Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Superman: The Animated 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

List of locations in Superman: The Animated Series

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete - a list of fictional locations within a notable series is not itself notable. Fails the general notability guideline for lack of reliable sources attesting to the independent notability of the locations of the episodes. No real-world significance. Also fails WP:PLOT as a plot-only description of the episodes in which the various locations appear. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete One of a number of "back fill" lists created by a single editor by copying sections of other article and stitching them together without copy editing. Most of the lists have been deleted through AfD. This looks like one that fell through the cracks. - J Greb (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost all the locations are completely redundant to much better articles found via Template:Superman, and they aren't different at all in the animated versions.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note User:Harley Hudson has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Otto4711 Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite the socking, the nominator's rationale still fits quite well for the reasons this should be deleted and the information remains duplicative of the single articles, so no change in vote for me.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unreferenced list that consist of a plot-only description of a fictional work, making it unfit per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists as it falls into what Wikipedia is not. With no references to presume that the contents of the list meet the general notability guideline, the list does not meet the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists either and there is nothing to presume that it is anything other than an indiscriminate collection of information. I can only see such a list as an unnecessary split and an unsustainable content fork of Superman: The Animated Series, which on top of all has no verifiability. Jfgslo (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY KEEP I have a question for you... Why do you thinksock puppeteers who specialize in nominating articles for deletion keep coming back again and again? Could it be because they know if they get in a nomination and someone supports it BEFORE their status as a sock puppeteer is uncovered, their nominations will stand? They can just keep shotgunning off identities and making nominations that stick over and over, and we will never be rid of them. Simply to get rid of these jerks, I'd say speedy keep the article, with no bias against a REAL editor renominating it if they see fit to. Don't reward trolls! Mathewignash (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't really care if it was a socker or not on this case. I'm voting solely on the fact the information is duplicative and that it's inane detail for a cartoon which basically hews to canon, and it was still a good nom. I'm all for us being an informative source for almost everything, but not to the point where we have to accept List of times SpongeBob SquarePants has been shown with a hamburger flipper on SpongeBob SquarePants as an article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Enough good faith editors believe in the nomination is sound. Deletions can't happen unilaterally, which protects Wikipedia from vexatious editors. There's a consensus to delete this, and this article is incompatible with consensus policies and best practices. The main ones being the general notability guideline and WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2011 (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.