Article clearly meets WP:GNG and is well referenced, is up for AFD with the accusation of WP:LC. I believe the article is actually already in good condition, but maybe other eyes will be able to improve it further and save it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
haha. I saw this was created the other day but stayed away from it because I knew someone who put it to AfD. The subject is over 18 and is fairly accomplished, so the Allison Stokke analogy would not apply.--Milowent • hasspoken17:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
You got me curious as to who this Allison Stokke was. A lot of coverage for her over the years since her article was deleted, and not just for the internet attention. FSN Prime Ticket for example. [4] I think she is probably notable enough to have an article. If anyone finds a second reliable source covering her, and not just for her internet fame, then we can make an article. DreamFocus08:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The AfD discussion result was "Redirect. Anything worth merging will remain in history." Three articles were retained.
23 D&D articles have been mass nominated for deletion at this AFD. Per this discussion, I am inclined to believe that more sources exist out there for at least some of these articles. Anything that can be found and added to improve them and make them more notable would be appreciated. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a bone fide ethnicity, the nomination completely ignores WP:BEFORE and is therefore malformed at best or in bad faith at worst. The deletion opinions all ignore the sources or made no serious attempts to consider any and focus around the fact that it is considered to be archaic by them, however the current cited usage directly contradicts this archaic argument, nevertheless truly archaic or more properly labeled dated terms or conventions such as mulatto and miscegenationdo have articles here and I would love any help improving this one into the state of one of those or one such as Latino, Mestizo, Chilean-American or any of the other ethnicity articles. The deletion discussion has many links that I found that could be incorporated. There are abundant sources at Google books, scholar, and news if you search under "middle eastern people" (with the quotation marks.) If anyone can help improve expand I would be very grateful, also any advice on how to proceed?LuciferWildCat (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, LWC, but that article strikes me as bullshit, why did you create that without any sources? 3/4ths of people living in the middle east are arabs[5]. One could create an article on Nebraskan people or people living in any area of the world like that.--Milowent • hasspoken13:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (The West Wing) was retained
This is second episode of The West Wing. I've not watched the show but suppose it to be quite notable. There seems to be a rash of AFDs for episodes of this breaking out. These are quite mistaken because they say that the content has already been merged elsewhere. Deletion would therefore be quite improper, per WP:MAD. As there are over 100 episodes, many hands may be needed to make light work of this. Warden (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Warden, can you please explain how WP:MAD is of any relevance to the question as to whether an individual episode of a television program is notable enough to merit an article? The essay relates to technical issues regarding the preservation of authorship history when one article is merged with another. It makes no assertions whatsoever regarding whether such merges are appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Considering there don't appear to be any sources showing notability, I don't see how you think the article can be expanded. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you new here? What we commonly do in such cases is find more sources. For example, in this case, here's a good one. So, when you say that there don't seem to be any sources, you're just talking about the current state of the article, right? The current state of an article is usually quite useless as a guide because most articles are of poor quality. Our editing policy is to improve articles, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
That's strange, because what I see is squadron members just voting keep without bothering to improve the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This AfD is simply the latest act in a comical play of uselessness that has been going on for years. Very popular TV shows typically have editors creating articles on each episode. They don't always do a good job at creating them, but often there is a legitimate claim that each episode is notable because there is decent coverage about every episode. From time to time some random editor happens upon these articles and thinks the separate articles should not exist (even though these episode articles keep getting created about so many shows that no one can ever really stop it using the AfD process). Instead, such editors favor single articles for an entire season. The AfD results are haphazard and do little to improve the project. We didn't get to four million articles based on these efforts.--Milowent • hasspoken18:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If you think there is evidence that the article meets existing policy regarding notability, say so at the AfD. If you think it can be improved such that it establishes notability, do so. This isn't a forum for complaining about existing policy, and nor is it a forum for complaining about editors who act according to such policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If I want to complain here, I will. But it wasn't even a complaint, it was an observation. If you don't want to discuss the obvious ridiculousness of this never-ending carousel of people wasting time, don't respond. Using "policy" as a substitute for basic common sense ignores reality. If editors want to actually accomplish anything of substance on here, they need to think about what they are trying to accomplish and the best way to do it. Looking blindly at one AfD of one episode out of 130+ articles is not the way to build an encyclopedia.--Milowent • hasspoken18:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
'Basic common sense' would suggest to me that an article which consists of nothing more than a plot summary of a TV show doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia - and our policy says the same thing. As for "one AfD out of 130+ articles", I agree that this isn't the best way to deal with the problem - possibly the solution would be to revise policy so that any such existing plot-only articles may be redirected to the main article without the need for AfD, and that any new 'plot-only episode' articles not providing bona-fide evidence of meeting notability standards for that episode should be speedily deleted as a matter of course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's two more sources I added to the article. Perhaps they can be used to expand the article or verify information within it.
