Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy: Difference between revisions
Listing David A. Cherry |
Archiving closed XfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction/archive Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DeletionSortingCleaner |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Peth (2nd nomination)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Peth (2nd nomination)}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Christina de Souza}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Christina de Souza}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gerard Kennedy}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Revisited}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Revisited}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of science fiction film and television series by lengths}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of science fiction film and television series by lengths}} |
Revision as of 15:30, 24 June 2010
Points of interest related to Science fiction on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – To-do |
Points of interest related to Star Trek on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – Assessment |
Points of interest related to Star Wars on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science fiction or fantasy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science fiction and fantasy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science fiction or fantasy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Purge page cache | watch |
Science fiction and fantasy
- 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 sourcing improvements. It's a bit early dating from when the listing was completed, but I can't see any way the overwhelming consensus could change in the next day or so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David A. Cherry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of reliable, independent coverage. Most of the hits I found for "David Cherry" were for a history professor who writes books about Roman law, and this guy has more of a claim to notability than the comic book artist. Similarly, "David A. Cherry" mostly returns material on a prominent neurosurgeon. You'd think that, with the web's fixation on pop culture, a comic book artist would get as many or more hits than a history professor or a neurosurgeon if he was at all notable. Reyk YO! 00:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Being artist guest of honor at a Worldcon seems adequate notability, limited to at most one person per year since there have been Worldcons, making the count approximately 70. Being nominated for the Hugo Award
811 times seems also to be adequate evidence of notability, per WP:ANYBIO#1. (Sources for facts in the article would be helpful, however.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep, per Arthur Rubin, who I see is doing good work adding sources. Artw (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has won notable awards, proving he is notable. Dream Focus 02:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per arthur rubin. book is from donning, a small but significant specialty publisher of sf/fantasy work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A major name in SF/fantasy book cover illustration, with adequate markers of notability in our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ANYBIO #1 is tailored to this, as Arthur Rubin pointed out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above Keepers. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as a winner of 8 Chesley Awards, the highest artist award for speculative fiction artists (even higher than the Hugo, IMHO). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be a WP:HEY since no one has !voted to delete since the Hugo Award bit was sourced. Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - per all the above; I'd close it myself as an obvious WP:SNOW, if Twinkle had that tool. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Looking at the article as it existed when it was originally nominated for deletion makes me wonder if the nominator actually read the article as his claim of non-notability seems spurious at best. At that point, at most it should have had inline references requested. At the time, article noted that he was a Worldcon Guest of Honor, a multiple Hugo nominee, and a former president of ASFA.Shsilver (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Perhaps the nominator confused a different person of the same name? htom (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2010 (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 Doctor Who in Australia. Spartaz Humbug! 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Double Gammas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable award for possibly non-notable organisation. No reliable sources, nor assertion of notability. No gNews hits for "Double Gammas" or "Double Gamma". Google hits only return other fansites, blogs and facebook. Has been tagged for notability since its creation two years ago. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Why is this happening again? It's a twenty six year old national award. Albeit a fan award. It's as notable as any other such award, and is currently in its latest round for judging. What other sources are relevant? MartinSFSA (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. long living does not make them notable. other such awards are also non-notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an entire category of not just fan awards, but Australian fan awards. Are you hostile to their existence too or merely singling Doctor Who fandom out? MartinSFSA (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean Category:Australian science fiction awards? Unfortunately I'd have to say yes. Of the six distinct awards named in that category, two appear to be former incarnations of a current award, one is a subset of a current award, and only one has any reliable sources at all (the Aurealis Awards, although all the WP:RSs are all in sub-pages and the whole set could do with a decent merging). Seriously, I love Doctor Who as much as the next sci-fi die-hard, but we're merely hostile to the existence of unverifiable articles here at Wikipedia.