Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HBO Feature Presentation


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

HBO Feature Presentation
Article describing an --The_stuart--23:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)opening sequence used by HBO. Obsessive minutiae, nonencyclopedic. tregoweth 03:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. U$er 04:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't see the problem with this MadCow257 04:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge I agree that it borders on "obsessive minutiae," but it was a pretty memorable CGI animation for it's time. Maybe merge with the HBO article?   OhNo  itsJamie Talk 06:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic. --Ter e nce Ong 11:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, interesting enough as these openers were technically and (arguably] culturally notable, though this could be merged if need be. ProhibitOnions 13:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic, certainly not culturally notable. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called &quot;Nancy Grace of AfD&quot; 15:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as not independently notable, support merge to a general article about such openers / CGI TV spots etc if one exists.  Dei zio  18:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with HBO, it has got room. Eivindt@c 20:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. HBO is major network and detailed articles on its programming should be welcomed here. I also object to this nom's redirect of the article without prior discussion and extremely uncivil edit summary . -- JJay 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strikes me as an extremely accurate edit summary. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There are a few names I could call you that might be extremely accurate. Of course, they would also violate a whole boatload of policies Calton-san. -- JJay 12:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. notable intro on notable network. well researched and interesting article. Interestingstuffadder 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Contains some interesting research, and it expands upon a facet of HBO that is hardly mentioned in the main article. I believe the topic to be notable, and leaving the stub intact will encourage others to improve it. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ...contains some interesting original research. That's bad. --FuriousFreddy 01:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Only going to read about this on Wikipedia! --The_stuart 23:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder why that could be? --Calton | Talk 07:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because whoever wrote this doesn't have web hosting. Wikipedia is not a web server. --FuriousFreddy 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Logocruft. Ludicrously trivial inf: this shouldn't even be close. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, with HBO --Soumyasch 07:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- needs a little polish a lot of citations, but noteworthy. Lacking citations/references, Delete per FuriousFreddy. Cleanr 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Logocruft. Unencyclopedic and unprofessional. Belongs on a fan page somewhere, not here. And, on top of all of that, it's original research of the highest degree. --FuriousFreddy 01:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It is a good article with something synonomous with HBO. It is just as notable about the network as its original series are. And very accurate... and citations may have to be added, yes. But, still it is an article that should be kept. --TVTonightOK 01:07, 29 March 2006 (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.