Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 7

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 00:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Autobiography of NN - winning a quiz and obtaining a good degree does not make someone notable. Arjayay (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An anonymous editor removed the AfD notice, twice. I restored it the second time, and left a warning, but because this editor is using varying IP addresses the warning may not do much good. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crash Course episodes

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

This is a list of all of the episodes of a youtube series. It is uncited and I believe that it is uncitable due to the topic area. Unlike episodes of a TV show, there is no coverage of the individual episodes in the literature. I boldly redirected the list to its parent article but I was reverted. Guerillero | My Talk 23:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have already gone over this. The consensus was to keep. --Thorwald (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a consensus
  when I look at the parent topic's talk page. The opinions of the six people who engaged in the discussion is fairly divided. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

talk to me 23:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

talk to me 23:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Delete - This list article has no real purpose and provides absolutely no information that a link to the YouTube channel itself does not already provide. That link is already on
electronic program guide. This article was created in response to the episode listing being removed from the parent article because it was too excessive, it is even more inappropriate as a standalone article. Merging it into the parent article would be inappropriate, so the best option is to delete the article. - Aoidh (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Aoidh.
Wha? 18:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep per

WP:SNOW. I'm not averse to having this deletion discussion a couple of weeks from now but there's absolutely zero point in nominating this article for deletion so soon after its creation. I'm not sure why people continually insist on nominating high-interest articles for deletion so quickly. Just work on improving it for the time being. Alex Muller 17:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Death of Nelson Mandela

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

Overlong and nonnotable. All there is the dreaded "reaction syndrome" where editors think it is ok to just jam massive amounts of quotes into articles. Whoever does this should slap themselves silly. We don't care if everyone responded to this news. Beerest 2 talk 22:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can see reasons you'd want to improve the article, (and "overlong" is a fixable complaint), but "nonnotable"? Do you really think an event notable enough to be the main pictured "In the news" entry on the main page is not notable to have its own article? It's absurd to say "there are too many quotes from heads of state about this event" and at the same time say "this event is nonnotable". – Quadell ^(talk) 23:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a quote farm is not what we want here at Wikipedia, then let's work to change the format of the article. Surely the death of Mandela is notable. Reactions from world leaders can be summarized. So can reactions by celebrities, other notable figures, etc. What major events were held around the world is his honor? The funeral, the public gatherings, other memorial services, etc. I agree that the article needs work, but just deleting it is not the answer. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh! I should probably disclose that I started the article. Sorry. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also hate when articles consist solely of quote farms, but this is Nelson Mandela we're talking about here. Article in its current state is pretty poor, but I think this'll evidently pass
WP:EVENT. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

talk to me 23:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Keep and rename to Death and (state) funeral of Nelson Mandela which is the standard procedure for these kind of articles:
Hugo Chavez etc. Iselilja (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and rename per Iselilja. This event and upcoming event has been the top news story internationally so it easily passes notability standards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and Rename This is a substantially notable article with issues that can be fixed by editing. I'm calling for a Snow Keep because no one has voted for deletion besides the nominator and there is no way the page is actually going to be deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Death and Funeral of Nelson Mandela. It is very ridiculous that there is even a discussion for deletion. It is the de facto norm for very important people especially famous monarchs and presidents to have their own article in wikipedia for death and funeral as noted by Iselilja. Deaths of such important people are quite rare (maybe 1 in few years) and they all deserve their own articles. I am sure the person who proposed deletion has never seen such an article on wikipedia. Maybe we should start having an option to do a thorough check for articles with similar scope on wikipedia and only then flag an article for deletion. Many a times, deletion flags are raised by people who have no idea that many other articles with similar scope exist already on wikipedia. Gurumoorthy Poochandhai 01:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything Taylor Trescott said. Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 01:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per the above; see Death and state funeral of Jack Layton for a similar notable case.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per
WP:EVENT - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep – in addition to the above reasons for not deleting the article, it's got some notable material merging which with the parent article will clearly clutter the latter. Cinosaur (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. We already have other articles specifying the deaths of certain notable people, so why delete this one while well sourced?--Jusjih (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very notable death as he was one of the world's most prominent figures in world history. However, once more coverage surfaces (such as his funeral and the period of mourning) then renaming the article should be strongly considered.
talk) 07:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this, and all similar. Just a quote farm. If readers want to know all the great things he's done, that's what
neutral and far less repetitive way. Any actual events (death, funeral, new memorial buildings named for him, days of mourning) can easily fit there, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Per Quadell's comments.—FrankBoy 12:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now. Let this grow for a while until after the funeral, then trim it back. If there's not enough left for more that a start-class article, merge it back. But for now, keep it here to save cluttering. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and rename to Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela, as per Iselilja. There are formats for articles of this nature (please see
Death and state funeral of Hugo Chávez
) wherein they have the following format:

1 - Illness and Death Here, we would discuss any of the health problems that Nelson Mandela was contending with that lead up to his death, there are literally thousands of articles from South African articles that will detail it.

