Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InGen

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 --JForget 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] InGen

InGen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources and is just an in-universe plot repetition of information culled from the Jurassic Park articles and is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep central in enough novels and films to justify forking it out for stylistic reasons; also, large number of relevant ghits for "International Genetic Technologies". JJL (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But none of that matters if it fails notability, which you haven't addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to WP:CFORK and WP:Summary style. JJL (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge major plot element in two best selling books, three major motion pictures and an upcoming movie. BJ^Talk 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, merging this somewhere and redirecting wouldn't be a bad idea but I can't think of any suitable pages. Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna suffer from the same problem as this article. BJ^Talk 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. Article is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Luksuh 03:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:FICT by lacking any evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject is an important plot element of notable books and films. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)`
• Keep, much discussed as a plot element of multiple books and films, so much of the article could be referenced to non-primary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, organizes information about the company, easier to find than if it were deleted
• Keep — (or maybe merge) per Bjweeks. —paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 19:18, 12 April 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.