Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Outside (disambiguation)


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Man Outside (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Disambiguation page with only one link. An article search failed to bring up any other "The Man Outside" or similarly named articles. Airplaneman  ✈  01:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment an editor has started to create The Man Outside (1967 film). However, the new article does not yet establish notability for its subject since IMDb merely proves that a film etc exists (and the Notes merely take us to the WP article about the reviewers rather than to any actual reviews). Also, the 1933 film and the 1972 British TV series might just be notable enough for independent articles (though, not from the links I have provided). I am waiting the completion of the new article and/or waiting to see if anyone can estabilsh notability for the other two article subjects before !Voting, therefore --Jubilee♫ clipman  15:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Any intelligent person can see there are two movies, as well as a television series and a play, by this title. User:Airplaneman would have recognized that if he had observed the one-hour rule before tagging a page for suggested deletion. Airplaneman tagged that page only 12 minutes after I had begun to create it, at which time the page had only one of the four titles. In less than an hour it had all four titles.

In addition to vandalism, Wikipedia needs to have a policy on BUSYBODIES, which includes people who impatiently add suggested deletion tags in violation of the one-hour rule, or who add them to pages with the UnderConstruction tag. Whenever such a tag is added to a page that Wikipedia rules it will keep, a BUSYBODY demerit should be added to the tagger’s record. Two such demerits ought to bring the BUSYBODY a severe warning that any additional demerit will result in loss of editing privileges.

Why should I be obliged to waste my time defending the obvious legitimacy of a page that was tagged by a busybody who didn't have the decency to wait an hour (as required by Wikipedia policy) before tagging it?Aardvarkzz (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion: No good reason for deletion, as far as I can see. While the film could be dealt with adequately with a hatnote in the play's article, it's clear that there are other art works with the same title that may merit articles in the future. I also agree with Aardvarkzz's sentiments regarding the pointless of the nomination in the first place. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. While the version as nominated could have been speedy-deleted and the nomination was not pointless, the current version (with the additional blue link) is a valid dab page. ("May merit articles is the future" means "may merit a disambiguation page in the future" too.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2010 (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.