Talk:Chad Kroski

In Character Websites
There's so many IC websites on Chad Kroski by now that it's hard to fell a decision as to which of them should be in the External Links section - or, in fact, what should be mentioned in the fictional biography section. Obviously the general framework regarding the general fictional nature of Chad Kroski is neccessary - but I'm truly unsure what would be best for the rest, hence why I didn't touch it. If anyone wants to give it a go, as I see it, go ahead. However, please don't revert the article to the non-'disclaimer' version of the story, because I in turn will have to revert it.

If you have proper, substential, provable evidence a Chad Kroski existed and is worth a biography page, it might be best to discuss this first on this talk page, otherwise wrong impressions of vandalism might arise.

Also, what about Soulmelon? It, too, is a fictional creation of T-Mobile, in the same advertisement, and it, too, has IC websites. Should it have it's own page or be a simple redirect to this page? Chad Kroski is a more well-known creation of the spot, hence why I bother asking at all - I'm in favour of a redirect, but discussion of this would be good. - pinkgothic 22:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

German wikipedia: Deletion
There's a discussion on the german wikipedia about the deletion of their Chad Kroski article. I think it's only fair to reference to it, even if I'm strongly against it: - I'd like to wait for the result of that before beginning our own discussion in the matter by putting it up for deletion. If anyone objects, that's fine, feel free to do it yourself - this is just a note from me as to why I'm not doing it. Yet. --pinkgothic 15:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The german wikipedia opted for keep! The most prominent reason for keep was that even though Kroski is a fictional character (which is not what wikipedia is about), many people would only be aware of this after researching the matter. Accordingly, as not to jinx the main aim of wikipedia (to inform people), keep was the result of the debate. I think that makes a lot of sense, given the informational authority that wikipedia has become. If people read about it here, they can be pretty certain it's true.
 * Because of this decision, I plead that anyone coming here with the intention of deletion (or it's debate) please consider the debate has been done before, in favour of the article. This was the third(?) debate on the german page, the first two having resulted in deletions, the last one not - hence it has established itself by now as a legitimate article. I think it's fair to say that further discussions would end in the same way (for keep) --pinkgothic 23:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)