Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kigo (Kim Possible)

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, but if there are reliable sources at all, it might bear mentioning in Kim Possible (character). —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 07:00Z

[edit] Kigo (Kim Possible)

Kigo (Kim Possible) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable and unverifiable genre of fan fiction, and article is mostly original research. Prod contested. SpuriousQ 13:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete, as fanfiction under WP:FICTION. Demiurge 13:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced speculative original fancruft. MER-C 14:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, un-notable "slash fiction" similar to previously deleted "South Park Slash". a relationship that has never and will never occur That kind of sums it up, I think. Tubezone 15:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above and because this is the same concept previously deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim shego. --Metropolitan90 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:FICTION for being fanfiction. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the above reasons; perhaps include a smaller version as part of femslash? Panelanimist 05:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Retain this article. I remind everyone of the Ignore all rules "rule" which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules “rule.” The informative merit of the article along with the fact that there will most likely never be any articles published on it by “reputable” independent sources makes it worthy of inclusion. I also cite the 'fandom' section of the Xena: Warrior Princess article in which, it was stated, "However, in the interviews and commentaries on the DVDs released in 2003-2005, the actors and producers continued to stress that the question about Xena and Gabrielle's relationship was never answered and was up to each viewer's interpretation.” This article was originally posted separately from the Kim Possible page to avoid this sort of situation. If it were to be included as part of the 'femslash' article, just how smaller would you even propose it to be?Creativetoo 08:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — Creativetoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
There really needs to be a strong reason for invoking WP:IAR, I don't think slash fanfiction on a Disney cable channel character is important enough. never be any articles published on it by “reputable” independent sources That pretty much sums up why this shouldn't be in WP, it can not pass sourcing and verifiability guidelines, IMHO. Last, ref Xena, has Disney has ever made such a statement regarding these two characters in Kim Possible? The two are enemies, not partners, right? Tubezone 09:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
How small? How about "fanfic isn't important enough to get mentioned at all" small? Danny Lilithborne 15:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, and how about "fanfic on a copyrighted Disney character that makes implications about her sexual preferences" small? This would fall under WP:BLP, if Kim Possible were a real person. Tubezone 15:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree this is fan fiction and should be deleted under WP:FICTION. Davidpdx 12:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Delete fanfic, the end. Invoking WP:IAR on the basis of the informational merit of silly fanfic authors is ridiculous. Danny Lilithborne 14:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Retain this article.I think you all forgot that there is canon subtext in the KP Show(I am sure that you all would watched KP and wouldn't ignore the subtext if you were saying WP:FICTION,huh?) True,this wasn't stated as canon by Disney,but if you watched the show you would find the canon points out even if you aren't interested in Kigo. Everyone still not satisfied? Then read the Ignore all rules "rule" which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules “rule.” Sincely,Tantrix—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.212.51.32 (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
    • I'll cite WP:IAR right back at you and say this article should be deleted because it is obvious trash. Danny Lilithborne 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The "canonical subtext" is an unreferenced fan fantasy, even the article states except for exceedingly rare occasions neither character has ever openly expressed anything but dislike or even outright hatred for the other, so at face value the KiGo pairing seems a highly unlikely one to say the least. What's next, WP articles about Superman getting it on with Lex Luthor? Puh-leeeze... Tubezone 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Note that IAR is only applicable in cases where Wikipedia process would get in the way of a very obvious or inevitable decision. This subject, which fails WP:FICT for notability and where listing most of the subtext for this pairing would be obvious original research, is clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia and invoking IAR would actually get it deleted, not kept. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't add anything that hasn't been stated above. Someguy-021 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Just H 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
comments moved to talk
comments moved to talk
  • Delete This doesn't exist in the show and never will. Shego has made many attempts to send Kim to a grizzly death and enjoys the thought of Kim being dead. Kim has also openly told Shego that she hates her. The end. --Erased Paper 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Retain This article should be retained, because it has been acknowledged as possible by the creators and writers, but is unsupported. The objections noted before seem to lack the same basis in fact the article is criticized for. Thousands of articles even on Wikipedia have no basis in physical fact, yet remain on the site. These same reasons could be used to delete the article on God.Triaxx2 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) — Triaxx2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
because it has been acknowledged as possible by the creators and writers When and by who? Where can I look that up? If that's true, please put a reference in the article to where we can see a reliable source that supports that assertion. Tubezone 01:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that God has more relevance than Kim and Shego getting it on. Danny Lilithborne 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. I can see that the author(s) of the page is/are working hard, but there are no acceptable sources for this term at this time. To make matters worse they are using other Wikipedia articles as reference. --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Retain as per WP:IARKellendros2 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) — Kellendros2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
extended commentary moved to talk
comments moved to talk
  • Comment The greatest chance of this article not getting deleted is if reliable sources are found for this topic. WP:IAR is not used to justify original research. You mention that the creators of the show are aware of this topic; if you can find a source for that, it could be a pretty strong argument for the inclusion of it somewhere on Wikipedia, whether in its own article or in the Kim Possible article. -SpuriousQ 20:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmaria (talk • contribs) — Karmaria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Retain - Kigo is a very prominent aspect of Kim Possible. It may not appear on screen, but anyone who watches the show and discusses it with another person of some kind will eventually discuss this in rather great detail, either the validity of it or the "hotness" of it. It doesn't matter how the fans discuss it, the point is that they do. A LOT. As such, it should be found on Wikipedia, as people come to it for information. Tsaalyo Phoenix 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC) — Tsaalyo Phoenix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • People discussing something a lot is not a reason to "retain". Danny Lilithborne 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Please note that WP:IAR is not a reason to keep (aka retain), and I would recommend those who have !voted such to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Thanks. Yuser31415 03:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Destroy this fan fiction filth. — Mirror of the Sea Yes? 04:45, 3 January 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.