Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 juni 16

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. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bruised Bluenana

Might fit better in a list of episodes. StaticGull Talk 17:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a plot summary which already has a suitably brief synopsis on the Chowder (TV series) article. Yngvarr (c) 18:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yngvarr. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:24 2008 June 16 (UTC)
Keep. That there is already a capsule synopsis at Chowder (TV series) isn't a rationale to delete, since most of our "X TV season" articles have both short in-article synopses as well as full length articles for the episodes. I don't see anything here that violates our guidelines on episode synopses. Ford MF (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet WP:N, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, because it does not provide verifable sources for adherence of that policy. This is why I state that a separate article is not suitable, but the synopses entry on the main series page is suitable. Further, it does not meet any of the guidelines at WP:EPISODE. I won't address the (seemingly endless) dispute at WP:EPISODE; until it is resolved, I'll adhere to the guideline as it is written. Finally, if one were to address the spelling, grammar, etc, and that the article is written purely as a plot summary, and then consider WP:PLOT, the article would end up trimmed down to a handful of sentences, for which the main series page would suffice. Yngvarr (c) 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Yngvarr (c) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nope, can't see how in any way this one is worth it's own article. treelo _talk 01:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If a television episode does not establish notability, it should be merged into a list of episodes. The main article for the series will also suffice. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kneippen

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull Talk 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable inhabited places are notable. Here are sources to prove it:[1]. Stubs are articles that need expansion; not deletion. Cheers, EJF (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EJF and populations centers are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if "borough" means some sort of governmental entity, it's surely notable simply by being that; and if it's simply a neighborhood, it's notable by being a populated community. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily gone, didn't realise it was here as well, it's been speedied x4 for copyvios. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Women's Global Leadership

At first sight it looks like an A7 (group of people or organisation), but it depends on if the given notability is genuine. StaticGull Talk 17:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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