Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invitation to Love

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 Merge to Twin Peaks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 06:12Z

[edit] Invitation to Love

Invitation to Love (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a fictional TV show within a TV show (Twin Peaks, one of my favorite TV series), with only a few scenes total material. There is no reasonable expectation of reliable sources for sourcing any information. Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep I remember this got a multi-page article in Wrapped In Plastic (issue 8 or 6 or something). Could probably be a keeper if anyone cares enough about it to expand and reference it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a minor but important important component of Lynch's doppelganger motif for the series. As for reliable sources, what in the article needs to be sourced beyond the confirming its existence and the names of the characters (as is done for three of them here for starters)? Additionally, Wrapped in Plastic did an ITL episode guide in issue 6, which I'm sure someone still has floating around somewhere, if additional sourcing is needed. And as always, the show itself is a reliable source. Otto4711 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, obviously, since notability isn't established. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A fictional TV show within a TV show simply is not notable enough to merit its own article. At most, this should be dealt with within the main Twin Peaks article, as any notability this "show" has is made apparent only in the context of the show in which it exists. Interestingstuffadder 01:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment then we will be running into a lot of problems with things such as Sick,_Sad_World and Tool Time. wtfunkymonkey 02:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Then nominate those articles for deletion. This discussion is about the Invitation to Love article, not those other articles. Interestingstuffadder 05:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I definitely don't think there's enough here to support a separate article for Invitation to Love. The basic info that currently exists on the page doesn't support the inherent notability of the show-within-a-show, and one article in a publication directly related to the show doesn't cut it (that's only one step away from using an indie band's MySpace as a source). The Google search I performed gave no information other than characters' names and perhaps a one-sentence synopsis, and these hits were not plentiful. Simply put, ItL is not sufficiently significant by its own merits. -- Kicking222's 5,000th edit to Wikipedia! 01:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Twin Peaks article, seems pretty simple to me. wtfunkymonkey 02:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redir to Twin Peaks. Which is awesome, as are <fireworks>K222's 5000 edits</fireworks> ;) Deizio talk 02:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• OK, first, Wrapped in Plastic was created and produced by people with no connection to the show itself, so it's incorrect to dismiss its content as "a publication directly related to the show." Second, checking through the Ghits turns up an article which apparently uses ITL as a basis for an analysis of TP. That plus the aforementioned WIP article plus the many minor mentions of the show-within-a-show peppered throughout TP online sites plus the fact that most TP scholarship isn't available online and the topic is notable. Barely notable, I will freely admit, but notable nonetheless. Otto4711 04:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: So, what does that make your vote then? I'd guess you're leaning for keep, but OK, first isn't exactly a formal position. - wtfunkymonkey 05:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I already "voted" up-article. Otto4711 05:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm tickled that someone actually wrote a serious article using "Invitation to Love". I would consider changing my vote to "merge" to include a very short statement that summarizes the basic idea, with the proper citation (Charney, Mark J. (1991). "Invitation to Love: The Influence of Soap Opera on David Lynch’s Twin Peaks". Studies in Popular Culture 14 (1): pp. 53-59. ISSN 0888-5753. ). But the entire current content of the article is too trivial even to merge, IMHO. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:FICT -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep Per all the above points. It is by no means not notable enough to delete, but I am not sure it deserves its own article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Twin Peaks. A cast list is really not enough content to merge. JIP | Talk 10:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Per above. Somitho 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Twin Peaks--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Per Above--Slogankid 21:53, 18 December 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.