Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deus ex Machinas in The Adventures of Tintin series


 * 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 - Yomangani talk 11:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Deus ex Machinas in The Adventures of Tintin series
Original research, original literary analysis--I seriously doubt you can find a reliable secondary source to identify deus ex machinas in a comic strip. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unreferenced. MER-C 06:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep "Deus ex machina" has a pretty well-settled meaning, even to laypeople, so no Ph.D. is required to identify one. I consider this article not as OR but rather as a list like any of the thousands of interesting lists concerning comic books/Pokemon/Star Wars, etc. that exist on wikipedia. I'm not aware of any literary analysis of the Tintin comics, so expecting secondary sourcing is unrealistic. Allon Fambrizzi 08:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
 * Strong Delete Orignial research, unencyclopedic, unreferenced, and utterly pointless.  Amists  talk •  contribs 11:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is kept, someone had better check what the correct plural of "Deus ex machina" is (if it is indeed pluralised) and also drop that upper-case M. Grutness...wha?  11:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and Amists. Fancruft too. Bwithh 14:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There is plenty of articles like this is Wikipedia, re Simpsons, why not TinTin. The article has genine knowledge but needs to be expanded and tidied up. scope_creep 15:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I dont see how other articles like this on wikipedia make a list of moving inanimate objects in tintin; notable, encyclopedic, verified, or anything other than original research. Expanding and tidying up will not change this. Amists  talk •  contribs 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (edit conflict) too much original research and a bit too crufty.-- danntm T C 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Tintin has a high rate of surviving gun wounds."? "The Bad Cops' poor aiming."? This list is entirely POV and original research. Delete. Interrobamf 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and listcruft. However, the plural is, from what I can remember of my school Latin, correct (first declension nouns in the ablative case take suffix '-as').  I do wonder, however, whether the person writing the article knew this (my memory may be less accurate than I like to think, as well). And if scope_creep can point me to the Simpsons article like this (I'm too lazy to look), I'll nominate it for deletion as well.  The Crying Orc 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR and unencyclopedic; WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of lists of events in comics. Sandstein 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An external force deletes this article - Got pwned by WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOT.
 * Delete - listcruft. Moreschi 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original-research-o-rama. But just wait, an unexpected turn of events will suddenly turn up and save it... --Calton | Talk 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete cruftalicious. Danny Lilithborne 08:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Its the poster child of original research. It violates WP:NOT for its shear randomness, not encyclopedic by any means. And to top it off, its listcrufty too. --The Way 10:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom †he Bread  23:52, 21 November 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.