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't identify yourself with "we" or "Wikipedia", it's just the two of you tagging and re-tagging. I'm not pleased at having to argue this all over again and I'll be interested to see you continue this spurious argument on to the Hugos and Nebulas. Wake me when we get there. MartinSFSA (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean Category:Australian science fiction awards? Unfortunately I'd have to say yes. Of the six distinct awards named in that category, two appear to be former incarnations of a current award, one is a subset of a current award, and only one has any reliable sources at all (the Aurealis Awards, although all the WP:RSs are all in sub-pages and the whole set could do with a decent merging). Seriously, I love Doctor Who as much as the next sci-fi die-hard, but we're merely hostile to the existence of unverifiable articles here at Wikipedia.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. The Double Gammas are one of the more important awards in Australian SF fandom where Dr Who fandom has traditionally been strong. It makes sense to cover them here as they have historical value in terms of those communities. Alternatively I can see the general content about them being merged with Doctor Who in Australia, which has discussion about Doctor Who fandom in Australia, although I'd rather see them stand alone due to weight issues, as that's a more general article. - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge - A merge to a more general article would eliminate the problem of having only self-published sources. If reliable sources become available there is nothing to stop the page from being reestablished.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator's agreement with Bibly's proposal. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable fan award. Then redirect to digamma. Reyk YO! 01:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Even if it is the most important Australian Doctor Who fandom award in the whole wide world, that doesn't strike me as being terribly notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The South Australian Club alone's been in all the local print media, even a notable defunct one. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2010 (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 incubate. In reaching this determination, I've disregarded all procedural arguments, which are not very helpful in the particular posture of this AfD. There's more than enough evidence that the subject is verifiable, but, despite the fervent arguments to the contrary, no actual evidence of notability has been presented in this AfD. It may well be that they are in printed sources in Danish - and thus difficult to locate - but it's been three weeks, counting the last AfD, and nothing has come forward, so I accord less weight to those arguments. Taking into account the totality of circumstances - especially that, as Black Kite put it, it seems there should be sources - I think incubation is the best way forward here. T. Canens (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crash (1984 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Television series which does not meet WP:N. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm renominating because the last AFD was closed due to the beliefs of some editors that significant coverage exists but (considering WP:NRVE), they seem to have been mistaken. Claritas § 12:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per notability is not temporary. If this programme was notable enough to have a TV series in Denmark in the 80s, it was notable. If that show was to debut today, no doubt there would be lots of web sources available. Lugnuts (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NRVE, you need to find sources to verify the claim that it's got significant coverage. I don't see any. Claritas § 14:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- THIS CLOSED AS A KEEP in FIRST AFD YESTERDAY - give it a chance people, sheeeeeesh.--Milowent (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Milowent (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing user said: "No prejudice against a quick renomination if sources aren't found". Verifiable evidence of notability is requested. Claritas § 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "quick" doesn't mean one day. I request that you withdrawn the nomination for 14 days, then you can always renom.--Milowent (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing user said: "No prejudice against a quick renomination if sources aren't found". Verifiable evidence of notability is requested. Claritas § 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources establishing notability, and none were found during previous AfD. Verbal chat 20:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't oppose userfication to BarkingFish below either, who feels he may be able to source it. Verbal chat 15:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no sources uncovered. Every link in the articles that are in the foreign-language Wikipedias has gone dead as well. There's just not enough material to build an article out of.—Kww(talk) 20:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Prior afd closed as keep yesterday; "quick renomination" is not "immediate renomination." There's no pressing reason to rush this. There doesn't appear to be any doubt that the program existed, and no reason to believe that it didn't receive nontrivial print coverage on its original broadcast. There's so much work that needs to be done here (eg, BLP cleanup) that demanding that articles like this be made highest priority seems abusive at best, and there are rational people who'd call it downright foolheaded. I would also note that the indignant nominator has recently created a batch of unsourced articles like Muhsin ibn Qaid, Colegio Anglo Americano Prescott, Buluggin ibn Muhammad, Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano, andKar-Mulla, making me wonder why the animus towards this one? