tabloid press.The-Pope (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the Daily Mail and the Sydney Morning Herald are tabloids? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just keep reading everything completely literally, shall we? And given the coverage in The Mail amounts to online commentary and a "that was the week that was" column I wouldn't be hanging my hat on it providing the required significant coverage. The other coverage is all about Johnson with a passing mention of the chant. No independent notability. The-Pope (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Of course, this means Waugh... Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jack. extra999 (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to some of the claims above, no one has actually provided significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so the chant does not meet GNG. Added to this are the obivous BLP concerns, which make it a clear delete in my eyes. Ridiculous that anyone thought putting "Mitchell Johnson's bowling is shite" on the main page wasn't a BLP vio. Jenks24 (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a couple of book sources (one of them Wisden) but I still ask, are UK and Australian national newspapers not reliable 3rd party sources? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that a newspaper article written by one of the people who made up the chant can be considered independent, even if the article was carried in a newspaper that normally would be considered independent. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' into article on Mitchell Johnson. I agree that the chant is notable, but I don't see why it can't be a section of the article on Mitchell Johnson. GNG notes that the criteria it states "establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion", and specifically mentions the guideline that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Given this, I think that this information would be far better placed either in Johnson's article, or in a longer list of Barmy Army chants, with a mention at Johnson's article. Harrias ^talk 09:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per what Harrias has said. Perhaps create a "popular culture" or similarly titled section in his article. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. A couple of sentences in the Mitchell Johnson article would fit the exact same purpose. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information – I'm sure I could construct a well-sourced, well-written article on Nicki Minaj's backside, but that doesn't mean it should be included on Wikipedai. I ♦A 14:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopaedic shite. (and BLP concerns). Moondyne (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whatever the general notability guideline might say. Guidelines are our servants, not our masters, so we shouldn't defer to them when basic common sense and human decency indicate that an article should be deleted. This chant might have been funny in one or two matches when Johnson was bowling rather waywardly, but the joke and its trivial ephemeral coverage are over now. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, one of the sources in the article is quite recent. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Football chant. This is to my knowledge taken from a Manchester United chant called That Boy Ronaldo. This is a football chant being sung at the cricket. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some to Mitchell Johnson who will remain famous long after the temporary notoriety of this particular chant will be long forgotten. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I see how this is going to go so just to make sure that the content doesn't go to waste, I'll support a merge to Mitchell Johnson. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem to indicate it has independent notability as a song, making merge inappropriate and deletion even less appropriate. It's not a very good article, but it's not a very good song. NPA does not apply to our dispassionate reporting of verifiable things, and BLP does not proscribe it either. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mongrel complex

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put: WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I've suggested a merge to Inferiority complex on the page. BenTels (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect if you prefer, per nom. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:24, 14 July 2012 (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 - ultimately, the "Fails WP:N" argument is both strong and unanswered. Find sources, and it can be restored to a full article. Until such time, it should be left as a redirect. Licensing concerns prevent deletion, and given that the subject may in the future be suitable for an article, I'm reluctant to do a history merge. Wily D 09:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

365 Days

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced article fails WP:PLOT and does not assert notability of the subject. For this reason the article content was merged into The West Wing (season 6) and the article was redirected. It was restored on 8 July but no attempt has been made to improve the article to comply with any of our guidelines. The article now duplicates content from The West Wing (season 6) and there is simply no reason to keep this article.

Some background: I went through all of The West Wing episode articles and there are about 130 that fail WP:PLOT or have serious issues that stop these articles from meeting our guidelines, including WP:N. All episodes are listed at User:AussieLegend/The West Wing for anyone who is interested. Nobody seems interested in improving any of them at all, let alone to the point where they would comply with our guidelines. There may have been a reason for the episode articles to exist in the past, as there was too much content to add to List of The West Wing episodes, but that isn't the case now. When I first started cleaning up these articles in January, only two of the seven season articles existed in addition to the main episode list. I created the season 1-5 articles and reworked the pre-existing season 6 & 7 articles, so there is plenty of space to include the plot information that exists in the episode articles, and which is generally the only encyclopaedic content in the articles. There's no reason why any of the 130 non-complying articles should continue to exist. There are some episodes that are notable and these should remain but the rest should all be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. I tried redirecting it,[37] but that didn't work, which is why it is now here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If merger or redirection is disputed then the place to start a discussion is on the talk page of one of the articles involved, rather than to propose the nuclear option of deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AussieLegend. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not leaving the reader wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes at all. The plot information is in the season articles so there's no loss of information and readers can actually read the summaries of all episodes in the season in the 7 season articles, instead of having to trawl through 157 episode articles, 130 of which are not up to any reasonable standard. But remember, articles aren't just for listing plot information. They're supposed to provided sourced, real-world commentary as well, and this article doesn't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There have been other AfD's in place for other West Wing episodes for over a week. If they don't pass, this shouldn't pass. It's completely premature and absolutely inappropriate to be starting dozens of other AfDs until the original ones are finished. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read Wikipedia:Speedy keep I don't see how a speedy keep vote is applicable here. "Dozens" of AfDs is an exaggeration. There are a total of 11 at the moment. Articles have been nominated on a case by case basis as they have different, although similar, problems. Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] would seem to apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I had assume that there was at least another 30-40 West Wing articles that you were going to bring to AfD. Perhaps you need to explain what's so special about these 11 episodes that doesn't apply to the other 143 that you won't be bringing to AfD. Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you actually read the nomination or the thread that you've been posting to on my talk page where all is explained? The simple response is that these articles have all been merged to the season articles. The other 143 haven't. I'm not going to nominate articles before there has been a chance to merge the content. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, which also silences the keep because you can't delete merged content votes. So, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and doesn't establish WP:Notability. Plus per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this means there is absolutely no basis for a stand-alone episode article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For good or for evil, it has become a precedent on Wikipedia to allow articles for individual episodes of a television series. This is probably something that has more business being handled through RfC rather than a skirmish over every single episode. But seriously, if nobody questions why we have an article for every single asinine episode of The Simpsons, then it's not a huge stretch to keep this. Trusilver 06:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a cute meme. However, many such RfAs concerning deletion of individual television episodes have occurred in the past and overwhelmingly resulted in keeps. Past precedent weighs into future discussion. Trusilver 15:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "RfCs", they're not binding, and just because somebody else has chosen to ignore policies and guidelines in the past, doesn't mean we should do that here. We're not (supposed to be) lemmings. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is neither Wikipedia policy nor a guideline, but merely an essay? Nfitz (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am. Are you aware that it's an essay that is frequently referred to and used as guidance? --AussieLegend (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that it clearly states in it, that it isn't guidance. Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does it say that? Perhaps in the header template where it says "This guidance essay", or maybe Category:Wikipedia guidance essays, in which the page is included. Really, I'm not sure where you're heading right now. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the top, in one of the headers, where it says "It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline'". Surprised you hadn't noticed that! Nfitz (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's after where it says that it's a guidance essay. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that answers your question then. Sighing ... really? Nfitz (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATA is also "just an essay", but nobody ever complains about it... -The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and therefore no indication of notability, plot summary only, content duplicates that of the season article. WP:WAX is not a valid reason to keep, nor are hand-waving claims that there may be sources out there, or concerns about the nominations of the other articles. Sandstein 06:13, 23 July 2012 (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 - ultimately, the "Fails WP:N" argument is unanswered. At such time that references are found an incorporated, the article may be restored. Until then, it should be left as a redirect for licensing. Wily D 09:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2162 Votes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced article fails WP:PLOT and does not assert notability of the subject. For this reason the article content was merged into The West Wing (season 6) and the article was redirected. It was restored on 8 July but no attempt has been made to improve the article to comply with any of our guidelines. The article now duplicates content from The West Wing (season 6) and there is simply no reason to keep this article.

Some background: I went through all of The West Wing episode articles and there are about 130 that fail WP:PLOT or have serious issues that stop these articles from meeting our guidelines, including WP:N. All episodes are listed at User:AussieLegend/The West Wing for anyone who is interested. Nobody seems interested in improving any of them at all, let alone to the point where they would comply with our guidelines. There may have been a reason for the episode articles to exist in the past, as there was too much content to add to List of The West Wing episodes, but that isn't the case now. When I first started cleaning up these articles in January, only two of the seven season articles existed in addition to the main episode list. I created the season 1-5 articles and reworked the pre-existing season 6 & 7 articles, so there is plenty of space to include the plot information that exists in the episode articles, and which is generally the only encyclopaedic content in the articles. There's no reason why any of the 130 non-complying articles should continue to exist. There are some episodes that are notable and these should remain but the rest should all be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. I tried redirecting it,[38] but that didn't work, which is why it is now here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AussieLegend. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not leaving the reader wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes at all. The plot information is in the season articles so there's no loss of information and readers can actually read the summaries of all episodes in the season in the 7 season articles, instead of having to trawl through 157 episode articles, 130 of which are not up to any reasonable standard. But remember, articles aren't just for listing plot information. They're supposed to provided sourced, real-world commentary as well, and this article doesn't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There have been other AfD's in place for other West Wing episodes for over a week. If they don't pass, this shouldn't pass. It's completely premature and absolutely inappropriate to be starting dozens of other AfDs until the original ones are finished. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read Wikipedia:Speedy keep I don't see how a speedy keep vote is applicable here. "Dozens" of AfDs is an exaggeration. There are a total of 11 at the moment. Articles have been nominated on a case by case basis as they have different, although similar, problems. Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] would seem to apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I had assume that there was at least another 30-40 West Wing articles that you were going to bring to AfD. Perhaps you need to explain what's so special about these 11 episodes that doesn't apply to the other 143 that you won't be bringing to AfD. Nfitz (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you actually read the nomination or the thread that you've been posting to on my talk page where all is explained? The simple response is that these articles have all been merged to the season articles. The other 143 haven't. I'm not going to nominate articles before there has been a chance to merge the content. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hang on ... so you are planning to bring many of the other 143 articles to AfD? Yet above you said "Dozens" of AfDs is an exaggeration. Your not being consistent here. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, which also silences the keep because you can't delete merged content votes. So, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and doesn't establish WP:Notability; the one kind of real-world information is unsourced and hence shouldn't be merged. Plus per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this means there is absolutely no basis for a stand-alone episode article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For good or for evil, it has become a precedent on Wikipedia to allow articles for individual episodes of a television series. This is probably something that has more business being handled through RfC rather than a skirmish over every single episode. But seriously, if nobody questions why we have an article for every single asinine episode of The Simpsons, then it's not a huge stretch to keep this. Trusilver 06:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've read it!! -- "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have, and I understand the use of the words "may" and "notability" as they apply to Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2012 (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 - Ultimately, the "fails WP:N" argument is unanswered here. Find the sources, then restore the article with the sources. Until then, it should be left as a redirect for licensing. Wily D 09:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 Airplanes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced article fails WP:PLOT and does not assert notability of the subject. For this reason the article content was merged into The West Wing (season 3) and the article was redirected. It was restored on 9 July but no attempt has been made to improve the article to comply with any of our guidelines. The article now duplicates content from The West Wing (season 3) and there is simply no reason to keep this article.

