Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Census (Lost)

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 delete. No Guru 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Island Census (Lost)

Was formally Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Island Census, merged back into Characters of Lost page and split off again. Unencyclopedic and not complete, believed by many users on Talk:Characters of Lost#Census split. Delete. -- Wikipedical 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this is fancruft that belongs on a fansite, not on an encyclopedia. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic, or even close. -- PKtm 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above--Bill 22:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Rillian 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given by nominator. DVD+ R/W 01:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42 times, if necessary. -- GWO
• Merge There's never going to be a real concensus on this page. It needs to be merged back and left on the main page. Kant2k6
• Speedy delete per consensus of previous AfD. ed g2s • talk 19:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. It belongs on a fansite. Chris 42 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and do not merge, per nom and GWO. -Whomp 22:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge it back with Characters of Lost page--Gonzalo84 01:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, with deletion of redundant information that is replicated on the Characters of Lost page and possible greater clarity on information that is 100% canonical (from the show) and of a lower level of canon (from the podcasts, website diary and novels). Also only those dates specifically mentioned in The Other 48 Days and other episodes should be used: for example, in the Season 2 finale Locke isn't sure if it's 60 or 65 days since the crash, so the Day 65 references are speculative.--Werthead 14:19, 28 May 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.