Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceanic Six

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 redirect. Consensus is clear, and the ArbCom injunction doesn't apply here because this is neither about a character nor about an episode. Mangojuicetalk 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oceanic Six

Oceanic Six (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

OR resulting from about five or so minutes of screen time. See words like "presumably", "suspected, "it is likely", "this may be unlikely"). The only actual confirmed member of the Six is Hurley, in actual fact. Anything else is pure OR. Will (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redirect to Characters of Lost. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, redirect to Characters of Lost appears reasonable. User:Dorftrottel 15:02, February 2, 2008
  • Question - does it violate WP:CRYSTAL to redirect to the season four finale? --T-rex 15:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's mostly speculation. --Kmsiever (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Characters of Lost per WP:CRYSTAL, even though (by definition unreliable) spoilers may indicate otherwise. Even then, this topic seems like it can never be more than a repetition of plot. – sgeureka t•c 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Characters of Lost. The majority of this article is speculation. It cites no sources, and seems to be a mix of OR and specualtion. This early in the season, it is not possible to have an article over this subject matter that is in encylopedia fashionTabor (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is speculative in nature. Speculative material should not be merged. —XSG 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It isn't encyclopedic. But it is a plausible search term, so why not keep it as a redirect? User:Dorftrottel 23:22, February 2, 2008
  • Redirect to Characters of Lost. maybe people will search for itCats AND hats (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Characters of Lost. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Although consensus seems quite clear, the language of a recent ARBCOM injunction seems to imply that this AFD can not be actioned until further notice. So I am relisting it as a means to put it on hold. The injunction I am talking about is here. JERRY talk contribs 15:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete/redirect to Lost (season 4) – I do not think that this conflicts with the RfAr, which is about articles on specific episodes or characters. This article is about a group of characters over the course of several episodes. It's more of a storyline. Will says that only Hurley has been confirmed; Jack and Kate have also been confirmed, the former through the television series and the latter through Damon Lindelof. Redirecting the article to the fourth season finale article (which does not exist) is not a good idea. First of all, if you have been reading spoilers, the members are revealed before that. Secondly, it is unknown when the fourth season will end. The strike is ending today, which means that either episode 12 or 14 will be the finale, when 16 was the original plan. However, my biggest problem with the article is that, as of now, it is not notable enough. It can easily be chronicled in the fourth season episodic articles. One more note: please list any Lost-related deletion debates at the Lost WikiProject page. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Characters of Lost. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per thedemonhog - Tphi (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is a notable element of a major show. Article should be better reference, though, and I have begun to do so. I see on dogpile.com that the phrase does appear quite regularly. E! News and TV Guide should be decent in the way of reliable coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This is more proof Le Grand still doesn't understand the policies of Wikipedia. This isn't the place to list every aspect of a show in multiple stub articles. Do you realize, if that was the case... there would be about 1000000 small articles on every television show? Use a television wiki for every aspect as single articles, not Wikipedia. Something mentioned in a few minutes of Lost, doesn't automatically make it notable. Maybe after the season is over, it will be notable as a stand-alone article..but not now. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What policies are you referring to? WP:N definitely isn't a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect Given how little we know about this from the show, there's nothing to indicate that this will be important enough for a whole article. Reasonable to mention it in Characters of Lost and certainly appropriate for lostpedia. If it ends up being a major element of the show with something interesting to say, it could one day be restored. — brighterorange (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Will, Wikipedical, Tphi and I are participants of the Lost WikiProject and we have all voted for some form of deletion. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    Throw caution to the wind and redirect? I don't think the AC injunction was meant for articles like these (speculative), there's a massive near-unanimous consensus to redirect, and the AC case is about lack of consensus building. I think this'd slip under the radar and be generally accepted even with the injunction in place. Will (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    The article is about television characters. Of course the injunction applies. --Pixelface (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    Read why I don't think so above. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree-Redirect to Characters of Lost (for now). I think this group may be notable enough to have it's own article by the end of this season or the beginning of the next, but let's wait and see. I do think it can wait until after the lifting of the injunction. Ursasapien (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I think Characters of Lost is getting too big as it is, anyways, and plus, if someone learns something new about this group, then it can be added rather than having another debate of whether or not the information is sufficient enough to break off to a new article. Gary King (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    There's nothing really to learn - the episode that just aired has completed the set (Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Sun, Jin, the last two are in Ji Yeon), and knowing JJ, Damon, and Cuse, I doubt we'll know for a long time. Will (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
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.