Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enter Magneto

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 Keep/ For details see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Enter Magneto. JERRY talk contribs 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enter Magneto

Enter Magneto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a non-notable episode that fails to provide real world context with reliable sources. Just so nobody gets confused, the one source provided is using what the episode claims to be based off of to cite what the show was based off of, so it certainly isn't valid. All of the other episodes of this series, except for the first episode, have been redirected, so this one also doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • AFD guidelines require that you do a check for posible sources before nominateing. Have you done so?Geni 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. I didn't find anything. You're free to look, though. TTN (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Impressive. Your claim in the opening of only one source isn't quite true see. If you will scroll to the end of the article you will see there are a couple of others. Which means that your search was so poor it failed to find sources that were sitting in the article you nominated for deletion. You should probably have also turned up this if only to mention you didn't think it was a valid source.Geni 01:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A fan site not known for its reliable reviews and a blurb of plot summary are not usable sources, so they don't count. If you can show that the site that you brought up is used in general articles, it may work (not on its own though). I'm not going to list every invalid source possible, so there is no point in bringing them up. I just used the only one that was actually cited. TTN (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For some reason, and take no offense at this, I'm not inclined to believe you. Are you sure this so-called "search" is THOROUGH enough, or did you just google the name of the vid, look at about 7 words in all the pages, and decide it's not suitable information? I doubt you would done it THAT quick if you did it on the same day. --ZeroGiga (Contact) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I knew that he was going to bring up this strange logic that I must somehow prove a negative or show that its unlikely when someone can just claim that the search wasn't thorough enough, so I actually looked for usable sources. I didn't find any that would hold an article. TTN (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If that is the case, MERGE with the other video articles, but don't just wipe it out. This is just a suggestion, okay? (Looks) Hold on, there ARE no other video articles, are there? (Smacks face) Oh well, just DELETE and get it over with, then.--ZeroGiga (Contact) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it valid to redirect all but 3 episodes, and then cite that redirection as one of the reasons this episode should be deleted? Astronaut (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My point was to emphasize that the first episode was the only one that currently has any reason to exist. TTN (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You didn't get your way in trying to redirect this episode, so you thought you would try to get it deleted? So, yes, I think you are trying to make a point. Astronaut (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There are currently no alternative venues for this because Geni just randomly and indiscriminately reverts some of my redirects for some pointy reasons, so there are no people actually willing to discuss (and there is like one editor that even touches these). TTN (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It is unfortunate, but you are the one continuing with the reverts and AfD for pointy reasons. Why are you SO sure this article must be redirected or deleted that you are conducted a small edit war to try to get your way? In fact, the opinion of more than one editor is that this article should stay, and I suspect that if you had given them the chance, more than one editor would have wanted to keep all the episodes over your redirects. Astronaut (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The edit war was to keep a user's pointy reverts at bay, not because someone was actually trying to keep the article based upon true merits (he has done this with at least twenty other articles). The one user actually interested in keeping them is fine with working in his sandbox, and any others are just people here just because I am the nominator. If this had been anyone else, the article would still be a redirect or this would be a strait merge/redirect/delete thing. TTN (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Geni's comments. And along with the sources in the article, there are books sources: [1], [2]. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Those are just common names. They have nothing to do with this episode. TTN (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • How is it wrong? The first is a book based on X-Men that seems to be one of those books that help kids learn how to read (at least from comments on another site), and the second is a chapter that is introducing Magneto to the reader. TTN (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the first book is fine, and can be used as a reference or in a note section for the plot. The second book mentions the character Magneto, and an episode that "Enter Magneto" was based on, "Uncanny X-Men #1." Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The episode covers the plot summary, which has nothing to do with notability. Can you point out the page and quote for the second one? Even then, that won't really work without someone who wrote the episode stating it, and production notes alone do not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you mean the first one? No, I can't. Also, the production section, reception section, introduction, and infobox seem to provide enough real-world information. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I meant the quote that you claimed tells which comic the episode was based off of. The production relies upon that same information (the current source is OR) and some OR comparing the two. The reception relies upon a tape. That would be like claiming that every episode of every show out on DVD is notable. The intro applies the same OR sources as the production. The infobox is supplemental. TTN (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I am more than a little dissatisfied with the strategies of trying to delete some articles as precedent for deleting others, of trying every method to delete merge or redirect, as long as it loses content, to ask for real world content and then dismiss it as trivial, and especially to ask for sources and then reject whatever is directed as unsuitable. The most logical explanation is an idiosyncratic view that the less coverage WP had of television shows, the better. In fact, this particular episode clearly has notable content and cultural references; a really odd choice for deletion. My comment a couple of items back here shows that I think the content of the show and the article matters--I've said more merges or deletes than keeps on todays batch of episodes. DGG (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The reception section doesn't actually have any reception information, and the production information is just OR. Even if that OR is sourced, it's something that would be better at home on the main article for the show. Fails WP:EPISODE greatly. Redirect for when any of this can get the necessary real-world context to justify an episode article. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete No Reliable Sources as refs - no evidence of validity or notability. It is absurd to have articles on individual episodes of TV series anyway. NBeale (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is specialized encyclopedia. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is true, but Wikipedia is not place for plot recap without real world context. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Enter Magneto has real-word context. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean "At the height of the series' popularity, Pizza Hut sold two VHS tapes that featured "Night Of The Sentinels (Parts 1 & 2)" and "Enter Magneto"/"Deadly Reunions". Also contained were round-table discussions between prominent names such as X-Men creator Stan Lee and 1990s writer Scott Lobdell."? -- Ned Scott 06:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"Enter Magneto" is an episode in the animated TV series X-Men Animated Series. This episode is loosely based on "Uncanny X-Men #1" (September 1963), where Magneto attacked the Cape Citadel missile base. At the height of the series' popularity, Pizza Hut sold two VHS tapes that featured "Night Of The Sentinels (Parts 1 & 2)" and "Enter Magneto"/"Deadly Reunions". Also contained were round-table discussions between prominent names such as X-Men creator Stan Lee and 1990s writer Scott Lobdell. During Xavier's search for Magneto his tie switched from blue to yellow and back to blue. Cedric Smith played as Professor Charles Xavier, Cathal J. Dodd played as the Wolverine/Logan, Norm Spencer played as Cyclops/Scott Summers, Iona Morris played as Storm/Ororo Munroe, George Buza played as Beast/Dr. Henry “Hank” McCoy, Alyson Court played as Jubilee/Jubilation Lee, Len Carlson played as Senator Robert Kelly, David Hemblen played as Magneto, and Don Francks as Sabretooth/Victor Creed. "Enter Magneto" is the third episode of season one of X-Men Animated Series. It was written by Jim Carlson and Terrence McDonell and aired November 27, 1992. The episode "Night of the Sentinels" preceded "Enter Magneto," which was followed by the episode "Deadly Reunions" Tim Q. Wells (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Which could neatly be placed on a LOE, and/or other relevant existing pages. -- Ned Scott 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — As much as it pains me to put an article about Magneto-anything up for delete, seriously, we can't have articles about random episodes. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The review is clearly one independent secondary source. I'm not seeing another though. I didn't do a search though Hobit (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2008 (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.