Talk:Valenzetti

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Just Silly[edit]

I love Lost for crying out loud, but come on, this place is an encyclopedia, not a forum for promoting a television show. Coffeeboy 14:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Lost Game is very clever, but they need to denote their own work with a symbol or something. This has made me question the truth of all Wikipedia submissions. This page is clearly false, as is the Gary Troup page.Julizard

Can we just move this page to the lostpedia subsite, rather than deleting it? 141.154.149.168 18:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would somewhat support that.Coffeeboy 18:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original posting (which was made by a Lost writer) has been copied to the Lostpedia site. If this page is to be deleted, can a redirect be made to Lostpedia? --69.171.193.124 11:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is no different than many other characters of books, movies, and television that have their own article. I've attempted a re-write and copyedit to see if it will fall more in guidelines. agapetos_angel 11:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Talk" moved from main article[edit]

The following edit was made by User:63.201.147.43. It is patently "talk", so I moved it here. Fluit 05:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS FICTIONAL Part of the TV show LOST background information. Currently the official ABC site links here and makes the comment: Enzo I just got an e-mail from an astute reader. She didn't say much, but she strongly sugested I check out the WIKI article for Valenzetti. So I did. (link) At the moment it seems VERY accurate. 63.201.147.43.

Source?[edit]

I've just reblanked it - it was restored with quotation marks around everywhere. The problem is, we don't actually have a source from which this material comes. So there are three scenarios:

The material is copied verbatim from an unnamed source - copyvio
The material is copied from a source which allows it to be copied, and for which we know the source - should be moved to WikiSource, or removed and just cited
The material does not exist anywhere else - original research

In all cases, it does not belong here. We cannot do anything with this article until we have a verifiable source. Stevage 12:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This kills me. The_Dharma_Initiative has an article, but this one is blanked. The quotes were to indicate that it was fictional. agapetos_angel 15:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Dharma_Initiative is not original research, there is no verification of a source for the information in this article. If it were a quote from Bad Twin, that would be a source. Coffeeboy 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this! It is an article as long as a stub, but there is no more information available. In comparison to the Dharma article - the fictional Dharma initiative has been around for an entire season, and the article has grown large enough even to be split! Arru 11:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Troup Website[edit]

Gary Troup Website is an official ABC website, using it is perfectly acceptible. Coffeeboy 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I agree with the merge templates currently on this article. Gary Troup is probably the better fit of the two suggested merge targets. --Takeel 03:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that fancruft which claims be real is a particularly touchy subject to me when it comes to this encyclopedia. I am generally against including it unless it is extremely notable. --Takeel 03:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]