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have a look at the policies and guidelines, and the ANI discussion about this. Your "keep" rationale isn't valid and likely to be ignored. Best, Verbal chat 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. There's no policy requiring immediate deletion of articles with sourcing issues, and good reason to allow time for articles to develop. Maybe you could cite something relevant, or your objection isn't valid and is likely to be ignored.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano is sourced, the early Islamic monarchs aren't sourced simply because the content was split from another unreferenced page, as was Colegio Anglo Americano Prescott. Every single other article I've created (there's a list on my userpage, which I presume you've been using) is well sourced. All unsourced would be immediately sourceable if someone challenged their notability, however, unlike Crash. Claritas § 06:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. There's no policy requiring immediate deletion of articles with sourcing issues, and good reason to allow time for articles to develop. Maybe you could cite something relevant, or your objection isn't valid and is likely to be ignored.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have a look at the policies and guidelines, and the ANI discussion about this. Your "keep" rationale isn't valid and likely to be ignored. Best, Verbal chat 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per same reason as last one, "appears to have no significant coverage in reliable sources at all, not even in its country of origin, failing WP:N". Existing does not make it notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because a renomination less than 24hrs after a 'keep' is plain rude and riven with agenda. As other have mentioned, why not give it a fortnight? --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a television series that aired in three countries, and also has an associated book, is notable. I'm quite sure there are reviews of it, and articles about it, just (1) they'll likely be in Danish, Norwegian, and/or Swedish, so not as accessible in English libraries as some, and (2) they'll have been published in 1984/5, so are not necessarily online. This is one of the times when WP:NRVE needs "to be treated with common sense" (which is also a quote from WP:N, for the I-require-chapter-and-verse crowd). --GRuban (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any policy or guideline that supports your keep rationale (I'm genuinely interested if there is). It only lasted one series, and despite being in screened in three countries and having a book (which isn't uncommon) there seems to be a paucity of WP:RS that can confirm anything about this program, even on the other language wikis. Verbal chat 15:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - was the show popular? If yes, then it can be notable. However, not all popular shows can be notable. This show may be little known. The article can be improved. Even thought there may not be a lot of reliable sources. Let's give it another shot. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 01:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or incubate. I'll restate here what I already mentioned on WP:ANI. I'd like to apologize for not making myself more clear in the first AFD. I close a lot of AFDs with little participation as "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate" per WP:NPASR. That was not what I intended to do when closing the first debate. It had been relisted once, had only one delete !vote aside from the nom and had enough participation to make a call. It was obvious that the call was not going to be delete. (well, perhaps an admin could have deleted it under "admin's discression" and watched as it got overturned at DRV) I recognized that most of the keep !votes were rather weak and the nominator's concerns weren't refuted but I also agreed with the last 2 keep !voters about the possibility of there being sources in Danish and/or offline. That's why I closed it like I did. By "quick" I meant "weeks" instead of "months" as is the normal custom for keep closes. I should have been more clear about that as "speedy renomination" has a clear definition but there's no mention in any policy, guideline, or essay of what "quick renomination" means. Furthermore, the article is not a BLP so there is no harm (and yes I know about WP:NOHARM) in allowing the article to stick around for a while to give those who want to keep it a shot at finding sources. However, if the consensus here turns out to be "delete" then incubation should be considered as an option. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per many of the above arguments. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If it takes a week or two, I'll find something to source this, be it on the web or in print media. One way or another, it's gonna get sourced if it kills me, and that is a distinct possibility :D BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 15:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find RS then there is nothing to stop you recreating the article. Would you like it userfied so you can work on it? I'd support that. Verbal chat 15:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, Verbal! If you can userfy it, I guarantee I'll source it. I agree with WP:NOHARM though, and I don't see why some people aren't able to give others a chance to find sources. If it can be userfied, please apply it to my userspace, and I'll refer it through some of my contacts at DR (Danmarks Radio) and see if there is anything printed from their TV guides or in independant media to source and verify it as notable. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, I'd support userfication too until reliable sources can be found. It means we won't have to take this to AFD again, conversely, if no reliable sources are found. Claritas § 15:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)If the closing admin decides to delete (which seems likely, imo) then they will probably see this and move it to your userspace directly. If not, then simply ask them to userfy it. I don't think there'd be any problem with that. I don't think I should move it as I'm involved. Best, Verbal chat
