Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snake Mountain (television)

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. One "keep" commenter apparently thinks this is just a vote as opposed to a discussion and presented no reason at all to keep the article so that is discounted entirely. While A Nobody has added a reference, it is extremely trivial in nature, and the delete comments make valid arguments. Could possibly be recreated as an appropriate redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snake Mountain (television)

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

A minor part of MOTU without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 05:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was a major location in the TV series, so I can't see how you can claim it is a "minor part" 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re: Snake Mountain Evan1975 (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge in adequate detail to a list of locations. As it is based on the fiction itself, it is not OR, has the the fiction as a source. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable thing found in various notable works of fiction. No way to fit all of this in another article comfortably. And mass deleting or "trimming" is the same as delete. Rename it though, since it mentions more than just the television appearances. Snake Mountain (Masters of the Universe) is a much more appropriate name. Dream Focus 01:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its been in three He-man series, plus She-Ra, and mentioned in the He-man movie, plus the different comic book series, and it has a toy. Dream Focus 02:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not a single source in this terrible article which fails all of WP:V, WP:N, WP:PLOT and WP:TRIVIA, and all I can find online is old adverts for a toy connected with this thing. Reyk _YO! 17:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have added a reliable secondary source (a published book) concerning out of universe aspects of this notable location (the main headquarters of principal villain who is still spoofed on Robot Chicken occasionally, i.e. the universe is still relevant in popular culture) from a multi-million dollar (even in 1980s dollars) franchise that appears in multiple episode of a memorable television show, as a playset (that my brother and I even owned! This still looks awesome today...), as a game, as well as in comic/cartoon style books. Thus, the two votes to delete have been refuted as the article is no longer "entirely original research" nor does it have "not a single source" at this time as it contains a citation from a secondary source. Moreover, this location is verifiable from dozens of additional published books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is mostly original research and plot violating what Wikipedia is not. The one reference that has been added is a trivial mention of the toy, which does not provide the significant coverage required by the notability guideline. Discussions already at Eternia and Skeletor should be sufficient to address this subject not notable enough for its own article. Sarilox (talk) 22:26, 22 February 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.