Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Hunt


 * 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   redirect to The Fast Show. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin Hunt

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Fast Show as a plausible search term. Redirects are free. Hiding T 21:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Fast Show. Current article violates WP:NOT and WP:OR. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and per notability. I see no evidence that the nominator is looking for sources or considering the merits of individual articles.  If it’s an episode or character, it must go as far as he’s concerned.  When has he argued to keep?  When has he added sources?  At least some of the others who typically argue to delete in these kind of AfDs also spend time writing articles.  This is getting out of hand.  As much as he may hate having to actually discuss with others who disagree with him in redirect and merge discussions, that’s the route to go, not to circumvent discussion and misuse AfD when has admitted he not actually after deletion but rather using AfD to get things merged or redirected.  Maybe people challenge his redirects and merge, because others interpret policy in a different way.  Maybe that’s the real consensus.  This is not TTN is right and everyone else is wrong and that’s it.  I know these discussions should usually be about the articles and not the other editors in the discussions, but clearly these are pointed and disruptive noms and we really do need to take that into account.  We shouldn’t humor pointed nominations as it is clear from the outcomes that these articles vary wildly in quality and this just labeling them all with the same tired post is not really honest.  It’s hard to focus on the article’s individual merits when the nominator is not considerate enough to provide an original nomination rationale for other editor’s volunteer work.  It’s easy to slap an AfD template on articles others are working on, but why not join in the actual efforts to do what you can to improve the articles, too?  If you are unwilling to do so, then this is nothing more than just not liking these kinds of articles, because it is clear from what others keep showing that sources can be found or at worst that the articles could just be redirected and/or merged.  Why would anyone not be willing to add sources at least occasionally to articles?  We should ban him from AfDs for at least a while and see if in the meantime he is willing to do anything to build any articles.  If he isn’t then it will be clear as so many of us suspect that he isn’t really here as a legitimate good faith editor after all.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (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.