Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUCKUP

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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FUCKUP

(Relatively) procedural nom per discussion on the talk page. Nothing significant or notable for this subject to deserve its own article. Already mentioned in The Illuminatus! Trilogy. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy? daveh4h 05:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er... I wonder what the likelihood of someone looking this up and expecting a computer are...If it were my call, I'd redirect this to error. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to...My userpage! (kidding, kidding...) daveh4h 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:FICT#Elements of Fiction. No coverage in secondary sources. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm completely guessing the percentages here but I would say that, with a margin of error of ±1%, 99% of all edits immediately following a Wikipedia search for FUCKUP will be some silly vandalism. I think someone just read the book and found the name of the computer very amusing and decided to write an article about it. The fictional computer is non-notable. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. JJL (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional device which has not received significant coverage from secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft, or Merge into the main article for the novel, if this element plays a significant enough role. Regardless, it doesn't deserve its own article.--Shaggorama (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the book's article, because there is not enough to support a separate article for this element of the fictional universe. In the alternative, Delete outright.-- danntm ^T _C 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, esp SWik78. Eusebeus (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect without deletion as suggested above. Short enough to be justifiably included in the main article and legitimate enough to serve as a redirect that preserves the contribution history and leaves open the possibility of expanding if additional sources are found. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I find a merge unnecessary. The only information within FUCKUP is already found here and here. There are no other facts there that can be merged. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletion is much more unnecessary when a redirect location exists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy and salt. I imagine this is a huge vandalism farm, judged on the name. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 20:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Merge and delete, so we can't merge and delete, we can merge and redirect and protect the page, if that's what you mean. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okey dokey then, just protect the redirect. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 20:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable enough for it's own article, and it's likley to become a breeding ground for vandals. There's nowhere to merge to and a redirect would be pointless. Also, why not write out the abbreviation in the page title at least?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be merged and redirect to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. I am not opposed to including the abbreviation in the page title. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Illuminatus, but without a redirect. The redirect will be confusing. DGG (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Illuminati trilogy. Redirect is probably best, to reduce vandalism the vacuum would almost inevitably attract. Frank | talk 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - I don't understand all these merge !votes. From what I can tell, there is no information in FUCKUP that isn't already in another article. Can someone elucidate what is to be merged? -FrankTobia (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True enough. For my own part, my merge meant "keep the info; don't lose it in the process." Frank | talk 01:38, 7 May 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.