- As nominator, I'd support userfication too until reliable sources can be found. It means we won't have to take this to AFD again, conversely, if no reliable sources are found. Claritas § 15:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, Verbal! If you can userfy it, I guarantee I'll source it. I agree with WP:NOHARM though, and I don't see why some people aren't able to give others a chance to find sources. If it can be userfied, please apply it to my userspace, and I'll refer it through some of my contacts at DR (Danmarks Radio) and see if there is anything printed from their TV guides or in independant media to source and verify it as notable. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find RS then there is nothing to stop you recreating the article. Would you like it userfied so you can work on it? I'd support that. Verbal chat 15:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - In Wikipedia:Notability (films) one of the inclusionary criteria to consider, and which applies here, is: "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." The Transhumanist 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a flim, so that guideline presumably doesn't apply. Claritas § 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly doesn't apply. It is normal for TV shows of this type to be so distributed, and costs to be spread. However, if you have a WP:RS which shows it is "notable for something more than merely having been produced" then that would be great, please tell us. Verbal chat 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a flim, so that guideline presumably doesn't apply. Claritas § 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep This AfD was opened the day after the previous AfD closed as Keep. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyKeep -an immediate renomination is completely disruptive and uncalled for.-- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediate renomination was in good faith and not disruptive, due to a misunderstanding of the closer's reference to "quick renomination" on my behalf. See [1] for an ANI thread concerning a short-lived closure which contains more discussion on the issue. 16:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fine, I've amended to keep. One day is still too short for a renomination. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediate renomination was in good faith and not disruptive, due to a misunderstanding of the closer's reference to "quick renomination" on my behalf. See [1] for an ANI thread concerning a short-lived closure which contains more discussion on the issue. 16:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and userfy. I have searched but not been able to find references asserting notability. Favonian (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 18:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have relisted this for one more week. This will have given the article over three weeks to be sourced. It looks as though it should be sourceable, even if not in English language sources - but as yet, none have been provided. The one existing source does not refer to the program itself. If this reaches 28 June without sourcing being provided, I can see no reason why the closing admin should not close as delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Keep - Ridiculous that so many people are asserting "I searched and couldn't find anything" when sources will almost certainly be Danish and 25 years old. Wikipedia has a huge bias towards online sources as it is, no reason to make it worse. One good editor has promised to find sources for what seems to be a prima facie notable topic, so I don't see how it serves Wikipedia's purpose to delete this for a week or two until that happens.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After this amount of time, "surely sources exist" is unpersuasive, given that they are not in the article. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep per Ron Ritzman. There is the one book and I don't see the issue with waiting a bit to see what can be found in paper-land. Igoring the POINTY nature of the nomination, the lack of sourcing at this point is troubling, but WP:IAR exists for a reason... Hobit (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was nothing pointy about this nomination, and the book is the book of the show, it isn't a review of the program or show notability at all. The lack of sources and valid keep rationales mean this article will be userfied/deleted unless RS is added soon. Verbal chat 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the AfD immediately after the last to be pointy. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The circumstances around the renomination were my misunderstanding of Ron Ritzman's "quick renomination" as equivalent to "speedy renomination". Assume good faith. I didn't withdraw my nomination because I still believe there is a very strong case to delete this unless someone can produce a reliable source. Claritas § 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While this may be unpopular with some inclusionists, I don't see that the article meets WP:V. I've done a 30 year Lexis-Nexis search, including non-English sources, and I cannot find a single reference to the exact title. All procedural nonsense aside, I don't see anything to substantiate this as a real TV series. Userification and a pursuit of offline sources seems appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well [2] would seem to address WP:V worries if I'm reading everything correctly (in Dutch I think). Hobit (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Danish, not surprisingly, and I don't have any doubts about the existence of the show, but since the link is from Danmarks Radio, who made the show in the first place, it's a primary source. We still need those reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability. Favonian (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No disagreement, but saying that WP:V is met (in response to Jclemens). Hobit (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Danish, not surprisingly, and I don't have any doubts about the existence of the show, but since the link is from Danmarks Radio, who made the show in the first place, it's a primary source. We still need those reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability. Favonian (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well [2] would seem to address WP:V worries if I'm reading everything correctly (in Dutch I think). Hobit (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The series exists [3] and it was aired on television [4]. It is an early work for Danish award winning actor Peter Steen. He won best supporting actor at the Bodil Awards and the Robert Awards in 2004. Both are major film awards in Denmark. The series has a page on each of the Scandanavian language Wikipedias that the show aired in. This article is handicapped by being about a Danish television programme on an English language website and being from an era before the internet. Movementarian (Talk) 16:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources establish notability of the subject of this article? Verbal chat 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dammit Verbal. I knew you'd be the first one to call me out on my flimsy argument. I got nothing, but I don't speak Danish. This article was never given a chance, it was simply nominated for deletion. WP:N suggests that articles not satisfying the notability guideline be tagged with {{notability}}. We have an editor that has stated he will be actively researching for this article, give it some time to develop. If it hasn't been touched in a few weeks, then renominate it and I'll be there to argue for deletion. Movementarian (Talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I aim to please ;) See the note at the top of the AfD. I would support userfication. Verbal chat 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am having a problem letting this one go. Television series that were broadcast nationally or internationally are generally notable. We can't find sources at the moment because of the dual handicap this article faces. Common sense tells me that if the series exists (which we can establish) and that it was broadcast internationally (which this one was), it is notable despite the lack of references. I think WP:IAR might be applicable here. Movementarian (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my previous arguments. --Bensin (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Astrid Peth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For the same reasons suggested for Adam Mitchell. Companion has only appeared in a single episode and fails to warrant an article of her own. magnius (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Hardly your typical one-shot character. Plenty of out of universe information in the article meeting the WP:GNG by light years. That its also considered a Good Article also works heavilly in its favor. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- although I would typically say merge for a simple one episode character, there is enough info here to warrent its own article and enough references to justify notability. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep GA articles need to be delisted before being nominated for deletion. Keep it anyway per the other information in the article. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep one episode character but there are enough sources to WP:verify notability including reception. Might merge to the article about the episode itself but that can be discussed later. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2010 (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lady Christina de Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For the same reasons stated for Adam Mitchell. Companion has only appeared in a single episode and fails to warrant an article of her own. Merger and deletion of main article suggested. magnius (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Plenty of out of universe information in the article, so hardly your typical one-shot character. Meets the GNG by light years, and there's simply too much verifiable out of universe information in the article that a merge isn't a viable option either. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: My reading of WP:N for these articles is the amount out of universe information available. Although this character appears in only one episode, she is played by a well known actress, and the casting made an impact at the time so there are lots of production and reception information. Edgepedia (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of independent RS coverage. The fact that the character wasn't all that important isn't actually a detriment to notability, given the coverage. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seen enough sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Star Wars Revisited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fan edit film, doesn't seem notable enough. Except for one brief newspaper article, all other sources are fan edit forums. Google search just turns up blogs and forums. Dayewalker (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Star Wars A New Hope Revisited falls under the same guidelines of The Phantom Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_Edit. If you actually seen this version of Star Wars you'd understand how important it is regardless of being a fan edit and it should be recorded for posterity. —Preceding JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 03:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— JediTenken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As per other evidence of notability: 1. The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, etc. Star Wars Revisited is an extremely advanced amateur edit of one of the most popular feature films ever made. It's notable of its own accord, as a milestone of amateur film editing, regardless of it's source material. Article should be preserved.Usa1936 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Usa1936 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adywan and Star Wars Revisited was also featured in the movie *The People vs George Lucasand the director spoke about Adywans work in this *Interviewwhich also gives an example of this edit. This article should not be deleted Vizualeyez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC). — Vizualeyez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Weak Keep One reliable reference, and i09.com seems credibly independent and a professional outfit. If kept, the waffly, unreferenced and unreliably-referenced material could be removed; to a stub if necessary. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep despite the SPA interest. As Baffle notes, the film is receiving coverage. Yes, article will require cleanup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Phantom Edit was covered by several mainstream media outlets and the best this one can muster is a blog, which doesn't count as a reliable source. There are many fan edits of Star Wars, and this one is no more notable than any other one. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:FYI, the principle reference is from a US local newspaper The Meridian Star.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:So it relies heavily on a local newspaper. The Phantom Edit had coverage on a national scale from several major media outlets. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The mere fact that this edit exists is worth of noting in cinematic history as an amazing accomplishment. Furthermore the reason why the Phantom edit was covered so widely was the it was distributed around studios in hollywood thus making it "mainstream". It was looking for attention... However, for the most part, Adywan's Revisited has been mainly word to mouth between fans and doesn't seek attention in such a self-serving way. Revisited has been very much for the fans, edited by a fan, and greatly fan appreciated:
ANH Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=85531634143&ref=ts ESB Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=316830255423&ref=ts ROTJ Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=191796765221&ref=ts The Revisited Series Fan page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Adywans-Star-Wars-Revisited-Series/298232097264?ref=ts Delete it or not, regardless Revisited is out there and it's already apart of history. JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 07:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Yes. And the same can be said for many edits on the Fan Edits website. I'm sure that a significant amount of effort went into creating this edit and others. That doesn't mean they are all of worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:But where other fanedits, including The Phantom Edit, just remove or rearrange existing footage in a movie, the Revisited edit(s) took fan edits to a whole new level by creating new effects and enhancing the movies visuals, which no other fan edit had done before in this way. It took the world of fan editing to a whole new level and therefore it is an important entry and should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizualeyez (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:It is very true many effects shots were enhance or replaced entirely. The audio was also enhanced further and remixed. Errors in continuity via audio and visual were fixed along with additions from the original Star Wars Radio drama was used in key places. New scenes were added without breaking the flow of the film and very much done with ILM like precision. Here's a picture list of comparisons from ANH Revisited:
http://picasaweb.google.com/doubleofive/ANHRVisualComparison#. This is no mere fan edit, it is very much unique and sets a new precedent for fan edits everywhere. So it can't really be said tht Revisited is in the same catagory as other fan edit.
- Delete as the nominator. I was holding off to see if anyone else was able to find more sourcing (I wasn't). This just isn't notable now. I understand the SPA's insistence that the edit is notable for creative reasons, but there are hundreds of Star Wars fan films out there. Phantom Edit drew some major attention from reliable secondary sources. This one hasn't. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If that's the case then Adywan himself belongs under these guidline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARTIST#Creative_professionals if not Star Wars Revisited as a stand alone achievement in cinematic art. Suggest deletion here which is fine however, the main point is that there are thousands of different people that know about him and his edit and appreciate it regardless of how "mainstream" it's been and that number increases. Especially with Empire Strikes Back Revisited scheduled to be released in 2011.JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't see anything in that link that applies here. If you feel the creator is notable, feel free to create a Wikipedia page for him. Dayewalker (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This edit is receiving coverage and another reliable secondary source reference to Adywan's edit has been added from a reputable magazine PC WORLD. The Phantom Edit only gained attention due to the distribution around Hollywood studios whereas this edit has gained major attention purely from word of mouth. To delete this entry would be wrong. But i agree that the article does need cleaning up a little Vizualeyez (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Star Wars Revisited and/or Adywan have been noted in:
- a U.S. local newspaper, The Meridian Star
- the documentary film The People v. George Lucas
- an independent, professional blog website io9.com (itself with a Wikipedia article)
- the international magazine PC World