2 - Reactions This is where we would put all the quotes, respectively in the order of Domestic (South African reaction), International (The reactions of the governments of other countries), Supranational (The reaction of governing bodies which are not necessarily countries, such as the EU, FIFA, African Union, NATO etc) and Individuals (The reactions of other politicians, celebrities, activists, humanitarians and other notable persons who are notable, in this case, we would assume it is an individual who has a Wikipedia entry).

3 - Funeral This would be information regarding the actual funeral. When, where, how, was the body laid in state, were there any large memorial services leading up to it? (I know there will be one at Soccer City on 10 December 2013). Here, we would also list the notable persons who were in attendance as well as describe any impact the funeral might have had on the national, regional and domestic scale in terms of socioeconomic and political aspects.

Nelson Mandela's funeral is going to be a huge affair and it definitely, certainly, most assuredly is notable enough to have its own article, and as such, the article should be improved to meet the standards that other statesmen's funerals' articles get. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Late Show with David Letterman episodes

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

The list is completely unfinished, the season articles are empty and i don't see these empty pages serving any purpose. Koala15 (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all empty and serve no purpose.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
^Notify_Online 01:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

talk to me 01:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

talk to me 01:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

Comment: In this edit on season 1 there seems to be a full roster of people. I can't tell if it's accurate or not, though. Some of the other seasons (17, 18, 21) have information, but again- can't verify immediately whether or not this is accurate.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all Daily talk shows are a complete abuse of the 'list of episodes' template. Usually unless someone has a good database of every show these are impossible to source, but at that they're too long to make sense out of. chatter) 08:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all per nom. – Recollected • 06:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the following comment above the title of this AFD. I have reformated it and moved it here. Additionally, this editor removed most of the AFD notices, so I will replace them and relist this discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - the few seasons with actual episode information on them can be merged onto
talk 23:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all - after thinking it over yes these should be deleted, its way too much to try to log every episode Aqlpswkodejifrhugty (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly (Star Wars)

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

There is no need for separate article about Star Wars monopoly. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 23:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: two-line article with no sourcing; utterly fails
WP:GNG, and since there is no reliable sourcing there is nothing here to merge.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to either
Star Wars Monopoly redirects to, or List of licensed and localized editions of Monopoly: USA#S, where the several Star Wars editions are listed. I don't think that the disambig would make a redirect useless in this case. Ansh6 6 6 00:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As stated above, the page should be deleted. It does not give enough information or any details on the Star Wars Monopoly game. It is only a partial overview with no sources to back it up. The page also made a promotional claim without a citation. Maybe if there were references it could be merged to Monopoly (game). Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody is going to type "Monopoly (Star Wars)" into the search field. And there's no need for a separate article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody familiar with WP title disambiguation might. Or "Monopoly (Star Wars version)" or something like that. I know that I do that type of thing sometimes. Maybe I'm just crazy... Ansh6 6 6 05:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggested an unlikely redirect here once, and some more practical-minded editor pointed out that nobody but Wikipedia diehards would ever type that in. I had the same reaction as you: "Ha, I do that." But I think that other guy was right. Redirects are cheap, but there's no reason to create ones that depend on esoteric knowledge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But, we're not creating one: it already exists. Ansh6 6 6 01:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the harm in keeping the redirect would be, though it would help only a few people. So redirect but I don't have a serious problem with outright deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Compare Star Wars Pez, which is a notable merchandizing effort. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC) (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star wars pez.) Bearian (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existing redirects, such as
Star Wars Monopoly, should be sufficient navigational devices. This title implies an entity or event called Monopoly in the Star Wars universe (or related to Star Wars in the real world). I have a copy of this game—maybe even two—and can confirm that its name is not simply Monopoly. --BDD (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Totapuri mango

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

This is just a mango cultivar. Not sure if it deserves separate article. By the way, the user was blocked indefinitely shortly after he created this article. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 00:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Comment We have over 70 mango cultivars with their own article, so I think some research is needed to see if this one is notable enough for an article. It would also be helpful if all of the other mango cultivar articles had titles that were consistent. You can see them all at Category:Mango cultivars. Also, List of mango cultivars might have some more that are articles but not in the category yet. Obviously there are some mango fans on Wikipedia to have such good coverage! First Light (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from consisting of 100% original research, this stub has so many issues of style and tone that it would be far easier to rewrite it from scratch rather than modify what's there now, should the topic prove notable. Rivertorch (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC) In light of First Light's revisions, keep. Rivertorch (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I went ahead and stubbed the article and referenced it. It appears to be one of the more widely grown varieties for export as pulp, so having an article seems worthwhile, even a short stub. If kept, it should be moved to

Totapuri (mango). First Light (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

Keep. First Light's version appears to demonstrate notability, and the article is a good base for potential further expansion. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has good coverage in books as well. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Suite Life on Deck#Cast. --BDD (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Pickett

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

Stupid fancruft that got kept at AfD, even though the arguments there were just saying WP:But there must be sources! This doesn't belong on Wikipedia, character biographies aren't kept just because the show is notable. Beerest 2 talk 22:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 00:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason as last time: the character is not notable. Simply being a main character is not enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Suite Life on Deck#Cast. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Christmas Parade