Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Dwarf DVD Easter Eggs

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. Carlosguitar 20:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Dwarf DVD Easter Eggs

Red Dwarf DVD Easter Eggs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This lies somewhere between indiscriminate information and a guide/manual; subject and tone inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Prod removed by anonymous user without comment. Marasmusine 07:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - non encyclopedic. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Speciate 07:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed this is indiscriminate and belongs on a fansite somewhere. Someone another 12:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- trivia, not encyclopedic. Thunderwing 13:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 13:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivial information. Tx17777 15:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, non encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not a manual/guide. AngelOfSadness talk 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Super-ultra-mega strong keep - 'Nuff said.--71.203.147.175 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • DAMN, the SUMS Keep. Well, I guess we have to keep it then. Except you didn't say "with a cherry on top. So I can trump it with a Super-ultra-mega strong delete with a cherry on top. HA. I win. Plus, as a side note, and this probably isn't that important given the SUMS keep above, but someone MIGHT want to consider whether this list seems to fail to meet such guidelines as WP:NOT. Also, there is no evidence that this information is notable per WP:N guidelines in that it does not appear to be discussed extensively by third-party reliable sources. Not sure that these guidelines are more important that the Super-ultra-mega strong variety... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and just delete Non-notable fancruft. •97198 talk 06:52, 24 October 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.