Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHARMA Initiative stations

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 of the debate was keep. Sango123 15:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DHARMA Initiative stations

Delete — non-notable fancruft. Delete or transwiki to Lostpedia. (Lostpedia is not a MediaWiki wiki and thus transwiki-ing is not available. ‐ M.) — Mike 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm suprised this wasn't nominated earlier. Since you did not provide a reason to delete this article, abstain for me. I don't think their is a way to transwiki articles to non Media-Wiki owned wikis, though. -Whomp 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Err, correct on that reasoning. Sorry. Edited that. — Mike 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Changing to weak delete per nom. -Whomp 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Change back to abstain, because I can't make up my mind. -Whomp 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Query It'd be a shame (I think) to just delete, but I'm not sure what precedent there is for this sort of thing -- could it perhaps be Merged into the Lost article (or is that too big already?) Zero sharp 20:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. (Note: I am one of the principal editors on this article.) Nominator has provided no rationale for deletion in keeping with Deletion policy or Guide to deletion. "Fancruft" is not in and of itself a valid reasoning. Further, the nom appears to be on a mass AfD campaign against fiction articles, contrary to WP:POINT.--Leflyman^Talk 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

comment Note the adjective "non-notable" (also, notability essay). Further, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Finally — unfortunately not exactly new to me by this point in the day — incivil assumption of bad faith on the part of the respondent, who attempted to delete the AfD header from the page and appears to have come here after discovering that didn't really work. — Mike 23:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment: one may well claim that any part of Lost one is unfamiliar with is "non-notable". However, with plenty of verifiable news sources, that appears to be a particularly difficult argument to make. To wit: Counting down secrets of the ‘Lost’ hatch (MSNBC); ‘Lost’ thinks outside the hatch (also MSNBC); ‘Lost’ horizon: Shedding light on season 2 (Boston Herald/Zap2it); and plenty more. Certainly, as with many other articles, this one could do with some good editorial scissors, and inclusion of more sources-- but that hardly makes it deletion-worthy. Finally, it was not an assumption of bad faith on my part, but an incident notice on today's Administrator's noticeboard about the nom's AfD campaigning. --Leflyman^Talk 05:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. While this page can and should be maintained so that everyone, not just fans, can read it, the current content is not fancruft. And per Leflyman. -- Wikipedical 23:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep There was A LOT of discussion before this article was created. Please see Talk: The DHARMA Initiative. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: I know fancruft when I see one, I have put many fancruft articles where they belong, this contains important info about a strong theme in LOST and it must stay. The stations play an important role in the series. Fancruft would be making an article for each station, then I say it went too far. Keeping all the stations in one page is perfect and that's the way to do it. --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep' as per above! Nertz 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Muhaidib and Leflyman -Whomp 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - useful, informative, relevant. Anand 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Leflyman. A relevant set of information about Lost. Wolfsbane Kane 12:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: no reason in nom, not fancruft. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per reasoning given. Voice of Treason 13:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per mo and jtrost. ArgentiumOutlaw 16:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Doesn't contain any theories, all information offered appears on the show. There has been a whole lot of effort in producing this page, it would be an act of vandalism to delete it. --Factorylad 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is way above the average standard of TV show article. DJ Clayworth 15:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - A good article on a subject of reasonable notability. -Litefantastic 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep-This is something someone might want to know about. I don't think it's fancruft. --Kahlfin 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above discussion. A well-written article which may appeal to many readers. --[User:doubleplusungood|doubleplusungood]] 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• 'Keep, because it is a vital aspect of the show. SergeantBolt 22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, although I see the nomination as a hint that the article needs some rewriting to appeal to a broader audience. Arru 12:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but gosh it needs editing. I kept reading because I was interested, but it was so long and repetitive, that it was making me yawn. Please de-Zork-ify the obsessive and exhausting list of prop items.--24.18.254.237 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• note this is this author's first contribution. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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.