Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Enter Magneto

message: If you choose to add comments to this page, please do so in a separate section below.  Do not break-up my comments here.
==Raw count analysis==
*Delete
#TTN (12 edits) <nominator>
#EliasAlucard  
#NBeale  
**Presumed
#Ned Scott (5 edits) 
*Keep
#DGG 
#SchmuckyTheCat 
#Tim Q. Wells (8 edits)
#Hobit/ 68.40.58.255 (2 edits) 
**Presumed
#ZeroGiga (5 edits) 
#Geni (3 edits)
#Astronaut (3 edits) 
*Non-participatory
#Seresin (fixed a wikisyntax error with no commentary relative to this AfD or article)  
==Rough consensus rationale==
===Delete arguments===
*non-notable
*fails to provide real world context with reliable sources, source provided is invalid, 
*could neatly be placed on a LOE, and/or other relevant existing pages
===Discounted delete arguments===
*All of the other episodes of this series, except for the first episode, have been redirected, so this one also doesn't need to exist
**Wikipedia:ALLORNOTHING
*in order to be considered a valid source, it must be shown to be used in general articles
*sources for plot basis are not acceptable unless they are from the authors of the subject, and authors of subject can not be accepted as sources for notability because they are not independant; 
** equates to "There are no sources that I will accept, period".
* "OR sources"
** illogical
*infobox is supplemental
*production information is just OR. Even if that OR is sourced...
** equates to "There are no sources that I will accept, period".
*It is absurd to have articles on individual episodes of TV series
*we can't have articles about random episodes
===Keep arguments===
*a couple of sources provided in article
*collusion has occurred in redirecting related articles
*previous (recent) consensus against redirect
*2 new book sources provided in AfD
*3 sections of article and infobox provide real-world context
*unacceptable editor strategies
:: trying to delete some articles as precedent to delete others
:: trying every method to delete merge or redirect, as long as it loses content
:: to ask for real world context and then dismiss it as trivial
:: ask for sources and then reject whatever is directed as unsuitable
*Wikipedia is specialized encyclopedia (5 pillars)
*Enter Magneto has real-word context
*The review is clearly one independent secondary source
This AfD is not without it's backdrop of editor controversy.  There has been an edit war (as admitted by both sides) ongoing on this and other related episodes.  It seems this AfD arose as a contributing factor in this edit war.  It is important for AFD discussions to limit themselves to the issues at hand, which this one did a fair job of.  As closing administrator it was somewhat difficult to determine exactly what recommendation 4 of the editors were making.  Perhaps the editors thought that their positions were "obvious", based on the many discussions that have evidently occurred on various article talk pages and/or editor talk pages.  It is important to make your recommendation clear for the closing administrator, because xe will not have been involved in all that background stuff.  Having said that, I made my best guess on those 4.  But in the end it was far less the raw !vote count, and far more the arguments made that determined the decision.  I listed above the keep and delete arguments that were made, and I separated-out some of the weaker ones which got discounted weighting.  This process is required per WP:DELETION, and as described in the Administrator's guide to deletion, "determining rough consensus".  My closing decision is Keep. JERRY talk contribs 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing administrator's remarks

message: ===Delete arguments===
*non-notable
*fails to provide real world context with reliable sources, source provided is invalid, 
*could neatly be placed on a LOE, and/or other relevant existing pages
===Discounted delete arguments===
*All of the other episodes of this series, except for the first episode, have been redirected, so this one also doesn't need to exist
**Wikipedia:ALLORNOTHING
*in order to be considered a valid source, it must be shown to be used in general articles
*sources for plot basis are not acceptable unless they are from the authors of the subject, and authors of subject can not be accepted as sources for notability because they are not independant; 
** equates to "There are no sources that I will accept, period".
* "OR sources"
** illogical
*infobox is supplemental
*production information is just OR. Even if that OR is sourced...
** equates to "There are no sources that I will accept, period".
*It is absurd to have articles on individual episodes of TV series
*we can't have articles about random episodes
===Keep arguments===
*a couple of sources provided in article
*collusion has occurred in redirecting related articles
*previous (recent) consensus against redirect
*2 new book sources provided in AfD
*3 sections of article and infobox provide real-world context
*unacceptable editor strategies
:: trying to delete some articles as precedent to delete others
:: trying every method to delete merge or redirect, as long as it loses content
:: to ask for real world context and then dismiss it as trivial
:: ask for sources and then reject whatever is directed as unsuitable
*Wikipedia is specialized encyclopedia (5 pillars)
*Enter Magneto has real-word context
*The review is clearly one independent secondary source
This AfD is not without it's backdrop of editor controversy.  There has been an edit war (as admitted by both sides) ongoing on this and other related episodes.  It seems this AfD arose as a contributing factor in this edit war.  It is important for AFD discussions to limit themselves to the issues at hand, which this one did a fair job of.  As closing administrator it was somewhat difficult to determine exactly what recommendation 4 of the editors were making.  Perhaps the editors thought that their positions were "obvious", based on the many discussions that have evidently occurred on various article talk pages and/or editor talk pages.  It is important to make your recommendation clear for the closing administrator, because xe will not have been involved in all that background stuff.  Having said that, I made my best guess on those 4.  But in the end it was far less the raw !vote count, and far more the arguments made that determined the decision.  I listed above the keep and delete arguments that were made, and I separated-out some of the weaker ones which got discounted weighting.  This process is required per WP:DELETION, and as described in the Administrator's guide to deletion, "determining rough consensus".  My closing decision is Keep. JERRY talk contribs 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rough consensus rationale

message: *a couple of sources provided in article
*collusion has occurred in redirecting related articles
*previous (recent) consensus against redirect
*2 new book sources provided in AfD
*3 sections of article and infobox provide real-world context
*unacceptable editor strategies
:: trying to delete some articles as precedent to delete others
:: trying every method to delete merge or redirect, as long as it loses content
:: to ask for real world context and then dismiss it as trivial
:: ask for sources and then reject whatever is directed as unsuitable
*Wikipedia is specialized encyclopedia (5 pillars)
*Enter Magneto has real-word context
*The review is clearly one independent secondary source
This AfD is not without it's backdrop of editor controversy.  There has been an edit war (as admitted by both sides) ongoing on this and other related episodes.  It seems this AfD arose as a contributing factor in this edit war.  It is important for AFD discussions to limit themselves to the issues at hand, which this one did a fair job of.  As closing administrator it was somewhat difficult to determine exactly what recommendation 4 of the editors were making.  Perhaps the editors thought that their positions were "obvious", based on the many discussions that have evidently occurred on various article talk pages and/or editor talk pages.  It is important to make your recommendation clear for the closing administrator, because xe will not have been involved in all that background stuff.  Having said that, I made my best guess on those 4.  But in the end it was far less the raw !vote count, and far more the arguments made that determined the decision.  I listed above the keep and delete arguments that were made, and I separated-out some of the weaker ones which got discounted weighting.  This process is required per WP:DELETION, and as described in the Administrator's guide to deletion, "determining rough consensus".  My closing decision is Keep. JERRY talk contribs 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep arguments