Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not in Portland (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 was Delete - no reason it can't be recreated if reliable sources can be provided. Yomangani^talk 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not in Portland (Lost)

Article is for a rumored future episode of Lost (TV series). It contains no referenced information, only unsubstantiated rumors. Violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Milo H Minderbinder 16:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PKtm 16:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NOT a crystalball.--Isotope23 16:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. When the air date gets closer, it will need to be re-created, so I suggest one of the Lost fanatics userfy this to avoid extra work in the future. -bobby 16:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete My crystal ball says this will be deleted. EVula 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per above. SergeantBolt (t,c) 21:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. There seems to be enough information on the web that this is the title, that it's a Juliet-centric episode, and that's it been written by Jeff Pinkner. [1]. The source listed here is the "Ask Ausiello" section of the New Zealand TV Guide [2]. Though I realize this is tenuous, it's good enough for me. Plus it seems like it would be a waste of time for us to delete this article, simply to re-create it in a short period of time. --Elonka 21:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment There are certainly websites saying this, but are they reliable sources? One seems to be a fansite with no documentation on where the got the info, and the other is a blog that doesn't even say the title came from the Ausiello Report (which is a rumor column, not a reliable source either). This title certainly is rumored, but I don't see how it can be seen as encyclopediac fact, especially when rumors from these kinds of sites is often wrong. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball, with no prejudice against recreation if it is revealed to be an actual episode. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not there either; certainly wish I was. --Wareq 07:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We may consider this a rumor, but in our hearts we all know that this information is true. Maybe we should not add it to the season three template or to the episode list, but keep it in the background because it will be recreated in a few months anyway. --theDemonHog 20:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Stephen Colbert may base truthiness on what's in his gut, but we don't base articles on what's "in our hearts". As the nom noted, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Leflyman^Talk 20:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but add references - This information is pretty well known to be fact by all reliable and available sources. There are 1000s of wikipedia articles with outright lies in them, most of this information can be substantiated on external links. Crystal Ball? This article was created after various sources suggested this content. There will be an Olympics in London in 2012, should we not post an article on that either? Testerer 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: That's the point: If it's "pretty well known to be fact" then it should be simple to verify -- yet there are no "reliable and available sources" for this rumoured episode title. Wikipedia does not publish articles on rumours or speculation. --Leflyman^Talk 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If "this information can be substantiated on external links", just provide those links. And the question isn't whether there will be an episode 307 of Lost, but whether this title (and other facts) are verifiable. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain: The article doesn't have good enough citation but equally rumoured episode titles this year have actually been 100% accurate, so this will probably be the 3x07 title. However, yes in terms of policy IMO it isn't a good enough source --Nickb123 3rd 10:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, if references can be found. Riverbend 19:29, 8 November 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.