Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 neighbours plots


 * 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 was   delete. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 neighbours plots

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates Not. Quantumobserver (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as A1 decliner. Not encyclopedically written, no particular value.  No objection to it being substantially rewritten, but it'd have to be overhauled. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely original research. Fosnez (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per blatant original research. A1 as said above FOR SURE.  K50   Dude   ROCKS!   16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear wikipedia

Why are you deleting my article? If you think that this article if fake, well your wrong. It's true. But if you want go ahead and destroy the page. That is why the Article Deleters Hating Division (ADHD) is rallying against you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 711joel (talk • contribs)
 * Hello Mr. Eman, in conforming with Wikipedia's mission only certain types of articles are acceptable. We are glad that you would try and help us build our encyclopedia however you article is what we call original research. While it is evident that you have done quite a deal of good sleuthing, we cannot be sure that what you say is true (in the way that we can be sure what a newspaper or book says is factual) and as verifiability is one of out five pillars we must reject your article at the current time. You are welcome to come back once the episodes have aired and there are reliable sources reporting on them. In the mean time may I suggest a free hosting site for you to store your content, perhaps myWikiBiz or freewebs. Icewedge (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete plots of yet unreleased episodes, author claims some special insight into the behind the scenes production. His/Her diligence is commendable, but the article is entirely original research. Icewedge (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * either WP:OR or pure crystalballery, either way, delete. -- Terrillja talk  07:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, but without prejudice to recreation from published sources. 2009 has begun, so there are plots for this show already published; we should therefore have an appropriate article summarising them (and, of course, describing media reactions to them). JulesH (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original research nor a crystal ball. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOT and WP:OR. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site or blog. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--OR, and entirely unencyclopedic in tone. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Add:
 * --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates WP:NOT and WP:BALL.  Little Mountain  5   23:42, 4 January 2009 (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.