Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate Future (Heroes)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Closed early under WP:SNOW. Kafziel Talk 14:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate Future (Heroes)

Alternate Future (Heroes) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article seems to be a direct copy of Five Years Gone, but with alot of original research added. Not only that, but it violates WP:COPYVIO, WP:PLOT, ect. This article should be deleted and not merged, since the infomation in Five Years Gone and the Heroes character articles are way better written then what the person who created Alternate Future (Heroes) did. dposse 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete the only info we know came from the episode and should be kept in the episode as their is more then one Alt. Future according to whats happened so far. The Placebo Effect 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that specifically includes plot summaries. Kafziel Talk 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this fancrufty nonsense. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete seems pointless and redundent.Harlock jds 20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Info is relevant only to a single episode, and as pointed out by User:The Placebo Effect, there are multiple "alternate futures" by its very definition. --Pentasyllabic 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dposse. ThuranX 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Terribly written, original research, etc. I agree with Dposse. The Hippie 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - big fan of the show, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. -- Chuq (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Horrible and useless -- Lyverbe 11:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per everything stated before, specially, user Lyverbe.Vicco Lizcano 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC) (Hey! Listen!)
  • Delete - Concur with the above. It's a duplicate of an existing article, it contains significant amounts of original research, and sets an awfully bad precedent. ZZ 14:47, 3 May 2007 (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.