Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:68.48.167.231

Tally 5 merge, 2 keep as of 22:37 (UTC) 21 Sep 2004.

We have a vicious vandal bot attack here. Check this IP's history. All its entries are substubs about "Twilight Zone" episodes. They've been coming in for hours, sometimes one a minute. These also came in en masse about a week ago via the same proxy. I've also listed this on the "Vip" page. Help! - Lucky 6.9 05:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the pages created. That is one sophisticated bot!  Seriously, I think its probably a big Twilight Zone fan rather than a bot.  Probably a very fast typist.  Why do you want to delete the user talk page? The Steve 10:03, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the idea that the creation of substubs is an act of vandalism. I also disagree with deleting a banned anon user's talk page. -Sean Curtin 14:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I should have made myself clear.  There are just so many of these that listing each individual entry would have been a waste of time and space.  I've posted the user page (which I began anyway) as a means to check the individual entries and to bring attention to the fact that several attempts at contact were made before nominating the entries themselves, not necessarily the talk page. - Lucky 6.9 18:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * IMHO the talk page should be kept for a reasonable amount of time; even if flagging up anons' new messages doesn't work yet, it might in the future, and this user might want to know why they've been banned. -Sean Curtin 21:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. Keep the user page for a limited amount of time if the other articles are deleted. - Lucky 6.9 17:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete all substubs created by this user. --Jiang 23:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * merge all stubs/substubs --Jiang 23:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep them they are good. Eric B. and Rakim 23:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Based on a spot-check of the stubs created, they seem reasonable and did not show up as obvious copyright violations. Can you please explain in more detail what concerns you about these articles?  (Keep for now.)  Rossami 20:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course. They're little more than unformatted text dumps with near-useless titles and more than one user has expressed concern over individual synopses of non-notable television episodes.  I couldn't find anything that matched as a copyvio, but I did find a couple of sites that list the information on a single page.  If they aren't copyvios, and since they are factual, I would encourage that these all be merged under a single page, titled along the lines of List of Twilight Zone Revival episodes, or even merged onto an existing page.  It's very unlikely that anyone at all would try to find info on a single episode of a relatively unremarkable revival series without first searching for a list.  The parentheticals pretty much assure that these will be nothing but orphans. - Lucky 6.9 21:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into a single article is fine. I suggest Twilight Zone (1985) Delete or redirect the stubs? The Steve 05:21, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Let's make lemonade out of lemons. Merge all into a single article and delete the individual stubs.  No need for redirects as far as I can tell.  A list is born! - Lucky 6.9 06:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No such animal as "merge and delete" under the GFDL, as user attribution is lost. I vote to merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 09:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge. Very short articles are mostly bad. Unannotated lists are mostly bad. Annotated lists are good (well at least more likely to be good). Jallan 16:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: I have just come to count up the tally of this discussion, and the consensus is certainly to merge the articles together. The only difficulty with that is that not all of the Twilight Zone episodes that have articles were created by this user, and some of the others are actually quite decent articles - are these to be merged also? See List of The Twilight Zone episodes for this full list. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 22:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)