Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot immunity (2nd 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   delete. JForget 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot immunity
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural. Previous AfD was tainted by sockpuppetry (see SPI investigation) and the outcome may well have been different without the sock !votes. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment can you restore the original talk page, so we can see what was previously discussed there? 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite the fact that I know the term, I know what it means, and most of the internet seems to agree with me, it sadly doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Luckily these days there's TVTropes to cover this kind of thing when we won't. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete seems like pure, unadulterated OR or some odd twist off of deus ex machina; if actual reliable sources aren't using the term or covering it, it isn't legit and it isn't worthy of inclusion here. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete too much OR and no reputable sources to fix it. Sadads (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into deus ex machina, as it seems difficult to source. I'd be open to a rescue if anyone wants to work on this one. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really the same thing as deus ex machina and I think it would be an ugly fit to try and shoehorn it into that article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: As much as I want to find a way to keep the article, there are no sources and the term doesn't seem to exist in scholarship or reliable sources. -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm bummed out because this is an interesting article, but I found no mention of it in any articles in Google News Archives, Google Books, or journals. I don't know enough about the subject to find anything in paper sources. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm afraid this has to be deleted. The G search only pulls up mirror sites. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - As interesting as this is, it has no sources and consists almost entirely of OR. I think someone has mistaken Wikipedia for TV Tropes. Reyk  YO! 
 * 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.