Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teen Titans (continuity controversy)

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teen Titans (continuity controversy)

Initially prod'd as "Orignal research", Delete for that same reason. --InShaneee 17:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not verifiable (acknowledge by the original author below), thus original research. -AED 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)edited 19:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Hopelessly unverifiable. I've given the original editor a challenge: find a print source to cite for this phenomenon and I will change my vote. However I think the small section in Teen Titans (TV series) was more than suitable. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Several Times 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Looks really well done, but this information more belongs on a fan site. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunately this really is hopelessly unverifiable. How can one verify a controversy within a small animated series fandom? That's like two people having an argument behind closed doors, and then asking a random stranger on the street what the argument was about. It's just not an issue that will ever affect mainstream society, and is only verifiable through anonymous sources in forums dedicated to said series. --Venomaru 18:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hence why myself and Malber both believe that the blurb in the Teen Titans article is sufficient. It's sometimes okay to use message boards/blogs to state that there IS a debate, but to go into specifics, we'd need something more. --InShaneee 18:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

At the very least you should try making the blurb a tiny bit more neutral, as it tends to come across as pro-out-of-continuity, rather than it could go either way (given the facts at hand). I don't see the harm in my article, it was designed only to elaborate more on the topic at hand, but do what you gotta' do. --Venomaru 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's something to discuss on the talk page for that article. --InShaneee 19:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Malber.--Isotope23 18:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Malber. Brendan Moody 04:29, 14 April 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.