The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has no
reliably sourced evidence of
notability.
Tagged with {{
notability}}
23 November 2007
with no improvements in the interim.
I initially tagged the article with {{
prod}}
stating: "Article lacks evidence of
notability, consisting of
plot and
trivia", but immediately returned and
redirected the article to
List of Heroes episodes#Season 1: 2006-2007 as more apropos. Redirection
reverted by
Edokter (
talk ·
contribs): "Revert redirect/contest PROD. Please send to Articles for Deletion." Per user's request. —
pd_THOR |
=/\= |
21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Secondly, I prefer/advocate the redirection of the page as I attempted to do initially (see above). a) This would preserve the integrity of internal links pointing to this page and b) would preserve the history of the page, so that should the requisite real-world resources for notability come out, further editors can restore sections of the original article w/o the duplication of effort. However, as noted initially, my redirection of the page to its appropos target was reverted, and I was pointed "to Articles for Deletion" instead.
Failing redirection, the article does not meet the notability guideline for articular inclusion. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Secondly, I don't understand where you're coming from with the assertion that Wikipedia should have equitable articles as any specialist encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure there's no basis for that; am I misunderstanding you on this point? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The Transhumanist 09:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Deleting this article would result in the plot summary "going down the drain". That hard work can only be retained by keeping the article. Or asking it be undeleted by an admin should it warrant. Or copied to your userspace. Or watching/reading about the episode and rewriting it.
Ultimately, this stupid AfD process wastes hundreds of hours of work every day (if not more so). But it's instrumental in keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedic resource as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm sorry you disagree with that policy, but it is. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has no
reliably sourced evidence of
notability.
Tagged with {{
notability}}
23 November 2007
with no improvements in the interim.
I initially tagged the article with {{
prod}}
stating: "Article lacks evidence of
notability, consisting of
plot and
trivia", but immediately returned and
redirected the article to
List of Heroes episodes#Season 1: 2006-2007 as more apropos. Redirection
reverted by
Edokter (
talk ·
contribs): "Revert redirect/contest PROD. Please send to Articles for Deletion." Per user's request. —
pd_THOR |
=/\= |
21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Secondly, I prefer/advocate the redirection of the page as I attempted to do initially (see above). a) This would preserve the integrity of internal links pointing to this page and b) would preserve the history of the page, so that should the requisite real-world resources for notability come out, further editors can restore sections of the original article w/o the duplication of effort. However, as noted initially, my redirection of the page to its appropos target was reverted, and I was pointed "to Articles for Deletion" instead.
Failing redirection, the article does not meet the notability guideline for articular inclusion. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Secondly, I don't understand where you're coming from with the assertion that Wikipedia should have equitable articles as any specialist encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure there's no basis for that; am I misunderstanding you on this point? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The Transhumanist 09:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Deleting this article would result in the plot summary "going down the drain". That hard work can only be retained by keeping the article. Or asking it be undeleted by an admin should it warrant. Or copied to your userspace. Or watching/reading about the episode and rewriting it.
Ultimately, this stupid AfD process wastes hundreds of hours of work every day (if not more so). But it's instrumental in keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedic resource as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm sorry you disagree with that policy, but it is. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply