Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (6th nomination)


 * 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 Speedy Keep as this nomination clearly has no traction. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lostpedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Virtually no secondary sources in the article at all, and none found either. Last AFD in December '08 was kept by a buttload of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL arguments which had no weight whatseover, with no actual solid reasoning behind any of the "keep"s save for one borderline notable award the site got. Tagged for primary sources since January '09 with no improvements. And for God's sake, if you're gonna say "keep", give a better reason than "it's useful" or "I like it". Like, maybe, some freaking sources or something. (Note: Most of the last nominations were troll nominations, but this one is indeed in good faith.) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - This article obviously has resources., and it has more than enough.. and it clearly meets the notability standards. The requests for this article to get deleted are numbering in the outrageous. Though it might not mean anything at all, this article's fifth nomination for deletion was by the same user (User:TenPoundHammer) as this current nomination for deletion. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me. All but six of the sources is primary, and none seems like a non-trivial mention. Care to enlighten me? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I count 6 secondary sources. We can verify that the site exists, and we can see that it is notable from the coverage in independent sources. The makers of the show even use Lostpedia themselves - I will find a source for that. Some more secondary sources would be good, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. I don't understand the reason behind this nomination - it just seems to be the evil twin of what has annoyed TenPoundHammer, namely IDONTLIKEIT. Fences and windows (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More sources:. Oh, and Jimmy Wales likes it! Here's the interview with the show creators about them using Lostpedia (yes, I know, it's hosted on Lostpedia): Fences and windows (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * None of which seems to be a non-trivial mention save for the Portuguese source. Also, yes, I do hate Lost with a passion, but that's immaterial to this discussion. It's not a case of "I don't like it" but more like "Where the heck are all the freaking sources if it's so supposedly freaking notable?" Don't just tell me it's notable, prove it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A sixth AfD nomination of the same article, in the absence of BLP issues or similarly weighty concerns, is unnecessarily wasteful of community time and disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The firs time it was reasonably deleted, as it contained only a single sentence. 2nd keep, 3rd speedy keep, 4th speedy keep 5th withdrawn by nom --same nom as this time in face of an apparent snow keep. It's advisable to learn from experience. DGG (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, at least two of the noms were troll noms and shouldn't count. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:46, 15 May 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.