Some background: I went through all of The West Wing episode articles and there are about 130 that fail WP:PLOT or have serious issues that stop these articles from meeting our guidelines, including WP:N. All episodes are listed at User:AussieLegend/The West Wing for anyone who is interested. Nobody seems interested in improving any of them at all, let alone to the point where they would comply with our guidelines. There may have been a reason for the episode articles to exist in the past, as there was too much content to add to List of The West Wing episodes, but that isn't the case now. When I first started cleaning up these articles in January, only two of the seven season articles existed in addition to the main episode list. I created the season 1-5 articles and reworked the pre-existing season 6 & 7 articles, so there is plenty of space to include the plot information that exists in the episode articles, and which is generally the only encyclopaedic content in the articles. There's no reason why any of the 130 non-complying articles should continue to exist. There are some episodes that are notable and these should remain but the rest should all be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. I tried redirecting it,[39] but that didn't work, which is why it is now here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AussieLegend. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not leaving the reader wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes at all. The plot information is in the season articles so there's no loss of information and readers can actually read the summaries of all episodes in the season in the 7 season articles, instead of having to trawl through 157 episode articles, 130 of which are not up to any reasonable standard. But remember, articles aren't just for listing plot information. They're supposed to provided sourced, real-world commentary as well, and this article doesn't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There have been other AfD's in place for other West Wing episodes for over a week. If they don't pass, this shouldn't pass. It's completely premature and absolutely inappropriate to be starting dozens of other AfDs until the original ones are finished. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read Wikipedia:Speedy keep I don't see how a speedy keep vote is applicable here. "Dozens" of AfDs is an exaggeration. There are a total of 11 at the moment. Articles have been nominated on a case by case basis as they have different, although similar, problems. Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] would seem to apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I had assume that there was at least another 30-40 West Wing articles that you were going to bring to AfD. Perhaps you need to explain what's so special about these 11 episodes that doesn't apply to the other 143 that you won't be bringing to AfD. Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you actually read the nomination or the thread that you've been posting to on my talk page where all is explained? The simple response is that these articles have all been merged to the season articles. The other 143 haven't. I'm not going to nominate articles before there has been a chance to merge the content. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, which also silences the keep because you can't delete merged content votes. So, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and doesn't establish WP:Notability. Plus per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this means there is absolutely no basis for a stand-alone episode article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For good or for evil, it has become a precedent on Wikipedia to allow articles for individual episodes of a television series. This is probably something that has more business being handled through RfC rather than a skirmish over every single episode. But seriously, if nobody questions why we have an article for every single asinine episode of The Simpsons, then it's not a huge stretch to keep this. Trusilver 06:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that's a cute meme. However, many such RfAs concerning deletion of individual television episodes have occurred in the past and overwhelmingly resulted in keeps. Past precedent weighs into future discussion. Trusilver 15:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "RfCs", they're not binding, and just because somebody else has chosen to ignore policies and guidelines in the past, doesn't mean we should do that here. We're not (supposed to be) lemmings. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2012 (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 Whouk.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinguis Bos Magna Morbus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks like a hoax. At best it is a lot of unproven original research. The citations provided do not contain anything about a water virus in El Grado, including a Portuguese paper that was allegedly a "local newspaper" (see edit history). Unless someone can provide reliable references with direct and verifiable links, this article should be deleted. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedy, per WP:HOAX. This clearly made up (the author confuses bacteria and viruses) and the "sources" were added simply to confuse, as they do not support any of the claims. Pburka (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. All facts invented, the dog-latin title doesn't mean unknown disease (except as a hoax), it means something along the lines of Fat Ox Big Disease (with wrong grammar). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've now requested speedy deletion (blatant hoax). De728631 (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Chiswick Chap. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:26, 14 July 2012 (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 - ultimately, the "Fails WP:N" argument is unanswered here, and it is a powerful argument. Find sources, then restore the article. Until then, it should be left as a redirect for licensing. Wily D 09:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Proportional Response

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced article fails WP:PLOT, contains a significant amount of WP:OR and does not assert notability of the subject. For this reason the article content was merged into The West Wing (season 1) and the article was redirected. It was restored on 8 July but no attempt has been made to improve the article to comply with any of our guidelines. The article now duplicates content from The West Wing (season 1) and there is simply no reason to keep this article.

Some background: I went through all of The West Wing episode articles and there are about 130 that fail WP:PLOT or have serious issues that stop these articles from meeting our guidelines, including WP:N. All episodes are listed at User:AussieLegend/The West Wing for anyone who is interested. Nobody seems interested in improving any of them at all, let alone to the point where they would comply with our guidelines. There may have been a reason for the episode articles to exist in the past, as there was too much content to add to List of The West Wing episodes, but that isn't the case now. When I first started cleaning up these articles in January, only two of the seven season articles existed in addition to the main episode list. I created the season 1-5 articles and reworked the pre-existing season 6 & 7 articles, so there is plenty of space to include the plot information that exists in the episode articles, and which is generally the only encyclopaedic content in the articles. There's no reason why any of the 130 non-complying articles should continue to exist. There are some episodes that are notable and these should remain but the rest should all be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AussieLegend. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every episode has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.... Let's not delete just because of WP:NOEFFORT. Mcewan (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not leaving the reader wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes at all. The plot information is in the season articles so there's no loss of information and readers can actually read the summaries of all episodes in the season in the 7 season articles, instead of having to trawl through 157 episode articles, 130 of which are not up to any reasonable standard. But remember, articles aren't just for listing plot information. They're supposed to provided sourced, real-world commentary as well, and this article doesn't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There have been other AfD's in place for other West Wing episodes for over a week. If they don't pass, this shouldn't pass. It's completely premature and absolutely inappropriate to be starting dozens of other AfDs until the original ones are finished. Nfitz (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read Wikipedia:Speedy keep I don't see how a speedy keep vote is applicable here. "Dozens" of AfDs is an exaggeration. There are a total of 11 at the moment. Articles have been nominated on a case by case basis as they have different, although similar, problems. Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would seem to apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I had assume that there was at least another 30-40 West Wing articles that you were going to bring to AfD. Perhaps you need to explain what's so special about these 11 episodes that doesn't apply to the other 143 that you won't be bringing to AfD. Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you actually read the nomination or the thread that you've been posting to on my talk page where all is explained? The simple response is that these articles have all been merged to the season articles. The other 143 haven't. I'm not going to nominate articles before there has been a chance to merge the content. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, which also silences the keep because you can't delete merged content votes. So, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, has WP:SYNTH/WP:COATRACK issues and doesn't establish WP:Notability. Plus per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this means there is absolutely no basis for a stand-alone episode article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For good or for evil, it has become a precedent on Wikipedia to allow articles for individual episodes of a television series. This is probably something that has more business being handled through RfC rather than a skirmish over every single episode. But seriously, if nobody questions why we have an article for every single asinine episode of The Simpsons, then it's not a huge stretch to keep this. Trusilver 06:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Other stuff exists is not a blanket ban on arguing for consistency (it says ...the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.). And rightly or wrongly, most TV series of roughly comparable notoriety seem to have an article per episode. Mcewan (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a cute meme. However, many such RfAs concerning deletion of individual television episodes have occurred in the past and overwhelmingly resulted in keeps. Past precedent weighs into future discussion. Trusilver 15:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "RfCs", they're not binding, and just because somebody else has chosen to ignore policies and guidelines in the past, doesn't mean we should do that here. We're not (supposed to be) lemmings. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2012 (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 - the "Fails WP:N" argument remains unanswered. Find the sources, then the article can be restored. Until then, it should remain redirected for licensing purposes. Wily D 09:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17 People

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article essentially fails WP:PLOT and does not assert notability of the subject. The only reference in the article is to an anonymous source, which is obviously not WP:RS. For this reason the article content was merged into The West Wing (season 1) and the article was redirected. It was restored on 8 July but no attempt has been made to improve the article to comply with any of our guidelines. The article now duplicates content from The West Wing (season 1) and there is simply no reason to keep this article.

Some background: I went through all of The West Wing episode articles and there are about 130 that fail WP:PLOT or have serious issues that stop these articles from meeting our guidelines, including WP:N. All episodes are listed at User:AussieLegend/The West Wing for anyone who is interested. Nobody seems interested in improving any of them at all, let alone to the point where they would comply with our guidelines. There may have been a reason for the episode articles to exist in the past, as there was too much content to add to List of The West Wing episodes, but that isn't the case now. When I first started cleaning up these articles in January, only two of the seven season articles existed in addition to the main episode list. I created the season 1-5 articles and reworked the pre-existing season 6 & 7 articles, so there is plenty of space to include the plot information that exists in the episode articles, and which is generally the only encyclopaedic content in the articles. There's no reason why any of the 130 non-complying articles should continue to exist. There are some episodes that are notable and these should remain but the rest should all be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AussieLegend. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not leaving the reader wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes at all. The plot information is in the season articles so there's no loss of information and readers can actually read the summaries of all episodes in the season in the 7 season articles, instead of having to trawl through 157 episode articles, 130 of which are not up to any reasonable standard. But remember, articles aren't just for listing plot information. They're supposed to provided sourced, real-world commentary as well, and this article doesn't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There have been other AfD's in place for other West Wing episodes for over a week. If they don't pass, this shouldn't pass. It's completely premature and absolutely inappropriate to be starting dozens of other AfDs until the original ones are finished. Nfitz (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read Wikipedia:Speedy keep I don't see how a speedy keep vote is applicable here. "Dozens" of AfDs is an exaggeration. There are a total of 11 at the moment. Articles have been nominated on a case by case basis as they have different, although similar, problems. Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] would seem to apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I had assume that there was at least another 30-40 West Wing articles that you were going to bring to AfD. Perhaps you need to explain what's so special about these 11 episodes that doesn't apply to the other 143 that you won't be bringing to AfD. Nfitz (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you actually read the nomination or the thread that you've been posting to on my talk page where all is explained? The simple response is that these articles have all been merged to the season articles. The other 143 haven't. I'm not going to nominate articles before there has been a chance to merge the content. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you actually read WP:Plot? How can something "fail" WP:Plot? Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes I have, have you?[40][41] There is no real-world treatment, other than the unsourced WP:OR in the lead section. WP:PLOT says "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." There is no discussion of reception and no demonstration that this episode is notable. The article is essentially a plot-only description and therefore is what Wikipedia is not. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, which also silences the keep because you can't delete merged content votes. So, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and doesn't establish WP:Notability to reliable sources. Plus per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this means there is absolutely no basis for a stand-alone episode article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For good or for evil, it has become a precedent on Wikipedia to allow articles for individual episodes of a television series. This is probably something that has more business being handled through RfC rather than a skirmish over every single episode. But seriously, if nobody questions why we have an article for every single asinine episode of The Simpsons, then it's not a huge stretch to keep this. Trusilver 06:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a cute meme. However, many such RfAs concerning deletion of individual television episodes have occurred in the past and overwhelmingly resulted in keeps. Past precedent weighs into future discussion. Trusilver 15:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "RfCs", they're not binding, and just because somebody else has chosen to ignore policies and guidelines in the past, doesn't mean we should do that here. We're not (supposed to be) lemmings. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as an article about web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject CSD A7 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space adventure (Club Penguin Play)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy. Non-notable creative work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Club Penguin. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Club Penguin Electriccatfish2 (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since the article duplicates the existing topic of Club Penguin (since it's only a play within the game), it can be speedied. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot since we don't have a criteria for that, see WP:CSD. mabdul 15:36, 18 July 2012 (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 - ultimately, "fails WP:N" is unanswered. Find the sources, then the article can be restored. Until then, it should remain a redirect for licensing. Wily D 09:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20 Hours in L.A.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced article fails WP:PLOT and does not assert notability of the subject. For this reason the article content was merged into The West Wing (season 1) and the article was prodded and deleted. It was restored on 9 July but no attempt has been made to improve the article to comply with any of our guidelines. The article now duplicates content from The West Wing (season 1) and there is simply no reason to keep this article.

