Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resistance (Terminator)

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance (Terminator)

lacks independent reliable sources attesting to the notability of the fictional concept. Tagged for sourcing for over a year and a half. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable aspect of a popular work of fiction, found in the movies, the television show, the comic books, and the games. See Terminator_(franchise). You can't have the series without the resistance. That's like having Cobra_(G.I._Joe) without G.I. Joe. Dream Focus 21:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be important to the series, but it's only notable (as an independent article) if there is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Noisalt (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)~[reply]

Keep as per Dreamfocus. Also the deletion rationale is poor, as Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE. I suspect this nomination is a spillover from the battleground at Notability (fict), which is sad. Anyway, did Otto4711 and Noisalt, who are concerned about sources, carry out the most basic search themselves? Otto4711 might have been expected to do so according to WP:BEFORE. I would say that among the 114 Gbook hits there might be some refs that could satisfy the two editors' very high standards. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool down, I never voted to delete the article. I just pointed out that Dream Focus's comment wasn't a valid notability argument. Noisalt (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails Wikipedia's requirements for independent verifiability. Mintrick (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a frequent and very serios misunderstanding. I quote from WP:FAILN: "Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present."; and further down "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources.", and my favorite: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.". Nominating article for deletion merely because they presently are unsourced is way out of the line (nevertheless a frequent occurrence) and the "active effort" to look for sources, also by the nominator, is repeated in WP:BEFORE (also frequently ignored, this case included). Deletion should be a last resort, not the first. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you not bother to read the nomination? The article has been tagged as being without sources for over a year and a half. That's plenty of notification. And enough time to walk to a library in a different country. Mintrick (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm going to mail you a two-by-four and a paperclip. I assume you'll be able to SOFIXIT them an F-22. I'm sure you'll get it "eventually". Mintrick (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Rather than mail anything to anyone, we would rather you help add sources to these sourceable articles. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe I'll include a book on metaphor, too. Mintrick (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As much as I enjoy a good read, I am not willing to post my address on wiki. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a list of organizations in the series. Either way works; deletion is unnecessary. Merging removes the requirement for separate notability, to the extent one may think it applies. DGG (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note we do not have any limit on improvements, nor do we delete as unsourced, no matter how long it has been unsourced. If someone wants to delete as unsourceable, the burden is on them to show it. DGG (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would we show that anything is unsourceable? Noisalt (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a big mess of unsourced in universe stuff that does not give any proper context. Artw (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terminator (franchise). Bunch of regurgitated plotcruft. --EEMIV (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is not a legitimate "argument" for anything. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fancrap. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. Please stop trolling AfDs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove most of the in universe info. Check Flood (Halo) for example of a faction article similar to this which is a FA. Edit: I say this only to highlight the style of the article which contains very little in universe writing not as a WP:OTHERSTUFF type argument-- Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:31, 9 August 2009 (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.