Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Quicksilver
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Project Quicksilver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Original Research. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Extensive fancruft - Concerns about problems with the article have been discussed on Talk:Project Quicksilver before. The article was tagged over a year ago for lack of references/sources, but then the article's creator soon removed the tag without adding a single reference. The tag was replaced, but removed again. Since then no attempt has been made to fix any of the problems with the article, although I don't believe they can be fixed, so deletion is long overdue.
I also oppose merging into The Invisible Man (2000 TV series), as the problems of violating WP:NOR will still apply. I also oppose any redirect - this has been attempted several times by various other editors, but the redirects have always been removed, and probably will again. Saikokira 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is an amazing piece of work, with excellent detail! Unfortunately, it seems that all of this information can quickly be gathered by watching the only reference, Episode 1 of Season 2. This makes this article completely not-useful on Wikipedia, but more importantly, this article offers no value to Wikipedia (ie, there is almost nobody who will ever care). It is not, as said in the guideline, "worthy of being noted", Maaaaybbeee if this article was a collection of information from various episodes, all of which were well referenced... then I would change this to a weak delete. Kopf1988 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it seems a great shame to delete something that's so well written. I hope it can be salvaged in another project. - Richard Cavell 04:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge an extremely small summary (perhaps 2-4 paragraphs) into the show's main article. As I suggested on the article's talk page long ago, the whole thing is just too fancrufty. However, a few paragraphs that specifically cite information from within one or more episodes would not violate WP:NOR, I believe, as long as it's adapted to an out-of-universe perspective. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A television episode is a primary source, and citing information from it would violate WP:NOR. Any information would need to cite a reliable, published source. Saikokira 06:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not go overboard on avoiding primary sources. To quote Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources: "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." It doesn't require a specialist to quote lines from a TV show. On the other hand, creating a chapter-length article out of such material is an outrageous abuse of this idea. That's why I believe using a few of the most important statements from this article, backed up by specific episode/scene citations, can be of use to The Invisible Man (2000 TV series). But I can understand if folks don't want to support this. It would be useful if the editor(s) who have been so insistent on keeping this material would do the work and boil this article down to an essence worth including. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A television episode is a primary source, and citing information from it would violate WP:NOR. Any information would need to cite a reliable, published source. Saikokira 06:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOR here, information may be valuable elsewhere but not here on Wikipedia. Good writing, but sorry, not for Wikipedia. We need verifiability and reliable sources. Terence 05:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, that must have taken a while to create, but it is unreferenced and doesn't help Wikipedia. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Almost hate to vote against an article that obviously took lots of work, but simply violates WP:NOR in a big way. Realkyhick 23:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.