Some background: I went through all of The West Wing episode articles and there are about 130 that fail WP:PLOT or have serious issues that stop these articles from meeting our guidelines, including WP:N. All episodes are listed at User:AussieLegend/The West Wing for anyone who is interested. Nobody seems interested in improving any of them at all, let alone to the point where they would comply with our guidelines. There may have been a reason for the episode articles to exist in the past, as there was too much content to add to List of The West Wing episodes, but that isn't the case now. When I first started cleaning up these articles in January, only two of the seven season articles existed in addition to the main episode list. I created the season 1-5 articles and reworked the pre-existing season 6 & 7 articles, so there is plenty of space to include the plot information that exists in the episode articles, and which is generally the only encyclopaedic content in the articles. There's no reason why any of the 130 non-complying articles should continue to exist. There are some episodes that are notable and these should remain but the rest should all be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AussieLegend. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not leaving the reader wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes at all. The plot information is in the season articles so there's no loss of information and readers can actually read the summaries of all episodes in the season in the 7 season articles, instead of having to trawl through 157 episode articles, 130 of which are not up to any reasonable standard. But remember, articles aren't just for listing plot information. They're supposed to provided sourced, real-world commentary as well, and this article doesn't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There have been other AfD's in place for other West Wing episodes for over a week. If they don't pass, this shouldn't pass. It's completely premature and absolutely inappropriate to be starting dozens of other AfDs until the original ones are finished. Nfitz (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read Wikipedia:Speedy keep I don't see how a speedy keep vote is applicable here. "Dozens" of AfDs is an exaggeration. There are a total of 11 at the moment. Articles have been nominated on a case by case basis as they have different, although similar, problems. Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] would seem to apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I had assume that there was at least another 30-40 West Wing articles that you were going to bring to AfD. Perhaps you need to explain what's so special about these 11 episodes that doesn't apply to the other 143 that you won't be bringing to AfD. Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you actually read the nomination or the thread that you've been posting to on my talk page where all is explained? The simple response is that these articles have all been merged to the season articles. The other 143 haven't. I'm not going to nominate articles before there has been a chance to merge the content. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, which also silences the keep because you can't delete merged content votes. So, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and doesn't establish WP:Notability. Plus per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this means there is absolutely no basis for a stand-alone episode article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For good or for evil, it has become a precedent on Wikipedia to allow articles for individual episodes of a television series. This is probably something that has more business being handled through RfC rather than a skirmish over every single episode. But seriously, if nobody questions why we have an article for every single asinine episode of The Simpsons, then it's not a huge stretch to keep this. Trusilver 06:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that's a cute meme. However, many such RfAs concerning deletion of individual television episodes have occurred in the past and overwhelmingly resulted in keeps. Past precedent weighs into future discussion. Trusilver 15:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "RfCs", they're not binding, and just because somebody else has chosen to ignore policies and guidelines in the past, doesn't mean we should do that here. We're not (supposed to be) lemmings. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2012 (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 - here a couple sources were presented - [42] is the only one that comes close to addressing the notability problem. On it's own, I'm not sure it's sufficient, but it's not really addressed either way - so the "fails WP:N" argument is responded, but I can't determine whether it's successfully responded to or not. Wily D 09:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (The West Wing)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article essentially fails WP:PLOT and does not assert notability of the subject. The only reference in the article is to an anonymous blog, which is obviously not a WP:RS. For this reason the article content was merged into The West Wing (season 1) and the article was redirected. It was restored on 9 July but no attempt has been made to improve the article to comply with any of our guidelines. The article now duplicates content from The West Wing (season 1) and there is simply no reason to keep this article. It is not linked to from The West Wing (season 1), so it essentially serves no purpose.

Some background: I went through all of The West Wing episode articles and there are about 130 that fail WP:PLOT or have serious issues that stop these articles from meeting our guidelines, including WP:N. All episodes are listed at User:AussieLegend/The West Wing for anyone who is interested. Nobody seems interested in improving any of them at all, let alone to the point where they would comply with our guidelines. There may have been a reason for the episode articles to exist in the past, as there was too much content to add to List of The West Wing episodes, but that isn't the case now. When I first started cleaning up these articles in January, only two of the seven season articles existed in addition to the main episode list. I created the season 1-5 articles and reworked the pre-existing season 6 & 7 articles, so there is plenty of space to include the plot information that exists in the episode articles, and which is generally the only encyclopaedic content in the articles. There's no reason why any of the 130 non-complying articles should continue to exist. There are some episodes that are notable and these should remain but the rest should all be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all West Wing individual episodes are notable because all have received individual critical attention; see, for example, the ongoing episode-by-episode reviews at The A.V. Club here. (in addition to the series itself being of such cultural and historic importance as to merit such detailed coverage). And aside from notability, the deletion nomination raises only fixable problems and complaints about the current state of the article rather than its potential. postdlf (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the claim of notability in your comments, the article fails to demonstrate any notability and, based on the history of the article and the seeming unwillingness of editors to improve the article, the fixable problems are unlikely to ever be fixed. --18:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  - As I already said, you are in error in nominating an article for deletion purely based on its current state rather than the potential of the subject. See relevant deletion policy at WP:ATD, editing policy at WP:PRESERVE, and recognized flawed deletion arguments at WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not nominating because of it's current state per se, I'm nominating it because it's redundant. The plot summary is in the season article and the notes section is essentially non-notable trivia supported by an anonymous blog. Even if we keep the trivia, that can be incorporated in the season article as the plot summary is only 135 words. WP:ATD suggests redirection as an option, and that was the one that was followed.[43] That preserves the content in case somebody wants to make the effort to later build the article into something that actually does comply with our guidelines. Based on the article's edit history that seems highly unlikely though. I'd be quite happy for the outcome of this discussion to be redirect but, unfortunately, there is no Wikipedia:Articles for redirection so it's necessary to come here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you link to your prior discussion with the editor that undid your redirect, a discussion on the article talk page, or at a relevant wikiproject before you started this and all the other WW episode AFDs? postdlf (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. I tried redirecting it,[44] but that didn't work, which is why it is now here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not the right place to bring your edit wars. You don't seem to have much idea of the correct process. Please see WP:MERGE and WP:RfC. Warden (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly an edit war. I'd actually have to edit the article to do that and all I've done is redirected it because it was redundant. Wikipedia:Articles for redirection would be a nice venue to have but it doesn't exist. This is the correct venue for nominating for deletion an article that I don't think needs to exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per AussieLegend. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, WP:PLOT is not a test, so cannot be passed or failed. We can't say an article "fails" WP:PLOT. Plot summaries have their place. I would agree with postdlf above that all West Wing episodes are notable. What the nominator really means , I think, is not that this episode is non-notable (which is not really a credible argument), but that it does not deserve its own article and could be adequately covered in the series article, i.e a merge. Well that is a separate discussion and this is not the place. Also please read and understand WP:NOEFFORT. There is no deadline. Mcewan (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PLOT doesn't have to be a test. It says that Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works and this article is that. Therefore the article fails to meet that part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which is a policy, not just a guideline. By advocating the retention of non-compliant articles such as this, you're effectively advocating turning Wikipedia from an encyclopaedia into nothin more than a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not leaving the reader wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes at all. The plot information is in the season articles so there's no loss of information and readers can actually read the summaries of all episodes in the season in the 7 season articles, instead of having to trawl through 157 episode articles, 130 of which are not up to any reasonable standard. But remember, articles aren't just for listing plot information. They're supposed to provided sourced, real-world commentary as well, and this article doesn't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There have been other AfD's in place for other West Wing episodes for over a week. If they don't pass, this shouldn't pass. It's completely premature and absolutely inappropriate to be starting dozens of other AfDs until the original ones are finished. Nfitz (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read Wikipedia:Speedy keep I don't see how a speedy keep vote is applicable here. "Dozens" of AfDs is an exaggeration. There are a total of 11 at the moment. Articles have been nominated on a case by case basis as they have different, although similar, problems. Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would seem to apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I had assume that there was at least another 30-40 West Wing articles that you were going to bring to AfD. Perhaps you need to explain what's so special about these 11 episodes that doesn't apply to the other 143 that you won't be bringing to AfD. Nfitz (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you actually read the nomination or the thread that you've been posting to on my talk page where all is explained? The simple response is that these articles have all been merged to the season articles. The other 143 haven't. I'm not going to nominate articles before there has been a chance to merge the content. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep doesn't apply IRWolfie- (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any evidence that the topic is notable and that the article can be expanded beyond a plot. My vote can also be interpreted as redirect if you wish to keep the link. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please combine Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Proportional_Response and any other AFDs for episodes of this series together. Dream Focus 01:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the combination suggestion, especially since there appears to be separate articles for every episode of this series. Deleting one by itself without considering the rest would be haphazard in the extreme.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all All episodes of the series are notable, based on millions of people watching them, and they probably all got reviewed somewhere. Nothing gained by deleting them. Dream Focus 01:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"they probably all got reviewed somewhere". Very convincing argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing gained by deleting them" - Nothing gained by keeping them either. They're redundant to the season lists. I'm yet to see any cogent argument as to how the articles provide anything more than what is in the season articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I added this source to the article:

Challen, Paul (2001). "Inside The West Wing: An Unauthorized Look at Television's Smartest Show". ECW Press. Retrieved July 16, 2012. ISBN 1550224689

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great (really!) but it is just another link. It isn't used in the article at all and doesn't demonstrate how the episode is notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps consider utilizing the newly-added source as an inline citation in the article (really!) Of course, since you already want it deleted from the encyclopedia, I suppose you may not have much incentive to do so. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't have a copy of the book available, there's very little that can be used, as the link only lists content that is already sourceable and a brief introduction to the episode, which is also unnecessary as we already have a plot summary, both in the episode article and the season article. The link doesn't seem able to be used to expand the article at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, which also silences the keep because you can't delete merged content votes. So, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and doesn't specifically establish WP:Notability. Plus per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this means there is no basis for a stand-alone episode article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per sgeureka. If the only sources we have are plot summaries, there is nothing to indicate the episode has any individual notability, and no reason to believe that it is capable of being expanded in order to avoid being ineligible per WP:NOT#PLOT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as required by WP:MAD. At a minimum, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (The West Wing) should redirect to The West Wing (season 1) and deletion is out of the question. CallawayRox (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MAD doesn't require speedy keep. It says that closing admins may interpret "merge and delete" votes as "merge". WP:SK indicates that speedy keep doesn't apply here. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this at Articles For Deletion if deletion is prohibited? AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion isn't prohibited. WP:MAD is intended to supplement WP:DP, but it's not a policy or guideline. It's only an essay. If deletion was actually prohibited WP:AFD wouldn't exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's two more sources I added to the article. Perhaps they can be used to expand the article or verify information within it.

