Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stargate: Beyond the Veil

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate: Beyond the Veil

This nomination really pains me, since I'm an avid Stargate fan. However, this is fancruft.JoshuaZ 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB, WP:CRUFT, WP:NOT, WP:VAIN, and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 01:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per most of Royboy's list. Come on guys, I want to keep something today before I go to sleep! Fetofs Hello! 01:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • LOL. We must be doing a good job today if we haven't had any keep votes. Royboycrashfan 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Cruftiest of crufty cruft. Fan1967 01:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. Jude(talk,contribs) 01:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is still a work in progress, as my staff begins helping contribute on this site. What specifically are you objecting to, so that I might change it? Alexander Atreides
Alexander, you really shouldn't delete your own vote from this talk page. If you have had a change of heart you should list it here. As far as objection, read the guidelines linked above (WP:WEB, WP:CRUFT, WP:NOT, WP:VAIN, and WP:VSCA). Thatcher131 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not that anyone has anything against you or Stargate, and its a shame that this is your first article. Wikipedia is sort of a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, with guidelines for inclusion that are broader than a paper encyclopedia but narrower than '{the whole internet}'.Thatcher131 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
If I can throw in my two cents, basically what it comes down to is that fan fiction is generally not notable, and we don't want to include it, largely because there's so damn much of it. Seems that half the internet is people making up their own Trek or Jedi or Stargate stories, or, in this case, making an RPG out of it. We could clutter up half of Wikipedia with various forms of fanac, and we really don't want to do that. Fan1967 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I hate to see Stargate cheapened like this. Very nn fancruft! Staxringold 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- fancruft. obviously. Reyk 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Stargate is quite possibly the best TV show of all time, and is quite encyclopedic. (We have a whole wikiproject on it.) However, this is not canon. This is complete fancruft. Not only that the content doesn't make any sense. Tobyk777 06:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Midnighttonight 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete cruftolicious -- Samir ∙ T C 08:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. --Terence Ong 11:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable play-by-mail group. JIP | Talk 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and royboycrash Localzuk (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-canon fancruft. Computerjoe 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete cruftilicious! —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-10 04:38Z
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.