Does that not suffice for it's inclusion in Wikipedia? IssueLips (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - References in third-party sources are fleeting; product has not garnered significant coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2010 (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. Consensus is that this is a good synthesis but not for wikipedia. Happy to userfuly somewhere is someone wants to transwiki the material to a more suitable external site. Leave a note on my talk if you want to do that. Spartaz Humbug! 17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of science fiction film and television series by lengths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list is entirely redundant to List of science fiction films, List of science fiction television programs and List of science fiction television films. Per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:SALAT, we don't need an independent list which indicates the length of programs. If timings are considered relevant, they can be added to the main lists. The last two AFDs ended in no consensus, mainly due to keep !votes based on the fact that an earlier discussion in 2006 resulted in consensus to keep. Claritas § 16:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:SALAT. I can't imagine the usefulness of a list that sorts science fiction series and films by total running time. Movementarian (Talk) 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO/WP:NOTDIR. Days hours minutes? Come on! Redundant with better list articles where run time could be included if absolutely necessary (it isn't).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL aren't reasons for me to say keep. Although I appreciate the effort that was put into this, it's the very definition of "original synthesis", and even good OR is still OR, good trivia is still trivia, and good cruft is still cruft. However, I hope that the closing administrator will give the article's creator time to put this information onto the entertainment wikis for the various shows, where it would get a more favorable reception. Within Memory Alpha, for instance, it is useful and interesting to know that one could spend 23 days watching the Star Trek universe (or 4,014 minutes watching the original series, which works out to something like slightly less than 3 days). While I see no policy that would justify having this maintained here, the information would be most welcome in places where OR is accepted. Hopefully, the folks in Deletionpedia will leave the lights on as well. Mandsford 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd like to keep the content available, why not put it into your userspace temporarily ? Claritas § 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete mostly per WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Reyk YO! 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki this interesting piece of Original Research elsewhere, please. (...and then delete it, of course) I gotta admire the effort here, but really? As a rule of thumb, anything that talks about "canon" needs to have a cannon taken to at least that part of the article: we don't debate canon here. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- um, somehow preserve this somewhere else and give the creator a gold star for original research yes, this doesnt belong here, but its actually kind of brilliant. it needs to be made dynamic, so you can sort by total time, then it would be awesome. then, expanded to include all other dramatic works in series, not just SF. I wonder if people would actually PAY to visit the site if really fleshed out? oh, and of course, if the site this is sent to becomes notable for this piece of work, we can then create an article about it. good luck.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move somewhere else Definitely gold star material, but pure OR that should be saved somewhere. If nothing else, keep it as an example of OR that can't be kept here! htom (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and modify — I created this page over five years ago when I was a nerdy undergrad who didn't understand what Wikipedia was for. It seems out-of-place in the encyclopedia now, but I nevertheless am not sure that I can vote to delete. The information in it was derived from addition, so it's no more WP:OR than are age calculation templates. Furthermore, I've seen this list linked to from other sites, which gives me the impression that it is notable. I don't think it's redundant to the lists linked by the nominator because those are for just films or television series. I think it would be useful to have a list of series across media, although the list would need to be re-designed for that purpose. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont think that the addition of times is that straightforward. You, and others, have had to decide which shows were canon or non canon, research the runtimes, which are not always noted at their wp articles. i dont think this would be out of place here if it was simply listed somewhere else, and some indication of how many people viewed it could be provided. But i can see how a case can be made for the additions being trivial. unfortunately, sites linking to this article cant qualify as an argument for notability, but it does point to this information being valuable to some, thus potentially notable. cant find the links myself, but that would be hard to do.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It list the series, how many episodes they had, and how long every episode or film lasted. Some people might be interested to see how long things lasted. If any information is sincerely doubted as valid, you can easily find confirmation in the primary source. Amazon and other places that sell films, list how many minutes long they are. Dream Focus 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I think it's an interesting piece so it would be good if it could be preserved somewhere - maybe there's a sci-fi wiki that could use it - but it is in essence original research. The added up numbers themselves are borderline but for me the real issue is that this method of classification seems to have no precedent. Even if all the information can be reliably sourced - which is in itself somewhat questionable - using it in this novel way is synthesis. Guest9999 (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2010 (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.
Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions
- None currently