Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Storm Hawks locations

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Hawks locations

Procedural nom, was tagged for PROD but was removed on last day of nom. No sourcing and nothing to establish notability for wholly in-universe locations in real world terms. treelo _radda 11:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 11:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Storm Hawks and cut severely (to the stuff that can be verified). - Mgm|^(talk) 13:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no notability asserted via significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT for being nothing more than an extensive list of in-universe locations. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be notable independently from the topic. It's part of comprehensive coverage of the main topic. And unverfied does not equal unverfiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, it does need independent notability from the topic. It's not comprehensive coverage of the main topic, it's excessive and unnecessary coverage of the main topic. It's comprehensive coverage of the topic when there is significant coverage of these locations in sources independent of the topic, which would justify the importance of this article. And I never said anything about verifiability; I noted that it was not notable. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss whether to merge at the talk pages. And then discuss the content, at whichever place it's decided to have it, remembering that straightforward description can be sourced from the primary source. This should have been done before bringing it here--because even if very little content should be decided to keep, a bare list would be appropriate. The original articles were set up to have this split from the beginning.DGG (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge Any particular reason why there can't be a succinct discussion of geographical locations on the main article? This is all just fan-cruft; there are better suited sites for this level of trivial detail, and under general principles (WP:NOT) really doesn't belong here. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, at the present state of development of the articles, that would be the best solution in my opinion too--but this solution is not delete, but a merge. Perhaps you should restate your !vote. DGG (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended my statement to a merge, but I would only recommend a merge of the intro paragraph of the nominated article, as that contains the most succinct description. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAn echo of DGG's observation. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Sephiroth BCR is 100% correct on this. There is no need for this level of excruciating detail here or anywhere else. There is no appropriate content to merge; even if you accept the dubious assertions that content can be sourced entirely from primary sources and that "merge" means anything other than "do nothing, ever", the article is riddled with so many apparentlys that it's obvious that it's mostly original research and synthesis. Reyk _YO! 03:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSorry, but no way these imaginary locations from a cartoon are notable.WVhybrid (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability in the real-world. Also fails WP:NOT#PLOT as there's nothing in the article talking about why these places are deserving of a list. It's just summary and no analysis. Themfromspace (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2009 (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.