Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunguska event in fiction (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 keep. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tunguska event in fiction
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivial cluttered list of mentions. This was kept before: but since then I see very little improvement to the article. It might not be correct to put a timeframe on things. In my view: it seems that people just get it kept, but then don't even care to fix the article. RobJ1981 05:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, as previous AfD resulted in a keep last month, i.e. August 2007. Also, I added some additional references and external links.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The closing administrator in the last AfD merely said that some of the 'microtrivia' could be removed. He didn't say that unless it was removed the article should go.  The clear consensus was to keep as this event has been an important touch stone in a wide range of contemporary fiction.  Nominating it for deletion again shows a clear disregard for the opinions of the editors who overwhelmingly voted to keep it last time. Nick mallory 10:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, though keep the garden shears handy at all times to prune back the trivia. humblefool&reg; 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. It was just AFD'd last month with a result of keep, and the article has only improved since then. Rob T Firefly 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's a shame it was kept last time, as it clearly fails policy all over the place. Virtually unsourced, it fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:TRIVIA.  Corvus cornix 21:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep First, it has merits as noted in the last AfD even those who do not usually like this kind of article thought this one had sufficient merit. Second, re-nominating in this length of time is an abuse of process. Its time to re-open the discussion about requiring a 6 month interval after a keep. ,Consensus does not change quite this fast. We have enough problem with a single discussion of these articles. DGG (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rob and Corvus. This is just a giant list of trivia, doesn't need its own page.  Most of the keep arguments are shoddy, talking about a previous afd, or the main subject, which is irrelevant.  Of course the Tunguska event is notable, that's why it has its own page, but a laundry list of fiction is not notable for its own page.  Many similar pages on even more notable subjects have been deleted as well. Dannycali 03:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Previous AFDs don't make a big difference. The logic of "it was kept before, so it must be kept again" doesn't work. If that was the case: articles would be nominated once, then safe from deletion forever. There is no rule against nominating an article a month later. This clearly isn't the problem. Stop making excuses. RobJ1981 05:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true, we need to talk about the article, not a bunch of politics about it. Cut the red tape, and make an informed, valid in policy decision. Dannycali 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominated. This is ridiculous. --Agamemnon2 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as it is too soon to nominate again. 132.205.44.5 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Collection of loosely associated topics. The list is trivial as any meaningful connection between entries is coincidental and has nothing to do with the reference to Tunguska event. Jay32183 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Close a little soon to be running it through afd again isn't it? Artw 05:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, little seems to have changed, and it's unlikely it ever will. Trivia that needs to die. --68.163.65.119 06:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - the warning shot was fired across the bow and the pilots of this ship didn't heed the warning time to sink it because it seems readily apparent that no improvement is coming. Carlossuarez46 16:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As said, too soon after last AfD. Also, this subject meets the notability requirements and concerns in the previous AfD were addressed.--Alabamaboy 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only changes made since the article was last nominated is adding a reference and linking a name. It is still loosely associated trivia, and looks like it isn't going to be improved. Crazysuit 02:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * These delete arguments are nonsensical. The article was kept last time and so arguing that it's only improved slightly since then, and so should be deleted now, is ridiculous.  It wasn't kept on sufference of improvement.  There was no 'warning shot' across the bow and the definition of 'trivia' being used here is entirely subjective. Nick mallory 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My delete argument had nothing to do with that. It's loosely associated trivia, and there's nothing that can be done to fix it. Jay32183 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep a good argument for why we need a rule prohibiting repeated afds. The article was a good one a month ago, and is a good one now, and will remain a good one. As someone above said, nothing has changed. DGG (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Striking duplicate !vote Carlossuarez46 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I also strongly concur with DGG's statement about chronic afds. —Chris Buckey 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Already had an AFD is not a reason for keeping. Consensus can change, and the previous discussion may have not had all of the information it should have. An AFD closing as "keep" does not grant protection forever, nor should it. Jay32183 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per DGG and shouldn't nominate again so soon.  R. Baley 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Conforms to WP:LIST. Does not come under WP:TRIVIA as it is not a "list of miscellaneous facts". Decision on previous AfD was not conditional on any changes. Gandalf61 13:54, 3 October 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.