Crawley, Melissa (2006). "Mr. Sorkin Goes to Washington: Shaping the President on Television's The West Wing". McFarland. Retrieved July 16, 2012. ISBN 0786424397
Parry-Giles, Trevor; Parry-Giles, Shawn J. (2006). "The Prime-time Presidency: The West Wing And U.S. Nationalism". University of Illinois Press. Retrieved July 16, 2012. ISBN 0252030656

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per sgeureka. The article is composed pretty much entirely of plot summary, with nothing to indicate that it passes the guidelines for notability. Even the sources that Northamerica1000 has found and added contain pretty much primarily plot information only. The first one, it goes without saying, is just a plot summary. The other two, it seems from looking through them, only refers to this episode in terms of plot points (ie saying that a certain character did something in this episode). Redirecting rather than outright deleting solves the concerns about preserving the edit history. Just because the show itself is highly notable, that does not automatically mean that every episode of the series inherits that notability without sources to show that it possesses independent notabilty, and references that refer to plot summary alone do not establish this. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per sgeureka. At present the article consists entirely of plot summary, and the sources cited also consist essentially of plot summary. Our articles should not be plot summaries per WP:NOT. The fact that article content has already been merged into another article does not mean the debate has to be closed as Keep, or that AfD is an improper venue. Hut 8.5 18:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For good or for evil, it has become a precedent on Wikipedia to allow articles for individual episodes of a television series. This is probably something that has more business being handled through RfC rather than a skirmish over every single episode. But seriously, if nobody questions why we have an article for every single asinine episode of The Simpsons, then it's not a huge stretch to keep this. Trusilver 06:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Other stuff exists is not a blanket ban on arguing for consistency (it says ...the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.). And rightly or wrongly, most TV series of roughly comparable notoriety seem to have an article per episode. Mcewan (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a cute meme. However, many such RfAs concerning deletion of individual television episodes have occurred in the past and overwhelmingly resulted in keeps. Past precedent weighs into future discussion. Trusilver 15:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "RfCs", they're not binding, and just because somebody else has chosen to ignore policies and guidelines in the past, doesn't mean we should do that here. We're not (supposed to be) lemmings. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as it grieves me to see the article on such a wonderful episode go, it's not an article. It's a plot summary, cast list and a short list of trivia. I've seen better on a fan wiki, and clearly, no one is sufficiently invested to raise what's there to the level of a substantive article. --Drmargi (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not for cleanup though. I could delete a hundred thousand shitty articles on notable subjects, never sleeping or eating, if that was the standard we applied.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm getting sick of the "AFD is not for cleanup" mantra. The article is not being nominated for cleanup. It has been nominated because it fails to meet several of our guidelines for creation of articles, WP:GNG, WP:PLOT, WP:TVEP, WP:AVOIDSPLIT and so on. It should never have been created in the first place and it's redundant to the season article so it shouldn't exist, or at least it should be redirected. There's no good reason to keep it, other than for the edit history and even that's not really required as it's only the edit history relating to the plot that we need to keep. Of course even that isn't really required, as the plot can be rewritten negating any need for the edit history at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Story

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRYSTAL 2013 is way too far and unreferenced.Can be created in 2013 if required ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 14:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL --DBig Xray 14:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamal:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per failing WP:NF and WP:NFF. If returned to its author, he should be himself sent to WP:NAY. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NFF --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:28, 15 July 2012 (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 - ultimately, there's no answer here to "Fails WP:N" - find the sources, then the article can be restored. Until then, it should remain a redirect for licensing. Wily D 09:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18th and Potomac

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced article fails WP:PLOT and does not assert notability of the subject. For this reason the article content was merged into The West Wing (season 2) and the article was redirected. It was restored on 9 July but no attempt has been made to improve the article to comply with any of our guidelines. The article now duplicates content from The West Wing (season 2) and there is simply no reason to keep this article. AussieLegend (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AussieLegend. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not leaving the reader wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes at all. The plot information is in the season articles so there's no loss of information and readers can actually read the summaries of all episodes in the season in the 7 season articles, instead of having to trawl through 157 episode articles, 130 of which are not up to any reasonable standard. But remember, articles aren't just for listing plot information. They're supposed to provided sourced, real-world commentary as well, and this article doesn't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There have been other AfD's in place for other West Wing episodes for over a week. If they don't pass, this shouldn't pass. It's completely premature and absolutely inappropriate to be starting dozens of other AfDs until the original ones are finished. Nfitz (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read Wikipedia:Speedy keep I don't see how a speedy keep vote is applicable here. "Dozens" of AfDs is an exaggeration. There are a total of 11 at the moment. Articles have been nominated on a case by case basis as they have different, although similar, problems. Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] would seem to apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I had assume that there was at least another 30-40 West Wing articles that you were going to bring to AfD. Perhaps you need to explain what's so special about these 11 episodes that doesn't apply to the other 143 that you won't be bringing to AfD. Nfitz (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you actually read the nomination or the thread that you've been posting to on my talk page where all is explained? The simple response is that these articles have all been merged to the season articles. The other 143 haven't. I'm not going to nominate articles before there has been a chance to merge the content. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, which also silences the keep because you can't delete merged content votes. So, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and doesn't establish WP:Notability. Plus per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this means there is absolutely no basis for a stand-alone episode article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For good or for evil, it has become a precedent on Wikipedia to allow articles for individual episodes of a television series. This is probably something that has more business being handled through RfC rather than a skirmish over every single episode. But seriously, if nobody questions why we have an article for every single asinine episode of The Simpsons, then it's not a huge stretch to keep this. Trusilver 06:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a cute meme. However, many such RfAs concerning deletion of individual television episodes have occurred in the past and overwhelmingly resulted in keeps. Past precedent weighs into future discussion. Trusilver 15:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "RfCs", they're not binding, and just because somebody else has chosen to ignore policies and guidelines in the past, doesn't mean we should do that here. We're not (supposed to be) lemmings. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pearl Saga

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't quite see why this was afd'd. These novels have been around for some time and more may be added to the series when the author finishes up the Bourne series. Also, this is about the series, not the individual novels.--Auric (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, it should be fairly obvious why it was AfDed - there don't seem to be any sources to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather than looking for "The Pearl Saga", searching under the names of the individual books, and adding in "Lustbader" to reduce false positives, shows that each individual book would appear to meet the GNG, and quite plausibly NBOOKS as well (although I didn't examine the sources to render a firm opinion to that level). It's clear that if three articles would be permissible, then one encompassing three notable books is likewise appropriate per GNG. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not credible to argue for lack of notability: this is a series by a popular author and each book is probably independently notable as Jclemens says. There might be a case for merging into the Eric van Lustbader article given the lack of content, but that is another discussion and conversely this page could grow into something more fully realised. Mcewan (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. Cavarrone (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a fair bit of coverage, particularly of the first book, and Lustbader has written so many books I'm not sure merging to his article is the best idea. The Ring of Five Dragons[45][46][47][48][49] The Veil of a Thousand Tears[50][51][52][53] Mistress of the Pearl aka The Cage of Nine Banestones[54][55]. -Colapeninsula (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2012 (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 List of GMA News TV stations. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DWGS-TV

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a stub about a Philippine TV station. No hint given about notability, nothing special pops up on Google. Seems like a non-notable organization. Also, the author (in his own words) is a guy who "creates articles about Filippino TV stations", several of which have already been removed. BenTels (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GMA News TV stations Looking at a good-faith article for what looks to be nothing more than the American equivalent of a translator station for a national network which only serves its coverage area. All the details in the infobox are in the "list of" already, so a redirect is harmless. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GMA News TV stations per Mrschimpf. This particular station, like the other ones, isn't particularly notable enough for a separate article, so a redirect is more appropriate. All they do is rebroadcast coverage from the mother station. Note that, to my knowledge, the programming of the local stations of ABS-CBN, GMA, TV5 etc. are almost the same as the Manila-based stations, although there can be minor differences (like local versions of TV Patrol). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:21, 17 July 2012 (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 - "fails WP:N" is unanswered here. Find the sources, cite them, and the article can be restored. Until then, it should remain a redirect for licensing purposes. I feel like I've said that before. Wily D 09:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Change Is Gonna Come (The West Wing)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced article fails WP:PLOT and does not assert notability of the subject. For this reason the article content was merged into The West Wing (season 6) and the article was prodded in January and deleted. It was restored on 8 July but no attempt has been made to improve the article. The article now duplicates content from The West Wing (season 6) and there is simply no reason to keep this article. AussieLegend (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AussieLegend. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every episode has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.... Let's not delete just because of WP:NOEFFORT. Mcewan (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not leaving the reader wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes at all. The plot information is in the season articles so there's no loss of information and readers can actually read the summaries of all episodes in the season in the 7 season articles, instead of having to trawl through 157 episode articles, 130 of which are not up to any reasonable standard. But remember, articles aren't just for listing plot information. They're supposed to provided sourced, real-world commentary as well, and this article doesn't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There have been other AfD's in place for other West Wing episodes for over a week. If they don't pass, this shouldn't pass. It's completely premature and absolutely inappropriate to be starting dozens of other AfDs until the original ones are finished. Nfitz (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read Wikipedia:Speedy keep I don't see how a speedy keep vote is applicable here. "Dozens" of AfDs is an exaggeration. There are a total of 11 at the moment. Articles have been nominated on a case by case basis as they have different, although similar, problems. Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] would seem to apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I had assume that there was at least another 30-40 West Wing articles that you were going to bring to AfD. Perhaps you need to explain what's so special about these 11 episodes that doesn't apply to the other 143 that you won't be bringing to AfD. Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you actually read the nomination or the thread that you've been posting to on my talk page where all is explained? The simple response is that these articles have all been merged to the season articles. The other 143 haven't. I'm not going to nominate articles before there has been a chance to merge the content. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, which also silences the keep because you can't delete merged content votes. So, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and doesn't establish WP:Notability. Plus per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this means there is no basis for a stand-alone episode article. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For good or for evil, it has become a precedent on Wikipedia to allow articles for individual episodes of a television series. This is probably something that has more business being handled through RfC rather than a skirmish over every single episode. But seriously, if nobody questions why we have an article for every single asinine episode of The Simpsons, then it's not a huge stretch to keep this. Trusilver 06:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Other stuff exists is not a blanket ban on arguing for consistency (it says ...the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.). And rightly or wrongly, most TV series of roughly comparable notoriety seem to have an article per episode. Mcewan (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yeah, that's a cute meme. However, many such RfAs concerning deletion of individual television episodes have occurred in the past and overwhelmingly resulted in keeps. Past precedent weighs into future discussion. Trusilver 15:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "RfC", they're not binding, and just because somebody else has chosen to ignore policies and guidelines in the past, doesn't mean we should do that here. We're not (supposed to be) lemmings. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and therefore no indication of notability, plot summary only, content duplicates that of the season article. WP:WAX is not a valid reason to keep, nor are hand-waving claims that there may be sources out there, or concerns about the nominations of the other articles. Sandstein 06:04, 23 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Small

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography of a non-notable actor that fails to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. The article lists three roles but IMDb only lists one and it's a very minor part. There's also a claim that he is set to play in the next Fantastic Four movie. This appears to be pure fiction: there's no trace of this information on the web and the Fantastic Four reboot project does not appear to be at a stage of development where casting decisions are made. Pichpich (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find sources. Fails WP:V, WP:NACTOR. Pburka (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pburka. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Mighall

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young girl survives shark attack, that seems like a rather typical example of WP:BLP1E Jeppiz (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Seasider91 (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. The award could make her notable if it were a notable award, but this award doesn't cut it. Pburka (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A textbook case of WP:BLP1E. WWGB (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above. Classic one event. I would love to see the inclusionists argue for this one. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A person can't be notable for just one event. Surviving a shark attack is traumatic but shouldn't merit a separate wiki article on the survivor. Maybe she could be named to a list of shark attack survivors from Australia. --Artene50 (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7 (as per other articles created by same user). matt (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Aiken

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD-contested by article creator. Sources found suggests she fails the notability guideline for biographies. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7 (as per other articles created by same user). matt (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hunt (music producer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD-contested by article creator. Sources found suggest the subject fails both the notability guideline for biographies and the notability guideline for musicians. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any sources online. Also, I had tagged this for speedy deletion G12 as a copyright violation of Hunt's website, but there isn't any infringing content left in the article. If the article is going to be kept, it might be a good idea for an admin to revdel the earlier revisions where it is present. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. Pburka (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, I'd have suggested speedying this as either no content or db-bio. The article's creator has been busy creating a lot of such content-free articles today and most of them have been disposed of more quickly. Although the gentleman has a common name, and I could have missed something, I searched and found nothing to make me think that he met any relevant standard. Ubelowme _U ^Me 16:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multidimensional Science

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor previous added a Prod as a "Personal essay"; this was removed by the article creator. I'm bringing the article to AfD on the grounds that it is an essay with no reliable references or evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, poorly referenced original research. Also it is fringe nonsense. CodeTheorist (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find coverage of the concept in reliable, independent sources. Google search returns random texts containing both words, but no indication that this is a recognized topic. OR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's not an article, that's a manifesto. —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personal essay. Shadowjams (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTBLOG. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also per WP:FORUM. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:35, 14 July 2012 (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 (non-admin closure) speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the AFD and since there are no delete votess it's a speedy keep and NAC is acceptable. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howling II: Stirba – Werewolf Bitch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to request comment on a move to Howling II: Your Sister Is a Werewolf, but after doing a google search (which didn't reveal anything significant) I decided to AFD because of a lack of notability of the film. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note article has been moved to Howling II - Your Sister Is a Werewolf. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sound Keep Sure, the original article was set under film's original name, rather than its later name... and sure the current article is poorly sourced. So what? WP:IMPERFECT. WP:WIP. WP:HANDLE. WP:DEADLINE Article improvement is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. A topic's notability is dependent upon available sources, not their use... and for this film, there are plenty.. not the least of which is Chicago Sun-Times Cinefantastic (Spain) Reel Film and many others.[56][57] WP:NF is met. If the nominator can grant that his google-foo was somewhat lacking, we can close this and work on its improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: And to also be noted is this filming having release under different titles... some English, some not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USA:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hungary:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mexico:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spain:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Germany:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

France:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Greece:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Portugal:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep (predicting snow) - The first sequel to a successful horror film, spawning a franchise, and with this one starring the eminently notable Christopher Lee. Not fit for deletion based on lack of notability. Doc talk 07:30, 15 July 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structure the Spin Dr.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A DJ. Unable to find a ref that does more than a brief mention of him. His claim to fame and the reason why the Prod was contested, is he played before a WBC title fight. Unable to find he has released any music. Bgwhite (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've taken a look at the links you've guided me to, and WP:MUSICBIO does state Structure is notable. Point 10 of WP:MUSICBIO places notability on the production of a theme or execution of a performance by a musician for a notable television show. If the notability of a televised event is demonstrated by depth of coverage, then the Briggs Klitschko fight would qualify (there are dozens and dozens of references of the fight, before, during and after it happened). Ergo, yes, the DJ playing a performance to introduce one of the fighters and otherwise score the event on television at this match on ESPN is more notable than a referee or ring girl. (On a side note, most of the boxing referee pages actually point to the opposite of what you are saying--that they are indeed notable purely through their refereeing and without very many other sources). Point 10 does not require the performance be referenced by anything but the show itself, and a reference has been provided proving ESPN showcases and refers to him during the broadcast. While normally attachment to a significant event would not provide notability, in this case the guideline states that it does indeed provide notability in this instance.
Point 7 also allows for notability if a musician is a very significant figure within a local scene. The interview included at the bottom is of an indie news source that exhibits his prevalence within a particular subgenre--should I add this as a reference in the actual article? His residences at the top nightclubs in NYC also contribute to notability under point 7, as the top representatives of a local DJ scene are the top residents at the top clubs. As regards your point on interviews, I think there is a misunderstanding. I've not used any claims from the interview as if they were inherently reliable as you infer that I have; I was just stating that the act of interviewing an individual within an article features him beyond mere mention, adding to the depth of coverage in that particular piece. However, it is point 10 of the guidelines on musician notability that provides the greatest level of notability for Structure. I've also added an additional reference to Germany's top television network that talks about Structure in its lead up coverage to the fight, which makes three separate references to Structure at the fight (RTL, ESPN, and BILD), all of which are highly notable news outlets that felt Structure notable enough to talk about him in their coverage of the event. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Jeremy's arguments are unpersuasive. First off, we're not talking about an actual "performer," are we? We're talking about a DJ working the sound system for songs other people have composed and other people have performed, so criterion #10 is off the table. Secondly, with those other links, far from constituting "interviews," as Jeremy claims, they barely mention the subject; I discount, of course, the blogger on wix.com, which certainly doesn't constitute a reliable source as per WP:IRS. Finally, we cannot remotely make the startling leap to infer that a fellow's presence at a party or two constitutes proof that he is a leading musician in a local scene; that needs to be stated, explicitly, by multiple reliable sources. Ravenswing 04:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stating that a DJ is not an artistic performer is an archaic argument at this point that demonstrates a lack of knowledge about such musicians, and is only a matter of opinion--and I'm not sure this is the venue to have the debate over whether or not the acceptance of DJs as musicians in modern culture was a proper thing to do. I will add in the interview from Pink Avenue that explicitly states what you are asking for point #7 though. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether a DJ is an "artistic performer" or not is, indeed, a discussion beyond this AfD's scope. It just isn't one for satisfying criterion #10. As for the two cites you just added, the court case is plain trivia (and the only mention of the subject was to mock his name), while the Youtube link not only runs afoul of WP:EL, what makes this "Avenue Pink" a reliable, published source as per WP:IRS? Ravenswing 20:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:MUSICBIO itself states "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Structure is a performer by definition of this policy.Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage lacks depth necessary for WP:MUSICBIO; being tangentially involved with a theme doesn't cut it either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still do not believe anybody has addressed issue 12 of WP:MUSICBIO "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" and 10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc". Also, please explain what you mean by "tangentially involved in a theme", as this phrase is unclear. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: The criterion #10 issue has been addressed, and at length; I recognize that you don't care for or agree with the reasoning, but there it is. As far as the subject meeting criterion #12 goes, no one had addressed it for the simple reason that no one had raised an issue over it. That being said, you surely can't be serious. I saw the Youtube clip linked to the article, and what it showed, as the boxer entered the arena, were two cutaways to what (I presume) was the subject doing his thing. He was neither named nor identified, the cutaways were about three seconds long each, and you couldn't hear the recordings he was playing over the broadcast's announcers. To categorize this as a "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment" is absurd, and would just as accurately apply to the jingle musicians of TV/radio bumper music. Ravenswing 20:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: Point 10 has not been addressed, it is being picked apart :) The criterion states specifically that a person can perform a theme for a television show. It does not state the length of time in which that performance must be played--some tv theme songs are less than 15 seconds long, but they would absolutely qualify underneath this segment of the rule. The Youtube clip is evidence that Structure was not only heard but shown on ESPN during Briggs' entrance; the clip is not the reference being cited itself. Is the work of media (the television broadcast) notable? According to the breadth of coverage of the television event and viewership yes it was. Did Structure play a theme for the broadcast? Yes he did--not only that, but he was shown during the broadcast playing it. This goes beyond what almost every other performer does for similar segments or themes--if he is non-notable as you infer, why show him? Why cover him on television? That's not the point however, because he was shown on television and he did perform the theme which means, by the very definition of this clause he is notable under the bio musician clause. Is he extraordinarily notable? Of course not, but few Wikipedia subjects are, and by the black and white definition of this policy he is notable. The only real argument is whether or not it's enough for him to have his own article, and I've already included this event in the Briggs article in case of that event. Following the logic, blind of all efforts to apply caveats on the criterion, Structure is notable in this case. I'm not fighting for this article to be kept for its own sake, I'm trying to impart my reading of the logic of this criterion and each reply doesn't have the same logic to it. I've heard that A) he is not a performer and B) he is only tangentially involved, which is untrue. The individual performed the theme solo--how is that tangential? And WP:MUSICBIO itself states "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". It states in the very definition of the policy that a DJ is recognized as a performer. The argument is just plain wrong.
      Following up on some other points, equating a television theme to radio bumper music is inaccurate as per point 10 of the policy and is a matter of your own opinion. In addition, just check the rest of the sources to confirm it was Structure who played during Briggs' entrance, you don't have to presume (the sources do not state that more than one was playing at the time). You also appear to be assuming that the quality of recording was equivalent to the quality it would have been in broadcast, which one cannot know, but I would likely presume was not. But that doesn't matter at all--the quality of sound in a program. The only thing that matters is if the subject literally passes one of the litmus tests, which they do. Again, criterion #10 has not been addressed, what has occurred is that the merits of a literal reading of criterion #10, and the use of it period, is being called into question, which is not the purpose of this AFD. Nor is a discussion of whether or not certain editors feel that DJs don't qualify as performers, as they have provided no reliable evidence of this theory. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Benefit of the doubt stuff - probably just meets the criteria for notability, depending on how widely read the indie newspaper is.Chriscook54321 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2012 (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. but fix the copyright issues by following Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves v/r - T P 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-printed books

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A content fork and copyright violation of List of best-selling books: unattributed partial copy from that page (most of the content and 44 of the 45 sources are taken straight from there), with the intention of adding a dozen or so other books. I have tried to explain at Talk:List of best-selling books#List of most-printed books why this would be a bad idea, with two lists which will start diverging and contradicting each other, or otherwise with double the maintenance. A new section on the existing page, or alternatively a new article with only those books excluded currently from the best-selling list, would be a much better solution. Further discussion at the article talk page, a third opinion, more input, would have been the right approach here, not the "I'll do it anyway" approach shown here. Fram (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not think this is a matter best resolved in AFD. Whilst I respect the reasons why it is desired to restrict List of best-selling books to those for which there are verfiable sales figures, which mostly means books in copyright for which the publishers have released audited figures, that is a set of constraints which actually excludes some of the most read and in some cases influential books in history such as the Bible, the Thoughts of Chairman Mao, and so forth. That wider topic is notable, the nominator is arguing it is distinct from the narrower definition of a best-seller and therefore cannot simply be dismissed as a fork, and whilst there are problems in estimating the actual figures or verifying the claims that is not fatal to the article. Plenty of people have attempted to produce estimates and these may be reliable sources even if we cannot possibly get at a precise number of copies of the Bible produced over the course of nearly two millennia, to use the most extreme case. --AJHingston (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SK, this is clearly "an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." and so deletion is not an appropriate remedy here. Warden (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Apart from the fact that it is a copyright violation and that there is nothing to merge? This is an attempt to end dispute resolution through creation, not through deletion. Fram (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The real issue here is that the list of best-selling books does not include notable cases like the Bible and we ought to have a place for information about such cases. Getting this done is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. When the matter is properly resolved and consensus achieved, then any loose ends like the contribution history and attributions can be sorted out by history merger and the like. Warden (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And discussion about where and how best to place these cases was ongoing. Creating a content fork during the discussion is not the way to get this done. 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
      - If you define 'best-selling' as a colloquial term which includes 'most-printed', then you can allow figures for these types of excluded books to go on the List of best-selling books. I've seen examples of this and can list a few in case this is needed. If the one list must be exclusionary and its name isn't likely to be changed by consensus to make it non-exclusionary, then I don't think there is justification to delete this page because it will contain new content that wouldn't be found elsewhere. Additionally, if 'best-selling' means only books that were sold, then 'most-printed' is a very different topic from the main list. The sales figures for most books must logically must be the bottom limit for the number printed for books with mostly hard-copies sold, which probably includes most books on this list.
      - I don't know how to merge the histories or attribute the source in the way it seems I'm supposed to, but if that is the only problem I don't see any reason for it to be deleted if someone would be willing to do some sort of history merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanib (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to KEEP this list - it could have some value. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LISTPURP and Colonel Warden above. The list may be a valuable information source. Also, they give out the Bible free so this seems like a good list to complement, rather than contradict, the book profits list mentioned in the nom. Disputes over which reliable sources to use can be worked out on the article talk page. The two lists have started to diverge becuse they are two different lists. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: The "keep" opinions should address how the copyright problem (no attribution for the copypasted content) should be solved in a way that complies with our licensing requirements. Sandstein 07:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Colonel Warden. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy if sources can be found. Shii (tock) 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. - Presidentman talk • contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia addresses copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves says how the copyright problem (no attribution for the copypasted content) should be solved in a way that complies with our licensing requirements. I endorse these for this article in addition to iVoting keep above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden and Uzma Gamal. Cavarrone (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2012 (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 Take 6. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claude V. McKnight III

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No improvement despite a year gone by. Still not independently notable. Still part of only one notable ensemble. Still can't WP:INHERIT from anywhere else. This subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and higher standards of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. This article should be deleted first, then redirected to Take 6. JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Take 6, no need to delete first. Lacks sources. In previous debate, User:Colonel Warden indicated that the subject had been included in the African American encyclopedia and Encyclopedia of contemporary Christian music, but all I can find in that source is confirmation that he is a member of Take 6. Pburka (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mic embalta3

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I discovered this page on NPP and it was in a bit of a state. I cleaned it up so that it can at least be read, but I'm not convinced the subject is notable. A google search shows loads of twittery/facebookish self-published stuff, along with a fair few passing mentions, but I can't find anything truly non-trivial written about him, and so fails WP:GNG. He hasn't had any roles in major feature-length productions, doesn't appear to have a dedicated fan base and his work isn't unique or innovative, and so he also fails WP:ENT. Overall, I feel this is a little-known radio personality, and this article is basically just promotion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to turn up anything to establish notability either. Delete per nom. Specs112 t c 15:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"removed an obnoxious template placed here by User:Anarchangel"--DBig Xray 21:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text of template: Substantial text was removed from this article prior to or during AfD. This notice is added to prevent misrepresentation of the potential of the article under discussion, compromise of the relevance of contributions to the discussion, and complication of the discussion's conduct and closure.Anarchangel (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't had a chance to thoroughly search for sources but I have restored the bulk of the article's text which was deleted without explanation. I've also done some cleanup and added categories. The text is still a bit of a mess and the article lacks inline citations but those are a matter for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, that appears to have been my fault. I saw that the AfD template had been removed and so I just reverted to what I thought was the last "stable" version; I didn't realise there was a lot of content that had been added in the meantime. Anyway, I don't think it affects the nomination at all. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 7. Snotbot t • c » 02:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations. Stream of names. Non-notable content. Delete unless substantial upgrade. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2012 (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. Redirected following deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aviendha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fictional character has (a) no assertion of notability, and (b) no reliable or in-depth third party references to support its content. If this character is deleted, I will also make a bundled deletion proposal for Supporting Characters in Template:Wotnav Exeva (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I am certainly sympathetic to this nomination; there are overtones of WP:Cruft here and all these supporting character articles could use a good paring, I think. I thought the most appropriate comparator would be the Harry Potter series, which is somewhat analogous in size and complexity -- although I suspect that the WoT series in total is much larger. Harry Potter pages are in place for "major characters" like Severus Snape but supporting characters, some 40 of them, are relegated to a single long page; I think this is a good analogy for the notability question posed by the nominator in that a handful of characters are notable and dozens of others are not. The trouble is that the WoT series is so immense that a character like Aviendha actually appears on the same number of pages (or has the same number of words written about her) as would be appropriate for the protagonist of a single "regular" novel. Thus I suspect that if one created a page for Supporting characters in the WoT series it would be massively unwieldy. The existing situation, with sub-pages and a navbox, seems like a reasonable compromise for utility to me; to continue the analogy to Harry Potter, I think there are a dozen or so major characters and -- good heavens, hundreds of supporting characters. I think the third-party references can be solved by pointing all such pages to a "companion" volume such as The World of Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time by Jordan himself -- doubtless there are others, or there will be once the series is complete. And notability -- well, volumes 8 through 13 of the series have all spent time at #1 on the NYT best-seller list. Certainly some of the characters are notable, and I suggest that the supporting character listing in the navbox is a reasonable take on inherent notability. Ubelowme (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A note on your later arguments: yes, Wheel of Time has been a New York Times #1 best selling, but no, notability is not inherited. Unless there is some independent claim to notability (eg critics talking about how Aviendha has influenced female characters in fantasy) the character does not merit an article. As for the question of which of the dozens of characters listed there deserve documentation, and how they should be organized: that belongs to a later AfD. this is about Aviendha. 98.216.136.159 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. These points are why I went to Harry Potter for a model; I don't notice anything in Severus Snape about how he is or isn't a role model for teacher characters in fantasy, except comments by the author herself, not critics. I have to think that this is how Wikipedia treats such huge-scale literary efforts; my assessment is that characters in such notable literature do indeed inherit notability. There are reliable sources, I think, that at least catalogue the same level of detail I see here. With respect to the dozens of characters point -- I note that the AfD's initiator said specifically that s/he intends to make a bundled deletion proposal, so I rather thought that was on the table for discussion. Ubelowme (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and to answer Ubelowme's comments) The general notability guideline requires the topic to have been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable, third party, independent sources", and as far as I can see it's not the case (and The World of Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time being a primary source written by Jordan and his editors, does not qualify as such), so the topic is not notable and can't be a stand-alone article. As 98.216.136.159 pointed out, no, notability is not inherited, notability is only shown through independent coverage, that the books are notable or popular doesn't make the characters suitable for stand-alone articles, only independent coverage does ("No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition"). The difference with an article like Severus Snape, since it was mentionned as an example, is that the character does have external coverage of some sort from critics. If someone wants to make something like "List of characters in the WoT", why not, but I personally don't really see the point of such article, the plot section of the series article, and the plot summaries for each of the books, are already enough to keep track of plot and characters, no need to be redundant in a "List of...", which is why I will support the nominator's plan of nominating more WoT characters.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge. Eeekster (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT ? If you don't justify your recommendation, it won't be taken into account.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete redirecting or merging might make sense, but per WP:PRESERVE there is no reason to delete here. Didn't research sources to see if the GNG could be met. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:PRESERVE does not concern this Afd. I am not proposing deletion because anything in *Aviendha* needs fixing, but because I question the subject's notability. That is, whatever great effort might be invested in it, I still believe it deserves deletion. Exeva (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But we should at least end up with a redirect, yes? There is no need for deletion here. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With zero third-party references after several weeks on AfD, it is very unlikely that the topic meets the "substantial third-party coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:22, 14 July 2012 (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. Unsourced biography of a living person. No evidence sources exist. Wily D 07:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Rogge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An actor with no indications of notability. A string of minor (1 episode) appearance with one exception: a recurring (but not main) role in the series Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue. No evidence of any significant coverage in any reliable third party sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let the page stay. Outside of his work in Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue, Ron Rogge has also done voice work in various anime projects. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:16, June 28 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" - Not sure i fully understand this process of deletion, or why this is an issue. Not many actors can claim over 110 episodes of TV credits, as well as 3 dozen film appearances, and this includes a series regular role, and many recurring roles on major TV shows. (Even the reasoning of "deletion considering" as posted above has poor and incorrect facts quoted!) The only reason this is a discussion, because your information was so far behind, it was being up-dated, and someone (WikiDan61 maybe) decided question the updates, and not only remove the CORRECT new info being added, but challenge the rest that has been posted for years...? Odd for an information services that now seems to be detering those from trying to change and up-date information responsibly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.94.38 (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was not my intention to remove any information from the article -- that happened because of an edit conflict and the lost material has been restored. As for the reasons for the deletion nomination, prolificity is not in itself a cause of notability. If the volume of Rogge's work is so significant, than an independent writer should have picked up on that and written something about it in a reliable source. The fact is that IMDb is not considered a reliable source in establishing notability, since the filmographies there can (and often are) faked. I do not believe that to be the case here, and I am making no accusations, I am just pointing out Wikipedia guidelines. Since no reliable sources can be found, there isn't enough fact on which to verify this article. If anyone can find sources that have not yet been identified, they are welcome to do so. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A string of random one-shot roles doesn't confer notability even if the roles are attached to a notable series. When and if we get a notable role which is covered reliably then we can conisder it. Right now though, being prolific doesn't make you notable if nobody wants to talk about your roles. tutterMouse (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced BLP of a not really notable actor--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced BLP with no sources added after three weeks at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 23 July 2012 (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. v/r - T P 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 I-League U20

