| Revision as of 02:03, 26 July 2010 editTaroaldo (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,621 edits →Graboid: Keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:03, 26 July 2010 edit undoTaroaldo (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,621 editsm →Graboid: adj.Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| '''Delete''' - previous nomination closed no consensus and in the interim no new potential sources appear to have emerged. There is no indication that this fictional creature is independently notable. Those few sources which mention it do so either completely in an in-universe capacity (describing the plots of one or more of the films or the TV series) or mention the creature in passing. It fails both the ] and the ]. There is no question that the ''Tremors'' films are notable. However, the notability of a work of fiction does not mean that every aspect or element within that work of fiction is notable. ] (]) 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | '''Delete''' - previous nomination closed no consensus and in the interim no new potential sources appear to have emerged. There is no indication that this fictional creature is independently notable. Those few sources which mention it do so either completely in an in-universe capacity (describing the plots of one or more of the films or the TV series) or mention the creature in passing. It fails both the ] and the ]. There is no question that the ''Tremors'' films are notable. However, the notability of a work of fiction does not mean that every aspect or element within that work of fiction is notable. ] (]) 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| '''Keep'''. ] is sufficiently ] within the scope of ]. There is sufficient viable content to warrant its own article: incorporation into a "Tremors" article would be problematic given the weight of the article and the fact that there are multiple "Tremors" articles (movies, TV series, etc.) ] (]) 02:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. ] is sufficiently ] within the scope of ]. There is sufficient viable content to warrant its own article: incorporation into a "Tremors" article would be problematic given the weight of the article and the fact that there are multiple "Tremors" articles (movies, TV series, etc.) ] (]) 02:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:03, 26 July 2010
Graboid
AfDs for this article:- Graboid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - previous nomination closed no consensus and in the interim no new potential sources appear to have emerged. There is no indication that this fictional creature is independently notable. Those few sources which mention it do so either completely in an in-universe capacity (describing the plots of one or more of the films or the TV series) or mention the creature in passing. It fails both the general notability guideline and the guideline for writing about fiction. There is no question that the Tremors films are notable. However, the notability of a work of fiction does not mean that every aspect or element within that work of fiction is notable. Otto4711 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Graboid is sufficiently notable within the scope of WP:WAF. There is sufficient viable content to warrant its own article: incorporation into a "Tremors" article would be problematic given the weight of the article and the fact that there are multiple "Tremors" articles (movies, TV series, etc.) Taroaldo (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)