Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of crossovers on Lost (old)

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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of crossovers on Lost[edit]

A collection of indiscriminate crossovers- no way to verify this information without the show itself, fans are free to add to a growing list of fancruft. Just like the list of passengers that was deleted here, this article is something that might exist on Lostpedia and is not encyclopedic. -- Wikipedical 23:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- Wikipedical 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move I think the page has some potential and should be kept and sheperded in the right direction. The crossover elements of the show have been discussed on the official podcast as referenced in the article establishing some notability. The list of crossovers is unencyclopaedic, but it can be cut back and prevented from becoming a list of fancruft without deleting the article. The article should instead focus on any other external discussion on the use of interweaving flashbacks on Lost. If there is not enough information to support a separate article this should be merged back into the main article.--Opark 77 07:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'crossovers' should be mentioned somewhere in a Lost article on Wikipedia, but the page for deletion here is a list of crossovers, which you just agreed was unencyclopedic. -- Wikipedical 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the article should be kept and renamed (moved). I don't think the content should be deleted.--Opark 77 07:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly verifiable list. --Peephole 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a tough one. Crossovers are absolutely germane to the show, but this list is woefully subject to the Lost fan disease of seeing a connection around every corner (e.g., doesn't that Portuguese man at the end of last season's final episode look like Jack, etc.). Verifiability is both questionable, in many cases, and not the main/only point anyway when it comes to being encyclopedic. As we've done with the literature references in the Thematic motifs of Lost article (i.e., providing a few pointed examples, but not trying to be comprehensive--"more is not better", again), I'd say that we should eschew trying to list every crossover, and leave that for the fansites, whose bar is a lot lower. In short, to my mind, the purpose of this article is therefore suspect, in terms of lining up with Wikipedia guidelines and tenets, so I vote we delete it. -- PKtm 11:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC). Later note: I agree with Jtrost's proposal below. PKtm 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the page while looking for information to confirm/deny one of the items in the list. For that reason, it was of use to me, and therefore I found value it being here, even in the format it's in. Wikipedical mentions above "Lostpedia", which I've not heard of before, and just checked out. Comparing the same article (about character Hurley) on both sites, I prefer the one that is on Wikipedia over Lostpedia. It's no wonder I'd never heard of Lostpedia, as it's not mentioned on the main Wikipedia Lost page. I think I will edit this page to reference it, and continue to use Wikipedia to "learn" about stuff on this show that I've missed or don't understand. If I can't find it here, I suppose I will look there, and wonder "What's the point of having a wiki, specifically for a subject that already has a place in Wikipedia?" David Henderson 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. The section was perfect during this version, and I think it should be reverted to that. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added this version to the Mythology of Lost page.

Delete as fancruft, and revert to version stated by Jtrost. SergeantBolt 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no reverting. --Jambalaya 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jtrost Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 14:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Thematic motifs of Lost or Mythology of Lost (My own inclination is the former). --Elonka 22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lost is obviously a notable show, and the crossovers are a notable aspect of the show. As the show continues, there are likely to be more crossovers, making it more difficult to merely have this as a section of another article. Wikipedia has thousands of articles on obscure points of notable subjects, and I think that's one of the great things about the project. That being said, I agree that the article is not encyclopedic in its present form, but we haven't allowed time for the wiki process to do its thing yet. Kubigula 19:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Note - after re-reading the discussion, I would also support Opark 77's suggestion. Kubigula 19:45, 13 September 2006 (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.