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Non-notable youth competition. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason: Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't appear to be covered in any reliable third-party source. Fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 13:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - just because I think it's unfair to nominate this when our Indian expert (Arsenalkid) is on a one month block. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol what? Aren't there any other Indian editors around?! – Kosm1 fent 13:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mentoz, that's not a valid reason to keep an article. These articles fail WP:GNG; any meaningful content beyond sports results (of which there is minimum) should be merged with the I-League U20 parent article. GiantSnowman 13:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just saying that nominating these articles when the article creator is blocked, is not fair play as he cannot participate in the discussion. I would hope that this nomination could be withdrawn, and when Arsenalkid is unblocked it can be nominated once again (and in that discussion I will definately vote delete). There are no valid reasons to keep the article, but there aren't any valid reasons to delete the article now and not wait one month. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mentoz86, if the block was unwarranted (which I haven't investigated) then there are ways to appeal it, but, in the meantime, the rest of us have to get on with our primary task of developing this encyclopedia, which includes discussing article deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have added more references to sources that have covered this youth tournament. Am still new to this, so I am not sure if this will be enough to pass WP:GNG rule. Thanx. Aruncito (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the main leagues page, no need for individual seasons to have a seperate article.Seasider91 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has enough sources to satisfy GNG but it could be argued that many of the sources only exist because they are reporting on the most recent edition of the league. Would it be better to have a section on the u-20 league within the individual I-League seasons? What do we do for other leagues? Eldumpo (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article was nominated for deletion because it seemed to fail GNG. With recent edits, it seems to meet GNG. Perhaps it should be part of another article or something ... and if so perhaps an editor who believes that, should be bold and make this a redirect. However for the purposes of this AFD, it appears to be a Keep. Nfitz (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: YES I agree that 2011 I-League U19 should be deleted as I tried my best but I dont think I will find enough to satisfy GNG but 2012 I-League U20 should stay. It has enough sources to pass GNG, it has more information (which is sourced) than 2011-12 Premier Academy League or 2011-12 A-League National Youth League (Yes I understand WP:OTHERSTUFF) and my article for the U20 I-League is actually complete unlike A-League NYL which has not been edited in ages. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that Arsenalkid700 have had the oppurtunity to comment on this AfD, I've struck my "Keep"-vote. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: How about this. I dont feel right about deleting 2011 I-League U19 as I know I can get it to pass GNG, I just need a lot of time so why dont I put that page into my userspace (User:Arsenalkid700/2011 I-League U19) and we can continue to discuss the 2012 I-League U20 as I still believe that it is notable. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: 2011 I-League U19 is now User:Arsenalkid700/2011 I-League U19 for the time being. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (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 WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Day (film director)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A filmmaker "specializing in the topic of consciousness". Has written one screen play. Directed one documentary. Produced and directed a straight to video thingy called, The Consciousness Chronicles. No independent, reliable refs about him in the article or to be found. Refs in the article are about the films. Prod was contested in the references had been added. Bgwhite (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Possibly notable under WP:ARTIST #4, b and c. Interview with and commentary about the director in Huffington Post added to the article. Anarchangel (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think that he meets the criteria at WP:ARTIST. His award was at the Breckenridge Film Festival - not one of the festivals which are generally recognised as notability-conferring. Even in the Breckenridge, Colorado article, the festival only gets a 1/2-sentence mention PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 14 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Cross (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has obviously been written by someone in the band, vastly detailed descriptions of fairly minor things (such as playing at the 100 Club, being featured on MySpace), lots of references to "they are rumoured to...", etc. Non-notable. MarkRTaylor (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One BBC Essex article and not much else in the way of coverage. A search of chart sites suggests that the claimed hit singles didn't chart.--Michig (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the chart positions are not sourced, and I have tagged them as such. Chart sites tend to only list top 40 material, so they won't be in there, but The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles should list them. That plus the BBC news article makes it a borderline keep, but without the #43 single being sourced, I'd go with delete. Can't really decide without some sourcing. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. [58] keeps charting history past 43. No Kings Cross. Has a little local coverage for the mountain concert thing but nothing that substantial. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2012 (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 Move/Merge/Dab. There are a lot of opinions here, and the main one appears to be that the content is notable but is not necessarily the primary usage of the term, and could be merged into similar articles. Taking the consensus as a whole, I have moved the article to Starfighter (science fiction), proposed a merge there, and turned Starfighter into a dab with the real-world aircraft as the primary target, by moving Starfighter (disambiguation) there and re-ordering it. Starfighter (disambiguation) therefore becomes redundant so I have deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starfighter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is based on a word, "starfighter", apparently defined by an editor and then applied to various fictional spaceships in different story universes without justification or sourcing. Basically all WP:OR, does not meet WP:GNG, and has been since its creation in 2002, despite concerns expressed on the talk page over the years. The content is redundant to Military spacecraft in fiction and the article should be replaced with a redirect to Starfighter (disambiguation). Barsoomian (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 14. Snotbot t • c » 04:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As my remarks above. Barsoomian (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entire article consists of nothing but a vaguely and arbitrarily chosen definition (with no sources other than the author's imagination) and a ridiculously long list of appearances in fiction. JIP | Talk 06:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term Starfighter is both notable and well understood in science fiction to mean any spaceship that can take part in dogfights in a similar fashion to a fighter aircraft. It isn't just something that has been invented by the author of this article, see for example The top 10 starfighters in sci-fi movies and television. The most famous example is the Star Wars X-Wing Starfighter, see also Star Wars: Starfighter or The Last Starfighter for other uses of the term. CodeTheorist (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable in science fiction"? I've been reading SF for 50 years and find that unlikely. "Starfighter" was used in a video game, and a couple of movies; it's not a generic term. Most of the craft listed in the article have never been called "starfighters" by anyone. They could all be added to a "Fighters" subsection to Military spacecraft in fiction. Barsoomian (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term starfighter is used in the various Star Wars films, books, games, merchandising, dozens of Lego models and so on. Due to the iconic status of the X-Wing and other starfighters it is a notable term in its own right. The popularity of the films has meant that it is often used as a generic term when discussing any sort of fighter spaceship, even if not referred to as a "starfighter" in that particular SF universe. I'd be quite happy for the article to be split: e.g. one article called "starfighter" (for Star Wars content) and the list moved to Military spacecraft in fiction, if that were the decision of this Afd. Deletion however is not the right course of action as it is clearly a notable term. The Star Wars starfighters are far better known than the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, so the Star Wars ones should be the primary link. Given that we already have List of Star Wars starfighters there may be some scope for merging of articles. CodeTheorist (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional model ships in a movie are not more notable than a real aircraft in the real world. I never knew that the Star Wars ships were called "starfighters", and I'm sure most of the world has not either. Aside from that, most of the other craft in the article have never been called "starfighters" by anyone except the editor who placed them in the list. Barsoomian (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/split The title starfighter should certainly be a blue link. Looking through the books linked above, the primary topic for this title seems to be the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. The various SF examples should be moved to the dab page, if they notable enough and actually called starfighters. The content which describes this as a general class of spacecraft seems reasonable but needs some good sources to support it. Sorting all this out is a matter of ordinary editing, per policy. Warden (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I checked Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers and all have non-Wikipedia sources calling them starfighters. Star Wars and "the last starfighter" are already shown. Just a lack of sourcing issue, I think - not a notability one. Rmhermen (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the dozens of other space craft? How many of those have been described a "starfighters" by a WP:RS? And no one has bothered to do any sourcing in the 10 years this article has been here. Anyway, instead of trying to find excuses to put these under the word "starfighter" which I still think is not generic, just merge to Military spacecraft in fiction. Barsoomian (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could conceivably be a WP:SS parent to this list, but note that this is a much better developed article at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's some WP:OR going on here, but the concept is not, as CodeTheorist has explained. And while the article has indeed needed work for many years, keep in mind there is no deadline. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as both 1) a notable term covered in multiple reliable sources, and 2) a listing of substantially notable (as in, bluelinked) individual fictional elements. I was surprised as how reasonable this was a as a listing of such craft. I wouldn't be opposed to renaming, sourcing improvement, or swapping the main topic with the real-world "starfighter", but this clearly does not need to be deleted as any problems that exist can be fixed through regular editing, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge of verifiable content to Military spacecraft in fiction (editor endorsed PROD). There's a long-term problem of WP:OR with the current content. Per Colonel Warden, the primary topic seems to be Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, with the term being more notable than I appreciated at first glance. The proposed merged content at Military spacecraft in fiction could be linked to from Starfighter (disambiguation). -- Trevj (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I (original proponent of AfD) endorse such a merge, as preserving what content there is and putting it under a more obvious title in an existing article. Despite some Star Wars fans, the term "starfighter" has no currency outside fannish circles, and there is no need to try to apply it to the many other fictional space fighters in the list. Barsoomian (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with this course of action. I'm not that bothered which is the primary link, if people think that the Lockheed plane is more notable then that's okay with me. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Space fighter, which I suggest is a more widely-used name with fewer WP:OR issues. I'd be open to a merge to Military spacecraft in fiction and/or Space warfare in fiction, but I don't think it's necessary: this is a notable concept by itself. Robofish (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Military spacecraft in fiction, minus the fancrufty list (examples should be limited to individually notable ones) and the original research: While the concept is certainly familiar, without sources to support it it is and remains unverifiable and original research. I note that the definitive reference work of the field, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, does not have an entry for "starfighter" or "space fighter". Sandstein 06:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7 by Skier Dudek. (non-admin closure) --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Srink Photography

