Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scream trilogy
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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 08:56Z
[edit] Scream trilogy
There are some good, encyclopedic articles that summarise a series of films. This is not one of them. It is a mess. It looks like a scrapbook full of trivia. It contains no reliable sources. The 'information' given here is presented in a very immature fashion. Whereas an equivalent to Halloween (film series) et. al. would be appropriate, this article in this useless state should be put out of its misery. This tripe belongs on the geocities fan pages, not in a mature project. The JPStalk to me 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Just because an article is bad doesn't mean that should be deleted. Their are many sources for this notable Movie Trilogy. It just needs to be cleaned up as the tag says The Placebo Effect 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason offered for deletion. Otto4711 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: Absolutely- this article is poor, but there is no reason for deletion. It is on a notable and encyclopedic topic, and does not clash with any of Wikipedia's content policies. J Milburn 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The reason for deletion is that it is absolutely useless in this form. It doesn't just need cleanup. It needs a complete rewrite. From scratch. The lack of reliable sources clashes with our content policies. Deletion will make it clear to the article's "authors" that this sort of pathetically immature material is unacceptable. The JPStalk to me 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nice attitude. Otto4711 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- He's not being a dick, he's being realistic. Just because it's not sugar-coated doesn't mean we can't say the obvious. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, maybe a little bit of a dick, but for some reason it just doesn't bother me. oh well. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The linguistic equivalent of the second take genuinely made me smile. The JPStalk to me 08:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, maybe a little bit of a dick, but for some reason it just doesn't bother me. oh well. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- He's not being a dick, he's being realistic. Just because it's not sugar-coated doesn't mean we can't say the obvious. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nice attitude. Otto4711 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The reason for deletion is that it is absolutely useless in this form. It doesn't just need cleanup. It needs a complete rewrite. From scratch. The lack of reliable sources clashes with our content policies. Deletion will make it clear to the article's "authors" that this sort of pathetically immature material is unacceptable. The JPStalk to me 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is a great article — for a blog or fan web site or just about anywhere else but in Wikipedia. I love the strong opinions, good writing and insight, but I don't see what it has to do with Wikipedia. I think the editor(s) who created/contributed to it should just move it somewhere else. Wikipedia is about articles that report on what other people say and cite sources. This article should be deleted and started over. And to the editors who wrote this: Please find the right forum for this and look into Wikipedia standards for what this Web site wants in its articles. If I saw citations for every comment or deletions for uncitable comments, I'd change my vote. Noroton 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm certain that there has been enough material written about the series as a whole to make a decent article of this clearly notable series, so I don't think that deletion is the proper answer. Why don't we just prune it back to a stub and start over?Chunky Rice 00:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Go for it. Give me a reason to change my vote.Noroton 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Tag for cleanup, enjoy. May take a bit of work, but I don't see a problem with the subject itself. If you feel a need to blank it, go ahead, but delete? Why? As a lesson, it's much better to be able to point to it and say "Look at what was bad, now look at something good" . FrozenPurpleCube 01:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Would I have your support after this AFD to remove the majority of it? The JPStalk to me 08:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't oppose it, though I'd prefer you have a plan towards implementation of a new article, and I'd certainly say having something substantial to put into place immediately would likely receive more support. FrozenPurpleCube 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- A Nightmare on Elm Street (series) is OK... what are your thoughts on that? We can also use some of the sources in the individual film articles too. The JPStalk to me 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like the sort of page to try to get this one looking like, though it's far from perfect itself. FrozenPurpleCube 23:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- A Nightmare on Elm Street (series) is OK... what are your thoughts on that? We can also use some of the sources in the individual film articles too. The JPStalk to me 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't oppose it, though I'd prefer you have a plan towards implementation of a new article, and I'd certainly say having something substantial to put into place immediately would likely receive more support. FrozenPurpleCube 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Would I have your support after this AFD to remove the majority of it? The JPStalk to me 08:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Something Deleted or not, what we see now should go away. Starting from scratch is not a bad idea. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per nom, actually. This can be a good, encyclopedic article. Maxamegalon2000 05:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up. AniMate 06:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Keep, with instructions that someone (else) clean up the article? Or, on the other hand, since this is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, maybe those who are convinced there's a good article here can go ahead and be bold and dazzle us! Pop Secret 10:50, 4 April 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.
