Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pig mask
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Closing administrator's remarks
If you choose to add comments to this page, please do so in a separate section below. Do not break-up my comments here.
[edit] Raw count analysis
- Delete
- Otto4711 <afd nominator> (14 edits)
- Doctorfluffy
- Tevildo
- Masterpiece2000
- Revanche
- Ridernyc (8 edits)
- Keep
- CyberGhostface (13 edits)
- Wageless (5 edits)
- Hobit
- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
- Agent452 (3 edits)
- Merge
- Master of Puppets
- Lenin and McCarthy (2 edits)
- Jackel (said "delete then merge")
- Non-participatory
- DGG (commented on process, but not article or subject)
- SineBot (doing what sinebot does)
- Jerry (relist without any commentary) <closer>
[edit] Rough consensus rationale
[edit] Delete arguments
- fails WP:NOT#PLOT
- no reliable sources to establish real-world context
- sources provided are not independant of the subject or are obviously biased towards it
[edit] Discounted delete arguments
- another movie prop is more notable and doesn't have it's own article
- no reason for this to have it's own article
- the subject is not unique
- no sources with critical commentary
[edit] Keep arguments
- since nomination article has been improved to include subject's development outside of films, its impact on the series and on popular culture
- a link provided in the article is a review of the subject
- iconic part of notable film series
- subject achieved a cultural presence that is independent of the movie
- of interest to the reader, provides encyclopedic content
[edit] Discounted keep arguments
- subject marketed as various consumer goods
- subject shown in promotional materials for notable films in which it appears
- article is well written
- verifiable; concerns a recognizable aspect of a notable film series
- sources are clearly there
- seems notable
- no harm caused by keeping this article
- inherits notability from notable film series
- if we delete it what will it's editors do?
As the nominator pointed-out several times during the course of this discussion, it was given ample time to reach consensus. This did not occur, however. Ergo: No consensus (default keep) JERRY talk contribs 02:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)