Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Litefantastic Files

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 KEEP - I'm putting the result up here to avoid confusing bots and scripts. -Splash^talk 19:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collier Motors

Case for: Historical trivia
Case against: It's an abandoned car lot.
Votes:

Suggest folding to AMC as sortof a "dying gasp" like alot of articels on dying entities like to have. 68.39.174.238 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I clicked some of the links and even as a non American it interested me. I think an article is overkill, but I'd suggest at least adding the links to the AMC article if not a paragraph or 2 per User:68.39.174.238 e.g. in a Trivia section. Delete the main article though. --kingboyk 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, marginally notable. Kappa 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think a merge is called for here. -- JJay 21:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting cultural and automotive artifact TGC55 04:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious keep we have articles on wierder topics than abandoned car lots. Savidan 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. I think it is useful information, but not useful enough to have its own page. jgera5 00:14, 18 February 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.

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. -Splash^talk 00:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loomis Village

Case for: A retirement community, and Wikipedia has a history of creating articles for them.
Case against: May just not be significant enough.
Votes:

• Delete - completely non-notable. —ERcheck @ 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and add an AFD tag. Not notable, poor article. --kingboyk 00:17, 7 February 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.

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. -Splash^talk 00:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional people who lived more than once

Case for: Sort of interesting.
Case against: Listcruft.
Votes:

• Delete This would include every comic book character, plus every Warrior Princess on TV Ruby 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —ERcheck @ 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a list article that is potentially limitless, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and add an AFD tag --kingboyk 00:17, 7 February 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.

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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional Elvis impersonators*

Case for: Information originally compiled here; not available anywhere else.
Case against: Transcends listcruft; it's more like intelectual kleptomania.
Votes:

• Userfy or BJAODN. That's topic is too good to throw out. It has to be kept somewhere. Dr Debug (Talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. Additionally, it is a list of interest to very few people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Dr Debug. Might be a good idea to add an AFD tag since a deletion concensus might arise. --kingboyk 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't require original research, and is of interest to many. Kappa 03:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Elvis impersonator. Valid, significant, and interesting information, but there doesn't seem to be enough of it to justify a distinct page, so simply make it a section of the general "Elvis impersonator" article. Win-win. -Silence 03:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep excellent list.  Grue  16:14, 9 February 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.

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 NO CONSENSUS. Probably is a merge candidate, but that can be worked out elsewhere. -Splash^talk 00:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of books to which Stephen King has written an introduction

Case for: Semi-useful.
Case against: Really not.
Votes:

• Weak keep I suppose this would be okay for King completists Ruby 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge it into Stephen King after the list of his books. --Bduke 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Stephen King. feydey 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Useless list, slight merge to Stephen King. Stifle 21:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Stephen King, although that article is growing quickly or perhaps an article on Non-fiction writing by King. This list in question is intersting (I recently expanded it by 8 titles) only in that it shows an element of King's writing beyond the "horror" that he is known for. I'd vote (and participate in) an article dedicated to King's non-fiction writing (which is nearly twice as prolific as his fiction). This could include lists of subject headings for his Entertainment Weekly column, reviews, numerous articles in magazines such as GQ, Playboy, TV Guide, etc. Although, just how valuable are endless lists? LACameraman 07:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, don't merge. Kappa 03:04, 9 February 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.

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. I don't see the case for merging information admittedly made up. -Splash^talk 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple incarnations

Case for: Unfortunately, there really isn't one.
Case against: Good intentions here, I promise you, but pointless.
Votes:

• Keep. With cloning, time travel and other plot devices causing this in increasing numbers in fiction (Inu Yasha, Back to the Future, and The One immediately come to mind) this is noteworthy in terms of speculative fiction and creative writing.--み使い Mitsukai 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Merge with Doppelgänger. I did some digging, and a term does exist for this: "temporal doppelganger", as listed here. The information could be used to expand that section of the article, which is more of a list than an explanation.--み使い Mitsukai 05:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I support this idea, standing by my 'new name for old idea' confession. I suggest the information part of this be moved to Doppelganger, and the list part of it just be thrown out. -Litefantastic 00:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Note: As part of my 'come clean' policy, I think you should all know that I made this term up. This was after the period where I actively made terms up - in this case, I saw trying to find a term for any existing phenominon - but it is still a neologism. -Litefantastic 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --kingboyk 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy, original research neologism. -Silence 03:15, 9 February 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.

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 KEEP BOTH. -Splash^talk 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of real people appearing in fictional context*, and List of mythical and religious beings appearing in fictional context

Case for: The one for real people, at least, is sort of useful.
Case against: Collapsing under its own weight.
Votes:

• Keep, I like it, up to par with that article about the occurrences of the word 'fuck' in movies. But then again, that's just my stand on semi-trivial knowledge :) Obli (Talk) 22:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both. I'm not a fan of listcruft, but these ones are actually useful. 23skidoo 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both. They have their uses, more so than, say, List of guys named Bob with only one eye who appeared in more than one movie filmed in Tibet or other rampant listcruft around here.--み使い Mitsukai 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - arguably useful. I've added someone to it also. Worth keep an eye on it though to see if it expands out of control. Essexmutant 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. They are useful. Why delete? (Ibaranoff24 01:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC))
• Strong keep "List of real people appearing in fictional context", Weak keep "List of mythical and religious beings appearing in fictional context" (which is much, much lower-quality and less interesting, but still has tons of potential if future editors spiff it up). No justification for deletion; "too long" is not a reason, in itself, to completely eliminate a page, and it confuses me that you'd list these with so many much less interesting and valuable pages. There are countless ways to combat excessive length, like subdividing alphabetically, or by work of fiction (i.e. "List of real people appearing in novels", "List of real people appearing in fictional television series", etc.!). -Silence 02:18, 9 February 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.