Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrester Creations (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus to delete. Merge can be performed if desired. Shimeru (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Forrester Creations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article was previously deleted in AfD here: Articles for deletion/Forrester Creations. This new version has no new information to assert notability and no sources. Rocksey (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge '  Much less plot summary than in the previous article; but since the topic is so closely related to the main article, it might be better merged.  DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What in the article is worth keeping or merging? In what way does this article meet Notability (fiction)? Rocksey (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of just referring to a debated proposed guideline, as per Schmidt, I'll point to WP:N and WP:PLOT since the article has no sources to establish real world significance and no information beyond the details of the plot. So, I still have to ask, what is proven notable enough to keep or merge? Rocksey (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In my own web search, I found "Forrester Creations" written of in context to The Bold and the Beautiful in Africans and the Politics of Popular Culture and other books as well. It would seem that whatever can be properly sourced can be properly merged.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All those "sources" do is give a recap of the plot. They don't give information on how the fictional company is notable outside of the storyline of the TV show. Besides, Africans and the Politics of Popular Culture not only focus's on the plot, it is recaping the plot incorrectly. I wanted to use this source on a different article, but then changed my mind after seeing all the errors. Rocksey (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't view the original article, but if the version at Wikibin accurately reproduces its content, this clearly qualifies for a G4 speedy. In any event, no new sources—indeed, no sources whatever—are supplied (or are evident in a Web search) that would invalidate the result of the previous AfD or suggest a different outcome this time. Deor (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge If DGG belives the article would be better merged, I would be inclined to not refer to a debated proposed guideline and prefer to rely on his judgement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- as Deor points out, this is probably a candidate for G4 speedy deletion. Can some friendly neutral admin confirm whether this is so? In any case, the reasons given for deletion from the last AfD (ie. it's unsourced plot summary) have not been addressed. Since the article contains no sourced material it is clearly inappropriate to merge any of its content anywhere. Reyk  YO!  06:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:NOEFFORT is always a worry. The previous AFD claimed that the previous version did not have sources... not that they do not exist.  However now that it is here and being revisited, it would seem that the subject is found through a book search and a news search, so it might be considered that actually sourcing this article is a surmountable issue, and it would stand to reason that whatever is kept or merged should be able to be sourced for the project.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is no deadline, and given the non-controversial nature of the article there is no harm in waiting until one day someone bored enough sources it. — what a crazy random happenstance 15:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. Propaniac (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Happenstance - enough sourcing seems to be available, making merging also an option. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. Not notable enough to have an article of its own, but any content relevant to the show in general should be added to that page. &amp;dorno rocks. (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2010 (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.