Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Similarities between Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 2

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. --Core des at 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Lack of sources and comparison is inherently original research. Interrobamf 14:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Title almost practically defines what original research is. Without any sources, this article consists solely of analyzing the two series: original research. Mitaphane _talk 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated above, because this is basically the definition of WP:OR. While one could argue that the shows themselves serve as primary sources, the problem here is that, in drawing the parallels, it becomes a case of synthesis. What's next, Similarities between The A-Team and Charles in Charge? --Kinu ^t/_c 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that'd make a cracking article, let me know when you've put it together!!! QuiteUnusual 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Full wikishields, fire all forward DELETE guns Both series originally featured a shapeshifter character; however, Babylon 5 dropped that element before filming - so,em didn't.. OR. --Charlesknight 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR QuiteUnusual 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oscar Romeo. Danny Lilithborne 22:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I don't really care for the article, it was already nominated for deletion and failed. You shouldn't get to keep renominating it until you get your way.Koweja 22:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My name isn't Indrian, nor was I even around for the last debate. Interrobamf 09:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The last AfD is over a year old. Danny Lilithborne 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment But have the two articles substantially changed in the past year and a half [1]? If the article wasn't deletable then, I don't see how it is now. Koweja 23:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment prior Afd decisions are not binding on us, because consensus can change.-- danntm ^T _C 23:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - comment last AfD was "no consensus" which is NOT the same as a failure... Failure inplies "keep" status. The article in question was given a chance to improve... --Jayron32 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete too much original research.-- danntm ^T _C 23:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as I said above, it was given a chance to improve. It has changed substantially. Change does NOT equal improvement. The list is original research at the outset. --Jayron32 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After reading first similarity: "Both series are named after a space station name with a single-digit number", only thing I can say: DELETE--Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP — There are two reasons: First, as stated in the introduction of the article, over comparisons of any two contemporary series, there is an allegation from the series creator of Babylon 5 that there was significant borrowing (being kind) of situations and plot elements by executives of Paramount for use in Deep Space Nine. Second, if this article is deleted, the information will likely be added back in to the B5 and DS9 articles (where this article originated), growing independently in those articles. Val42 04:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while there is some comonality based on their shared space-station (rarther than starship) setting, etc. The article is original research and as such should be deleted. Eluchil404 09:50, 31 October 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.

Where can I get this page?

Where can I get this page? It says it's deleted but I want to read it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.130.123 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. The point of deleting a page is that it is made "no longer accessible". — Val42 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me that the content is gone? I thought this site was open and I could see all changes. I guess some things just go down the memory hole! THIS IS BULLSHIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.130.123 (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]