Why is this deletion review listed here and been un-archived? Article rescue squadron has presumably done any job working on content, thus no further action required here. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This song was proposed for deletion over a year ago and survived the proposed deletion then. The proposer, User:TenPoundHammer has a record of massive proposals for deletion. The subject of the article was judged notable enough to keep then, but TPH is still continuing in his campaign to delete it. -- BRG (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the biggest group nomination I recall ever seeing and there seem to be several technical issues which editors here may be able to help with. Warden (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor did ask for help on a talk page, instead of posting it here. [6] So I'm putting it here for them. The AFD has now been relisted a second time for greater consensus. DreamFocus15:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
One of the most disturbing things about reavers is how they make others like themselves. As per the Bushwhacked episode, normal people become so traumatized by contact with them that they turn themselves into reavers too, because after the horrors they've witnessed, they have "no where else to go". Prolonged contact with Reavers is not advised unless you have a very strong character. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Fire departments have typically not been treated as individually notable without some expansive coverage, typically I see them covered under the town articles.--Milowent • hasspoken05:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Most California cities seem to have an article about them on Wikipedia including the Oakland Fire Department and Menlo Park Fire Department cities both smaller and larger than Richmond and there are copious amounts of sources at the San Francisco Chronicle, Richmond Confidential, Berkeley Daily Planet and I suspect the Oakland Tribune.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Did a highbeam search and there is ample coverage of them. No shortage of space on Wikipedia, so no reason not to list them. DreamFocus10:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
This 'article' is utter bollocks. That anyone can seriously suggest that anyone from the Article Rescue Squadron should do anything other than !vote delete implies that (a) the person posting this doesn't have a clue about Wikipedia notability policy, or (b) he/she thinks that the ARS doesn't have a clue about the policy: please demonstrate the latter by either ignoring this blatant attempt to canvas for the unsupportable, or demonstrate that even the ARS has limits, and !vote to rid Wikipedia of meaningless nonsense like this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
While the article's title may lead some to believe it is bollocks, after reading it you'll see that ample media attention was given do to this person's success on twitter, and various things that happened there. But that is a debate/discussion best suited for that AFD, and not here. DreamFocus03:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy's comment makes me laugh, because The Devil's Advocate who brought the recent huge RFC against ARS, coherently voted to keep this article. The reason that the Kutcher AfD has gone on forever is because the delete votes are raving spittle like Andy's comment above, instead of calmly making arguments for why it should be deleted despite the in-depth coverage which Kutcher's twitter usage has received.--Milowent • hasspoken05:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Scottywong has closed it as delete. I can't recall an AfD ever closed with that precise rationale; perhaps there are many and I'm just not aware of them.--Milowent • hasspoken19:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
A courtesy post here per a message received on my talk page requesting assistance to rescue the article. The article was proposed for speedy deletion, which was declined, and later redirected to Methylenedioxypyrovalerone, which was reverted (all by other users than myself). Northamerica1000(talk)09:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Island Ink-Jet was retained. Its AfD discussion closed as no consensus.
A chain of stores with "with over 75 stores in 4 countries" (per the article); the topic is likely notable. The article needs layout cleanup, more sources and better organization. Northamerica1000(talk)15:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
This one closed as no consensus, but i almost exploded over the idiocy of that discussion, had to take a few days off!--Milowent • hasspoken22:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
