Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Io (Babylon 5)


 * 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, as the suggested merge targets do not exist. Should editors begin creating the articles suggested below, the revision history may be restored (if necessary) to facilitate creating that content. ÷seresin 05:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Io (Babylon 5)

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

This article about a minor subject in Babylon 5 is covered from a wholly in-universe perspective, which goes against WP:WAF. Furthermore, the transfer point itself is not notable by our standards as it hasn't been discussed in reliable, third-party sources. The only reference currently is from a usenet posting, which isn't a reliable source. I haven't found enough information to write a neutral, verifiable encyclopedic article about this subject and since it goes against our notability guidelines and verifiability policy, and because it cannot be written up to our standards of WP:WAF, it should be deleted. Our policies and guidelines were designed to keep just this sort of article out, as it trys to describe a subject which hasn't yet been described by reliable sources. Therefore, as our articles are only as reliable as the sources they contain, no reliable article can be written about this at the current time.  Them From  Space  20:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Much as I might like to I cannot think of a reason to keep the article. At best the information cold be moved into a more relevant Babylon 5 article, or specific episode articles. The bulk of this information in Io (Babylon 5) is covered by the Babylon 4 Wikia project article for Io. My understanding is that Transwiki doesn't help with merging just moving or copying so they should be given a fair chance to merge any details that might be missing from their article.  Is there a way to mark an ariticle as due for deletion but leave it pending for a short time?  -- Horkana (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The initial edit summary says that the text was copied from "http://tgm.firstones.com/wiki/Main_Page", which is a specialised wiki for Babylon 5 with more lax policies than Wikipedia. Looks like this text was copy/pasted around a bit.  Them From  Space  00:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Move To List of planets in Babylon 5, and merge most/all of into a single article covering a bunch of not-individually-notable topics.  There's more sources for this... but why bother? There's a lot of B5 topics that should be merged into more substantive articles, and this is probably a good place to start. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to a List of locations in Babylon 5 70.29.210.174 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, non-encyclopedic topic for this project, hard-core B5 fan though I am. I can't suggest merge, because it lacks reliable sources and is written in a blatantly in-universe style. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I assert that such sources exist, even though they're not included in the article. The same sourcebooks/commentaries that talk about Spoo tend to talk about most of the locations. There's enough to meet WP:V there and fit into a list article.  AGF'ing that I'm portraying the situation accurately, will you support my move/merge proposal? Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to a List of locations in Babylon 5 Octurion (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Guys, you don't "merge" something to a page that doesn't exist; you move it. ;-) Cheers.  I 'mperator 21:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, but it'd be silly to move ONLY this article to that spot, hence it being a shorthand for "move this there, and merge a bunch of other tiny articles of questionable notability there too". Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 17 June 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.