Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark knight curse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Gazimoff 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dark knight curse[edit]
- Dark knight curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
So, is this rag-tag compilation of happenings worthy of a page? Some publication once grouped them as "Dark Night Curse." As far as I am concerned, I would think this is not notable. Is it? Stijndon (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't pass notability as is. Only one of the citations specifically uses the phrase "Dark Knight Curse", with two others simply having articles similarly discussing the fact that several cast members have had problems. Are we going to now assume that "similar spins in articles" somehow makes up for this? One source = one web reporter's catchphrase, not a trend, meme or theme. -Markeer 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an unnotable neologism. Artene50 (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the list. Not enough there to prove any notability/ Schmidt (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, which is why I started this AfD Stijndon (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS... this has no legs at present, unlike Curse of the Bambino and others of its kind. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Dark Knight (film); not notable enough for a separate article but should be mentioned in the article about the film. --Snigbrook (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 18:30, 10 August 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.