Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVX (Agency)

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 redirect to Port_Charles,_New_York_(fictional_city)#World_Security_Bureau. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVX (Agency)[edit]

This fictional intelligence agency has no notability outside the show. According to WP:FICTION spin off articles should be avoided if there is no serious reason to be created and this is not the case. A google search is difficult, because of the name but I searched a bit for "DVX Agency" and I found nothing useful. No reason to have a redirect as well, the article's title is an unlikely search item. Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fiction articles need real-world information in some way to satisfy NOT and NOTABILITY, but production information are generally hard to find for fictional agencies (even the widely known ones), and this agency has no real-world impact whatsoever. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:Fiction. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails notability based on existing guideline. --Kickstart70TC 06:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - a search for DVX and General Hospital turned up nothing significant - [1], though it is a plot element in the show, so I added a reference to it here so a redirect to Port_Charles,_New_York_(fictional_city)#World_Security_Bureau might discourage the article being recreated. SilkTork *^YES! 11:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect per SilkTork. he must mean redirect, not delete,, since that's exactly what he is proposing to do & even made sure to add the target. DGG (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks David. My thinking went that way. SilkTork *^YES! 23:24, 2 November 2008 (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.