Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot immunity

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. No reliable sources were brought about that would merit an article. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot immunity

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced original research and coatrack of examples, tagged as uncited since 2007, but not a singre ref to a scholarly source. Compare with similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character shield. Xuz (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and shear off the list, leave only a few (less than 10) prominent examples. References should be able to be found for this concept. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple reliable, scholarly, third-party sources that use this particular term to describe this type of plot device, then keep; else, delete. Bwrs (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, and probably abandoned or hopeless article: no one bothered to improve it during the week of being tagged. Mukadderat (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The examples section is a little bloated and can be cut to the most important. Plot immunity is important part of fiction and should be kept.Camulus (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's interesting, but it's totally unsourced, and it's about an exception to a (fairly obvious) rule, rather than a rule itself. The title is a clever disguise for what would probably be called "List of protagonists killed off in the middle of a story". I'd love to see it improved to the point of being kept, so no !vote at this time. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- YOur "list of..." idea would fall under "not an indiscriminate collection", unless you find scholarly sources which discuss the issue of protagonists' life span. Timurite (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely unreferenced original research. If evidence can be provided that this is a notable concept - that is, discussion of the topic by reliable, scholarly sources (not blogs and forums) - it should be kept, but as it is it flatly fails our inclusion guidelines. Robofish (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On closer examination, this article appears to have existed since 2003 without ever containing any kind of sources whatsoever. That's got to be some kind of record (and not the good kind). Robofish (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no hits for the term in google books and in google web search only wikipedia mirrors and other unreliable sources. Timurite (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Camulus, this article shows a key concept that is existent in many works of fiction. While it is not sourced, the concept of the idea can easily be seen in many works of science fiction. Deleting this article would be a shame, in my opinion. - Rickington (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What "key concept"? Which scholarly sources descibe it? Xuz (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time to delete: no one came with reasonable references during twoo weeks of discussion. Laudak (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2010 (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.