Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional Division Director at CTU


 * 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 01:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Regional Division Director at CTU

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The page re-creates Information avaliable else where on wikipedia. It does not add any value to the encyclopedia as a whole and would be better suited to 24 Wikia. The page is virtually orphaned andis not linked on any of the major 24 pages. The page is also in horrible need of upadting, activity levels are low and it contains a large amount of original research. I think the following policies are voilated with this page, WP:NOTABLE, WP:NOT and although not strictly policy WP:FAN Lucy-marie (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

comment please also see The Government in 24 (TV) Lucy-marie (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: I even watch the show and I still believe this is more unnecessary fancruft. If this stuff was really important to the show, it should be in the main article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.   jj137  ( Talk ) 02:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Same situation as The Government in 24 (TV), also nominated for deletion. Were there any new information to merge, I would suggest merging it to the relevant article about the show or its episodes, seasons, etc. I cannot find anything here that is not already duplicated elsewhere, though. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete No established by article, badly written, no useful knowledge. scope_creep (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I watch the show too and think this is un notable cruft. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - complete cruft, not worthy at all of its own article. There is no real information on that page and I think it speaks for itself when each subsection is a sentence long. asyndeton (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2007 (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.