Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melmac (planet)


 * 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 keep. Tone 22:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Melmac (planet)

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

Poorly sourced, in universe entirely. Doesn't seem to have been covered in any reliable sources; the few that do exist are iffy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sorry, TPH, but I think its sourcing is alright. Scarian  Call me Pat!  23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources 3, 4, and 5 are all unofficial sites of dubious reliability. Do you really think fan sites of that sort are reliable? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cybertron. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per whom now? Cyberton didn't !vote in this. (Also, I almost thought this was a bogus vote placed by an at first, since your sig links to an IP usserpage.) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That should have said that it linked to the user page of the greatest IP editor Wiki ever had. per Cybertron = why waste time nom'ing 1 fictional planet... you might as well nom them all. I am the loudest deletionist on Wikipedia almost 5 years running with that title En-Wiki has 2.7 million articles and 2 million of them should be deleted as total sh*t. This one isn't one of them. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless the subject can be shown to have significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. The ones presently attached to the article fall short of WP:RS. Edison (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Poorly sourced material than can be fixed or is hopeless? Could it be written out of universe (whatever that is, sorry I don't write much tv stuff, this appears to have been created as my 4,000th edit back in 2005 and hasn't had much work on it since - less than 100 edits) ?--Alf melmac 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would definitely say "is hopeless". Three years is plenty of time to fix an article, and usually if no one's fixed in THAT long, either it's slipped through the cracks or is just plain non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Slipped through the cracks? - or maybe any readers/editors who came across it (until now) didn't really see a problem with it. Likely they looked it up having liked the humour of the show and saw some of that recorded in the article and perceived no issue with what's there. Having looked at the cites again - the only ones I'd be inclined not to include if I were writing this now, is the pleasant.org (last two), the others seem ok for the nature of the subject of the article.--Alf melmac 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Even the first two cites are sufficient, and the nom seems to have accepted them. Does need a rewriting. DGG (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be sourced enough now. For awhile in the late 80s and early 90s, this fictional planet was fairly well-known.  ALF referred to it in the series of the same name.  The author doesn't appear to be aware that there was also an entire cartoon devoted to it in the form of ALF Tales, which took place before the planet was destroyed "in a freak boating accident". Mandsford (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is sourced well enough and did actually exsist in the television world.Smallman12q (talk) 23:38, 27 January 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.