Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deathlands


 * 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   Requires Centralised discussion for where to merge/delete material. Firstly, can some kind soul with time on their hands remove the tags from these article, then can someone open a discussion somewhere reasonably central to catagarise the articles into those which are sourced, those which are libale to merge/smerge and the targets and those that need to be burned with first. Any copyvios should be csd tagged as such with a link/explanation of the vio. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 12:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed all remaining AFD tags from the listed articles. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 07:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Deathlands

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Large series of uncited works in inappropriate tone of such suspected little notability that they are unciteable to an appropriate standard Fifelfoo (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence from talk pages suggests mass copyvios too. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest people investigate the people involved with the Made for TV movie and their other works for notability/AFD too. After 2 degrees of Deathlands, I began to experience fatigue, and felt that the non-notable elements were too far removed from the "Deathlands" fancruft notability problem to include in this AFD. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that these be salted. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons: uncitable fancruft, years without citations, inappropriate tone, lack of notability:
 * Category cruft
 * deathlands novels
 * deathlands
 * deathlands characters


 * Novels
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk


 * Related series Outlanders 


 * Authors without notability


 * In universe cruft
 * copyright concerns on talk
 * copyright concerns on talk


 * Made for TV Movie and Actors portraying in universe cruft w/o notability


 * Images lacking a copyright purpose
 * All images of novel covers &tc following the above, as no copyright exemption purpose would exist


 * Associated redirects &tc.


