Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosho (The Prisoner)


 * 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. Brandon (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Kosho (The Prisoner)

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

Probably should not have been restored: even with remake coming up, crystal ballery claim that its importance might increase is dubious reason for content. Article wholly lacks references to reliable sources, offers original research on its rules and presentations, and in general is simply trivial. --EEMIV (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to the TV series article. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. The article says it appears in only two episodes; such a trivial facet of the show hardly deserves coverage in the series article (or anywhere at Wikipedia). --EEMIV (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I restored the article because it was a contested PROD deletion, where an IP made a reasonable request for undeletion; such requests are automatically honored. I therefore object to the notion that the article "probably should not have been restored". Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever. If it makes you feel better, read it as "[requested to be] restored." --EEMIV (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am surprised it survived speedy deletion and a PROD but it doesn't seem to have any claim to notability at all. --BozMo talk 09:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Although I do agree the restore was appropriate. Gaining consensus for deletion/inclusion from the community is a valuable thing. Jujutacular talkcontribs 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find 2-3 google book hits for this. It's a pity there isn't an episode for it to be merged to. Nerfari (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as (... wait for it ...) just not notable. No reliable, independent sources establish the encyclopedic value of this outside the narrow context of the television show itself. So a mention there - brief at that - is more than sufficient. Anything else is mere fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 21:09, 9 September 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.