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a promotional article, subject lack notability Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non-notable, promotional — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Speedy delete according to WP:A7 and WP:G11. No assertion or indication of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. -- Luke (Talk) 03:46, 14 July 2012 (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 Mideast Youth. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FreeKareem

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization shows no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources; the article's sources either discuss Kareem Amer without mentioning this organization, or come directly from the organization's own press releases. Sources I've found on my own appear to have only a single line mentioning that the website exists as part of the larger story about Amer. Even if more significant discussion of the FreeKareem website turns up, I'd suggest merging with the "Kareem Amer" article; this article's current form is essentially a duplication of the text at "Kareem Amer" anyway. Khazar2 (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The group seems to be non-notable on its own, but it is described as a "project" of the organization Mideast Youth. I suggest the article be redirected to that group, per usual practice for subunits of notable organizations. I would also not object to a redirect to Kareem Amer.--MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either solution sounds good to me. Khazar2 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2012 (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. Closing this discussion is difficult because the majority is counter to the policy. In this case, editors are applying policies based on the title of the policy rather than the definition. I specifically disregard the last two !votes. WP:DIRECTORY lists many criteria and I'll go through each. 1) These topics are specifically defined: historical markers, 2) Not genealogical, 3) Not a yellow or white page, 4) Not a sales pitch, events, schedules, products, or patents, 4) Not a sales catelog, 5) Not changelogs or release notes, and 6) Not cross categorization. This last point is disputable, however, I would consider historical markers to be culturally significant. Next up is WP:INDISCRIMINATE: 1) Not a summary description of works, and 2) Not lyrics, and 3) No statistics. So these two arguments are not based on policy. That leaves me with two other arguments: the nominator and the keep !vote. The nominators argument fails because primarily because of the analogy they themselves made. Historical markers are culturally significant in comparison to common mile markers and significantly rarer. There is no requirement that a list (or article) be complete. As a wiki, it is the expectation that any list will forever be in development. That leaves me with the strength of arguments provided by Jclemens and postdif. There are sources for the information including at the New York State Museum for this list. v/r - T P 16:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York State Historic Markers in Monroe County, New York

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sadly, I believe articles such as these are not tenable. First, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While I would love to have a comprehensive list of historic markers in New York State, I don't believe it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to attempt to collect them, any more than an encyclopedia should try to list all road signs or barber shops or accident sites. More importantly, however, this list is destined to forever be incomplete. There is no definitive or comprehensive source that even claims to list every historic marker; the list can therefore never practically be completed. There simply doesn't exist the references required under our verifiability policy to ever create a complete listing; the list, then, is not suitable for inclusion. Powers ^T 17:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. The comparison is inapt at best, and downright disingenuous at worst: historical markers are both substantially rarer and substantially more encyclopedic in value than road signs. List articles are not required to be complete, but even if they were, it is physically possible to photograph each such historical marker, which would be a rock-solid verification for the entire, completed list. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But you could never actually know that you've photographed each historical marker, and doing so would be original research even if you could. There are no sources available that could ever confirm the completeness of this list, and a list that is destined to always be incomplete is not a good subject for a list. Powers ^T 02:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "...a list that is destined to always be incomplete is not a good subject for a list." Why, exactly? That's not a consensus view, nor one supported by any practical considerations I can imagine. See Template:Dynamic list which is maintained for exactly such never-to-be-complete lists. So long as we do not inaccurately claim something is complete that isn't, there is no problem with it being incomplete.
    But given that this was an organized state government program, and that the New York State Museum maintains "archives of that program, as well as the records of over 2,800 historic markers across the State", we should expect a comprehensive record of these markers to exist (and it seems this is such a comprehensive record). So even if incomplete lists were a problem, we should be able to make these complete to the full extent of the museum's records. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The museum's list constitutes only a tiny fraction of the historic markers across the state. I would guess that the actual number is at least an order of magnitude higher than 2,800. Even the most casual survey of markers along major roads in a given town would show that there are many more markers not listed than those that are. Furthermore, this list is at the moment nothing more than a copy of information on the museum's web site; that makes it a potential copyright violation (especially with the full texts of each sign being listed). I simply do not like the idea of presenting (in this case) 42 markers as if it is anything close to a complete accounting of the hundreds of markers in the county. It is not useful to anyone in such a state, especially since it simply duplicates information available elsewhere. Powers ^T 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The copyvio claim is a nonstarter because the Museum has not made a creative compilation of these signs, but is instead simply presenting factual information--this exists here and this is what it says. If there is any copyright to be concerned about, it would be whatever state agency or other entity authored each sign, for which you'd have to determine case by case that the sign text is of sufficient length to be copyrighted ("John Smith slept here" ain't gonna cut it), and that it complied with necssary copyright formalities (e.g., had a copyright notice if pre-1977, registered and then renewed that registration, etc), which is doubtful for signs of this kind. And even then, worst case scenario we could just list it by location and stating factually why it's there, without copying its text verbatim. postdlf (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I admit it's not a slam dunk, but that's why I said "potential". Regardless, it's not the main thrust of my objection. Powers ^T 17:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:NOTDIR. This article could have some value, but not enough to satisfy our policy. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIR; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 23 July 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Salazar (VC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a young entrepreneur, which clearly has a problem with promotional tone. I was in the middle of cleaning it up, as I assumed from all the companies he's apparently started he'd be notable, but when I started looking for sources I couldn't really find anything. There is one passing mention in a BBC article, but apart from that, there's not much going. A search of "'Cesar Salazar' entrepreneur" in google news shows no results. Thus fails WP:GNG.

I want to declare that I have removed references prior to nominating - one was a reference to a news article which was broken (404'd), so I removed it and the sentence of puffery it was attached to. The others weren't references, they were just links to the front pages of the websites of companies he's supposedly created. I don't think any of this is controversial, but I wanted it to be clear. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into notability yet, but if this is kept then it needs to be renamed. When I saw the title I thought that it was about a Victoria Cross recipient. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would've done that straight away (I made the same mistake), but I couldn't figure out what the VC stood for as there's no explanation. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's supposed to mean "venture capitalist". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any coverage about him - just this article and various social media sites. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG FeatherPluma (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS to establish subject's notability. --Artene50 (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to future article Feels like a person who might warrant an article once there are some WP:RS describing this activity. Until then, delete. If there are future RS, an article would be in order.BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2012 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Mamabolo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actress. No real evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:ENT for extensive body of work in television and film,[59] and the WP:GNG for coverage in mutiple reliable sources.[60] When we have sources on a notable topic, it is better to address issues, than delete because it needs work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:ENT: she has had many roles, but they are unclear as to how many were signficant roles. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that she passes. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per persistent news coverage in multiple languages. Also notable per WP:MUSIC as her eponymous band has toured nationally with Men Without Hats and performed at major festivals (NXNE, Montreal Jazz Festival). Pburka (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Numerous references from IMDB and the CBC, Toronto Star and National Post newspaper. The CBC--the Canadian government run radio and TV station--the Toronto Star and the National Post are major news & media sources in Canada which establish the subject's overall general notability. --Artene50 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2012 (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. (Non-admin closure) - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleavage (Hentai)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search fails to find enough reliable sources for this hentai. None of the four sources given in the article are reliable sources (the ANN link is to the encyclopedia, while Animetric is not reliable). The name doesn't help either, but even searching for "Cleavage Kondou Hentai" fails to find any significant reliable coverage.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, should probably be re-dabbed to (H-game) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm ok with it being titled an "H-Game" as long as it can stay, How do I change the (Hentai) Part of the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOutcast (talk • contribs) 01:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the AfD closes as 'keep', after that you can use the 'move' tab at the top of the page to move the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they do choose to keep it, Your welcome to put it in the H-Game Catagory if you must since I'm alittle new to Editing stuff on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOutcast (talk • contribs) 10:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – There is a review by Chris Beveridge but that is not enough. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 18:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This should be closed as no consensus per WP:STICK. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 04:37, 14 July 2012 (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. Not credible, properly sourced and verifiable refs provided. Alexf^(talk) 12:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jawad Al Shakarchi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no notability based on reliable sources التاريخ معلم (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 6. Snotbot t • c » 18:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is a stub with no information other than his name, nationality and that he is an actor. Two of the three external links are broken, the other can't be considered as reliable. No real evidence that he meets WP:NACTOR. Google doesn't turn up much other than content copied from Wikipedia. There may be information somewhere on this person (possibly not in English), but unless sources can be found the page should just be deleted. CodeTheorist (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. No assertion of notability. Pburka (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be an Iraqi stage actor whose career began in 1966, and who competed in international acting competitions. This source describes him as "much-loved actor Jawad al-Shakarchi" and shows that he had a lead TV role in Damascus in 2007. The article edit history shows credible assertions such as "He has participated in more than 60 Arab and international theatre festivals, and received dozens of awards, including that of Best Actor in Cairo's Theatre Festival 1989, a medal of honour from the Carthage Theatre Festival in Tunisia 1995 and many more." and "He started his theatre career at 16; when he joined the troupe of Iraqi-Soviet Friendship Society in 1966." However, these credible assertions are not WP:V sourced, and it is impossible to separate puffery from substance. This is the kind of material that floats out from Wikipedia onto mirrors on the Internet, and becomes impossible to separate from reality, taking on a life of its own. Summary: passes WP:N as there is evidence that sources are available, failure of WP:V as per WP:Deletion policy. No prejudice against re-creation with WP:V sources. Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2012 (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 American Ultimate Disc League. v/r - T P 16:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Rampage

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm also nominating:

Columbus Cranes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Detroit Mechanix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indianapolis AlleyCats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buffalo Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

...all of which are American Ultimate Disc League teams which don't meet the notability guideline for organisations or the general notability guideline. (Per WP:BUNDLE, I previously nominated Bluegrass Revolution, another team, which was deleted – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluegrass Revolution.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not nominating the other teams? A quick look suggests they're all about the same in terms of refs and length. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd missed Buffalo Hunters, which I've added above. I think Connecticut Constitution (AUDL team) should be kept though, and lean towards keeping Philadelphia Spinners. Are there any others? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Fails WP:ORG at this time due to lack of sources, but probably could pass if sources were found. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the AUDL teams have recieved local press and several have received national press on ESPN. They have their own legit websites, the league has it's own website, and several other sites are covering their games weekly. None of their wikipedia articles should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRevell1 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only ESPN coverage I've been able to find has been this and this. Are there others I've missed? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to American Ultimate Disc League. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 23 July 2012 (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. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Mehra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable movie character thus not notabile outside the films, and no significant coverage found for the individual character. - Vivvt^Talk 14:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Krrish (film series). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as compromise: lack of sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have to compromise? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable film character. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2012 (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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koutaiba Al Janabi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wno notability based on reliable sources التاريخ معلم (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not see any problems. He has two awards, the film was aired widely, the bio is available at reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- To Emotional Backgammon; the current references are 1-3) self published, 4) mention confirming full name, photographer involved with project, & attended event 5&6) search results. Dru of Id (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2012 (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.