 * I am happy to remove from the deletion list items that can be demonstrated by citation of reliable secondary sources to meet the notability criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as proposer. We are not the marketing arm of Harlequin.  This AFD has indicated that there are some serious problems in genre novels, in this cast post-apoc, that ought to come before AFD.  I was only pursuing the issue that a history book of little consequence had an article when it shouldn't, when I came across this mess.  My normal areas of editing are source reviewing and social science / history. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete book articles that meet nom's stated criteria - much of it blatant publicity with no attempt at citing anything (WP:ADV), but we need to check each item on its own merits. Actually it might even be notable for being awful, the longest series of the most cliché-ridden guff ever attempted, perhaps. It'll have quite a few long series of utter fluff to contend with, mind you. But I hardly think that was the author's intent in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On reading the discussion below, I agree that the proposal is too sweeping. We need to be sure (as if each item was up for AfD separately) that deletion is the right choice for each article. I suspect that it applies well to the books, doubt if true for the other items where separate AfDs would be preferable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup There's undoubtedly a mess here, but the encyclopedic way to fix it is almost certainly not through deleting everything at once. This is one of those times where a collaborative, editing-based approach would probably result in a much smaller set of encyclopedic articles. The large number of nominations here makes it impossible to sensibly clean things up within the week. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources—currently there are none in the mess above. None.  Robert A. Collins, Robert Latham 1990 Science fiction & fantasy book review annual names it in a one sentence criticism of a sub-genre.  There seem to be no reliable online reviews, appreciations or receptions of the work.   The books fail Notability (books) and the "fandom" is not the subject of any reporting. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The first name I clicked on in the list is the film editor and director Joshua Butler. I found reviews of one of his projects in various reliable sources, check the article. He might be notable or not, but it definitely deserves a stand alone discussion, you can't mix various vaguely related pages in one big nomination. Btw, could you specify the copyright concerns, please? From where is the information copied? I can't find any direct links in the template placed on talk pages. It looks that someone else made clean up a long time ago, and since that time the articles have taken various shapes. Again, this is difficult to consider generally. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all now and relist seperately only those that diligent WP:BEFORE shows lack notability. I see that this mass nomination of 52 article seeks to delete and salt all 52 related articles even when some of those listed do indeed have independent notability suitable for inclusion. And the Find sources offered above requires expansion so that each seperate topic listed might itself be evaluated onits own merits, rather than set up an AFD were we toss and salt all if one proves non-notable. That's not how we determine notability, and we do not overburden the good fiath efforts of editors by demanding they prove notability for all or loose all. We instead evalauate each topic on its own merits, seperately. Just as User:Vejvančický notes, there ARE notable topics within this list of 52. An AFD is not to be a delete all or delete none discussion. I acknowledge the nominator stating above that he's willing to remove from consideration those that are individually established as notable... but the deed of mass nomination is done., and the determination of individual notability for the 52 individual topics is now up tp other editors and not the nominator. The evaluation of discussion on any individual notability for the individual topics listed is better left to individual discussions, else a closer might visit here and read something like Keep A, B, D, F, G, K.,M and Delete C, E, H, I, J, L, N, O, P... etc. Again and with respects, this situation is a result of a mass nomination and the then-expected evaluation of 52 differently searchable topics at the same time... some books, some fictional elements, some BLPs, some films.... all of which use slightly different criteria.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By way of example, one of the dozens of topics listed above is the film Deathlands: Homeward Bound. Even the most minimal of WP:BEFORE shows that even this one film has numerous of sources available showing its notability, and it was not the least bit difficult to find that it has received comentary and review by sources considered appropriate for its genre. I was able to take the unsourced article that was nominated and begin cleaning it up and sourcing it to make it more suitable per MOS,... an addresable issue. We do not delete notable topics that require only a little diligence and attention... and an article lacking sources is a reason to add them, and not to call for deletion of dozens at one time simply because it had not yet been done by someone else.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet another example of (sorry, but seems true) lack of due diligence in the nominator's wish to remove ALL Deathlands-related topics from Wikipedia, I just looked at actor Vincent Spano. The article shows his prolific career having significant roles in multiple of multiples notable productions, meets WP:ENT with a bullet, and coverage since 1979 in over one thousand G-News results, dozens upon dozens being more-the-trivial, exceeds the instructions offered at WP:GNG. A mass nomination, based upon easily addressable issues, is not in the best interest of the project. Is it that a point was to be made that these articles needed work?  No need to nominate all just to make that point. We improve notable topics over time and through regular editing, and THAT is the solution that does not require a mass nomination.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet one more example is Jenya Lano, an actress whose career easily meets WP:ENT and whose works are verifiable through numerous book and news sources We fix such improvable articles. We do not delete them because ONE of an actor's many projects happened to be a Deathlands one.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep All These should be brought up one at a time and properly discussed. Just as we are not a branch of Harliquin marketing, we are not a branch of anti-Harliquin marketing. Fifty-two in a bunch and salt each? I really have to wonder if AGF is appropriate here. htom (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss them in smaller batches. Nominating 52 in one go makes it impossible for editors to sort the cruft from useful articles. --Xijky (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no opinion on the notability of the books, but I addressed the copyright problems referenced at the talk pages. These were a standard issue of somebody copying summaries of the books from previously published sources. I believe they have all been addressed but if they have not been they can generally be excised without requiring removal of the article, unless there is no text remaining. I would tend to agree, for what it's worth, that the use of images in the primary article does not conform to WP:NFC. The covers are not being used as the "fair use rationale" asserts, but as with File:Cannibal Moon Deathlands Book Cover.jpg to illustrate the character depicted on the cover. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Legitimate and popular franchise with valid reasons for articles. -- Evans1982 (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A few of the listed articles are quite possibly non-notable. The majority, however, can be fairly easily referenced and packaging this many articles together in a single nomination is not useful toward actually separating the bad ones from the rest. Silver  seren C 04:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: A mass nom should be always avoided, and here some noms like Vincent Spano are exceptionally and "spectacularly" bad... I suggest to read and apply Wp:BEFORE next time.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2011 (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.
 * Keep: A mass nom should be always avoided, and here some noms like Vincent Spano are exceptionally and "spectacularly" bad... I suggest to read and apply Wp:BEFORE next time.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2011 (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.