Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events) (second nomination)
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events)[edit]
- List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events) was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-31. The result of the prior discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events).
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Interrobamf 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete appears to be fancruft rather than any sort of intentional meme of the series author that could be merged back into the main articles. But then...how would one know? This article is completely uncited from beginning to end. -Markeer 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "not an indiscriminate collection of information" in AFD rationales usually means nothing more than "I want this article deleted.". (We need "'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.' is not an indisciminate rationale for deletion.", I suspect.
The clearly applicable policy in fact is Wikipedia:No original research, as one can see by reading Talk:List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events). The author (according to the talk page discussion) never states that the number 13 is special in this series of books, and the idea that it is is an inference that is being drawn, with no evidence presented that this analysis and conclusion have already been made outside of Wikipedia, by Wikipedia editors. Searching, I can find no such evidence, either. Arguments that it is "obvious" don't wash. Cases for other numbers, such as 26, are equally "obvious". One can find apparent "codes" in any reasonably substantial work of fiction, if one works hard enough. Such work is original research unless it has already been done and documented outside of Wikipedia first. Delete. Uncle G 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, as pointless. Ultra-Loser Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites 05:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong deleteOR --Nick Y. 17:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep (I will resist the temptation I often have to write Ultra Strong Keep). The prevalence of the number 13 in the books is widely recognised. This information is unverified rather than unverifiable. Merge if necessary. Mallanox 00:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn Mallanox 11:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to where it is recognized. As I mentioned above, there is no evidence presented that this analysis and conclusion have already been made outside of Wikipedia. You haven't presented any, either. Uncle G 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, reel it in there, lets keep it friendly. A series of thirteen books each with thirteen chapters with an inordinate occurence of thirteen is going to get noticed. Google comes back with a ton of results for "Lemony Snicket" and "thirteen"/"13". If I had the time and inclination wade through all of the "I love ASOUE and I'm 13" there is no doubt evidence. Mallanox 19:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research, nor is it citing a source. Google Web comes back with a "ton of results" for "Lemony Snicket" and "queer", too. You still haven't pointed to where this is widely recognized, and demonstrated that this is not original research. That's because there isn't anything to point to. (You first wrote that it is verifiable, implying that you had a source that everyone else had missed. But now you write that you haven't actually looked for a source.) As I wrote above, I have waded through the search results. Uncle G 22:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, reel it in there, lets keep it friendly. A series of thirteen books each with thirteen chapters with an inordinate occurence of thirteen is going to get noticed. Google comes back with a ton of results for "Lemony Snicket" and "thirteen"/"13". If I had the time and inclination wade through all of the "I love ASOUE and I'm 13" there is no doubt evidence. Mallanox 19:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to where it is recognized. As I mentioned above, there is no evidence presented that this analysis and conclusion have already been made outside of Wikipedia. You haven't presented any, either. Uncle G 15:57, 29 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.