| Revision as of 04:13, 29 July 2009 editA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:15, 29 July 2009 edit undoA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits fixed indentNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| ****It is a weak "reason", because 1) it demonstrates no evidence of having actually looked for sources or considered the discussion, nor does it demonstrate any knowledge or familiarity with the subject under discussion; 2) it is inconsiderate to the article creator and writers to approach their work in a drive by three word fashion rather than through careful thought and analysis; and 3) is doubly weakened due to the nomination presenting no reason why we would not at worst redirect per ] and ], i.e. the nomination says the information can be covered elsewhere, which is a call to merge and/or redirect, not really to red link. There is no evidence presented that these subjects are hoaxes or libelous and therefroe need to be urgently deleted. Moreover, given that at least Salvation, Texas may be a real place is a reason to rewrite rather than redlink the article. In other words, ideas and points of concern raised beyond the nomination and that the nomination itself does not address, which makes a "per nom" seem remarkably weak and reflects poorly on the poster as if the discussion was not really read and as if no efforts were made beyond the discussion to find additional sources or first try to improve the articles under consideration. We are here to build and try to improve an encyclopedia and have mature academic discussions on how to deal with content, not to simply vote. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 02:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | ****It is a weak "reason", because 1) it demonstrates no evidence of having actually looked for sources or considered the discussion, nor does it demonstrate any knowledge or familiarity with the subject under discussion; 2) it is inconsiderate to the article creator and writers to approach their work in a drive by three word fashion rather than through careful thought and analysis; and 3) is doubly weakened due to the nomination presenting no reason why we would not at worst redirect per ] and ], i.e. the nomination says the information can be covered elsewhere, which is a call to merge and/or redirect, not really to red link. There is no evidence presented that these subjects are hoaxes or libelous and therefroe need to be urgently deleted. Moreover, given that at least Salvation, Texas may be a real place is a reason to rewrite rather than redlink the article. In other words, ideas and points of concern raised beyond the nomination and that the nomination itself does not address, which makes a "per nom" seem remarkably weak and reflects poorly on the poster as if the discussion was not really read and as if no efforts were made beyond the discussion to find additional sources or first try to improve the articles under consideration. We are here to build and try to improve an encyclopedia and have mature academic discussions on how to deal with content, not to simply vote. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 02:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *****You have neglected to mention that you were wrong to link to an essay that does not say what you claimed it said, and you regret this error. ] (]) 02:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | *****You have neglected to mention that you were wrong to link to an essay that does not say what you claimed it said, and you regret this error. ] (]) 02:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ******I linked to an essay titled "Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions". Given that the nomination really suggests merges and does not discount redirecting as valid per ] and ], saying to delete per nom is still not really a convincing reason to red link even per the guideline as the nomination in this case did not demonstrate evidence of source searching or other alternatives and if anything does not suggest that something other than outright deletion, such as merging or redirecting would be totally uncalled for. Even one of the others who said to delete above, acknowledges that because Salvation, Texas may be a real city it merits consideration of rewriting the article to be about the real city and perhaps having a section of such an article on how it has been fictionalized could be a better alternative. Where have you checked for sources? What we could do is start revising on that model and see where it takes us. Regards, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''Keep or merge as last resort''' standard fictional entry that is verifiable and notable, it appears too big to merge into the main article. --] (]) 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | '''Keep or merge as last resort''' standard fictional entry that is verifiable and notable, it appears too big to merge into the main article. --] (]) 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:15, 29 July 2009
Grail (DC Comics)
- Grail (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This is a minor plot point in the Preacher comic series. It has no chance for expansion, and anything important is already included within the main article. TTN (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I am also nominating an another minor plot point that cannot be properly expanded into an article that asserts independent notability:
- Delete per nom. Savidan 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:PERNOM is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Salvation, Texas" is actually the title of a book and so at worst should be made into a disambiguation page if not a new article about that book. Affaire de Coeur, Medwest Book Review, All About Romance, and Romance Reade at Heart, for example, have all praised this book, calling it "A first-class Romantic suspense tale," a "fine thriller," "a treat to read a good book set in Texas that really felt authentic," and "A good solid read, with great characters and a face paced plot," respectively. Thus, in any case "Salvation, Texas" should not be a redlink. Moreover, it be the name of a real location per this, which notes that "In 1895, Allen J. Smith found ova of hookworm in a privy in Salvation, Texas." Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- This deserves consideration. There is also a short German movie that has an imdb page. Abductive (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Merge to the comic's page. Breakout not necessary, and nn. JJL (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, this is a plot regurgitation which has not garnered any outside interest. Abductive (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Refer editors to WP:WAF. If applied, most of the content will be removed, and a merge to Preacher (comics) would be appropriate. If that article needs splitting, there are better things to form independent articles that these pages nominated here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Merge to the comic's page, which is only 22kb total anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:PERNOM is not a compelling reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your opinion, as well as your link to an essay; however, it is just an essay and it doesn't seem to say what you think it does. Keep in mind that an essay is full of opinions, not indisputable facts. As it says on the top of the essay you linked to, "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Also, the essay you've linked to explains that "just because an argument appears here does not mean that it is always invalid." It goes on to explain in the specific section you linked to, "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by 'per nom'." So, you just linked to an opinion piece that says "per nom" can be, in the opinion of its authors, a sufficient comment for this discussion if I feel, as I do, that the nominator has made a compelling presentation of evidence. In the future, don't link to essays as if they are indisputable laws, and take the time to read carefully an opinion piece before linking to it with a dismissive comment. Otherwise, you just not only look condescending and misinformed, but illiterate. Best, Blackbirdz (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is a weak "reason", because 1) it demonstrates no evidence of having actually looked for sources or considered the discussion, nor does it demonstrate any knowledge or familiarity with the subject under discussion; 2) it is inconsiderate to the article creator and writers to approach their work in a drive by three word fashion rather than through careful thought and analysis; and 3) is doubly weakened due to the nomination presenting no reason why we would not at worst redirect per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, i.e. the nomination says the information can be covered elsewhere, which is a call to merge and/or redirect, not really to red link. There is no evidence presented that these subjects are hoaxes or libelous and therefroe need to be urgently deleted. Moreover, given that at least Salvation, Texas may be a real place is a reason to rewrite rather than redlink the article. In other words, ideas and points of concern raised beyond the nomination and that the nomination itself does not address, which makes a "per nom" seem remarkably weak and reflects poorly on the poster as if the discussion was not really read and as if no efforts were made beyond the discussion to find additional sources or first try to improve the articles under consideration. We are here to build and try to improve an encyclopedia and have mature academic discussions on how to deal with content, not to simply vote. Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- You have neglected to mention that you were wrong to link to an essay that does not say what you claimed it said, and you regret this error. Blackbirdz (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I linked to an essay titled "Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions". Given that the nomination really suggests merges and does not discount redirecting as valid per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, saying to delete per nom is still not really a convincing reason to red link even per the guideline as the nomination in this case did not demonstrate evidence of source searching or other alternatives and if anything does not suggest that something other than outright deletion, such as merging or redirecting would be totally uncalled for. Even one of the others who said to delete above, acknowledges that because Salvation, Texas may be a real city it merits consideration of rewriting the article to be about the real city and perhaps having a section of such an article on how it has been fictionalized could be a better alternative. Where have you checked for sources? What we could do is start revising on that model and see where it takes us. Regards, --A Nobody 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- You have neglected to mention that you were wrong to link to an essay that does not say what you claimed it said, and you regret this error. Blackbirdz (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is a weak "reason", because 1) it demonstrates no evidence of having actually looked for sources or considered the discussion, nor does it demonstrate any knowledge or familiarity with the subject under discussion; 2) it is inconsiderate to the article creator and writers to approach their work in a drive by three word fashion rather than through careful thought and analysis; and 3) is doubly weakened due to the nomination presenting no reason why we would not at worst redirect per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, i.e. the nomination says the information can be covered elsewhere, which is a call to merge and/or redirect, not really to red link. There is no evidence presented that these subjects are hoaxes or libelous and therefroe need to be urgently deleted. Moreover, given that at least Salvation, Texas may be a real place is a reason to rewrite rather than redlink the article. In other words, ideas and points of concern raised beyond the nomination and that the nomination itself does not address, which makes a "per nom" seem remarkably weak and reflects poorly on the poster as if the discussion was not really read and as if no efforts were made beyond the discussion to find additional sources or first try to improve the articles under consideration. We are here to build and try to improve an encyclopedia and have mature academic discussions on how to deal with content, not to simply vote. Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your opinion, as well as your link to an essay; however, it is just an essay and it doesn't seem to say what you think it does. Keep in mind that an essay is full of opinions, not indisputable facts. As it says on the top of the essay you linked to, "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Also, the essay you've linked to explains that "just because an argument appears here does not mean that it is always invalid." It goes on to explain in the specific section you linked to, "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by 'per nom'." So, you just linked to an opinion piece that says "per nom" can be, in the opinion of its authors, a sufficient comment for this discussion if I feel, as I do, that the nominator has made a compelling presentation of evidence. In the future, don't link to essays as if they are indisputable laws, and take the time to read carefully an opinion piece before linking to it with a dismissive comment. Otherwise, you just not only look condescending and misinformed, but illiterate. Best, Blackbirdz (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:PERNOM is not a compelling reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep or merge as last resort standard fictional entry that is verifiable and notable, it appears too big to merge into the main article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Categories: