Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another World opening sequence

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. Sr 13 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another World opening sequence

The opening sequence of this series isn't notable enough for its own article. The closing credit sequence was deleted recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing credits of Another World. Masaruemoto 01:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the article looks nice from a presentational standpoint with images and text, concerns a major soap opera that has been on television for many, many years, is rather well written. My only criticism is that there should be some kind of external links and/or reference section. Plus, just because one article was deleted does not necessarily mean that this article's quality is the same as the deleted one or worse. I'm not saying it's better, because I cannot compare it to the deleted one, but it might be and as it stands looks quite good, with the exception of the lack of sources, but I would hope that that is something editors can develop. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Keep, because the article looks nice"? That's a new one in AFD. The "quality" of the deleted Closing credits of Another World or this article have no relevance to whether it should be kept or deleted. I hope this isn't a reaction to my comment to you in another AFD (you seem to believe that adding images to articles that violate policy somehow improves them). Please familiarise yourself with WP:NOT. Masaruemoto 02:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article should have more references, but I don't see any policy violations. Also, please Wikipedia:Assume good faith, because I don't make "reaction" posts to comments by users made elsewhere. I won't say it's a Wikipedia:No personal attacks insult or something, but I've been away for a while and am trying to do my best here and just thought it a little unfair to make that implication. Anyway, I'll probably be heading to bed soon. So, goodnight! :) Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an assumption of bad faith to point out the obvious, that within 2 minutes of you replying to my critical comment in one of yesterday's AFDs your very next edit was saying "keep" here based on a non-existant argument, even though there were over 120 AFD articles listed in between that you didn't comment on. Then 3 minutes later you went straight to another of my AFDs and added another "keep". You then commented in one unrelated AFD, followed by adding another "keep" to an AFD I started FIVE DAYS AGO. You cite WP:AGF but you are apparently WP:STALKING me by looking for my AFDs and adding "keep" to them. Out of the several hundred AFDs made in the last 5 days I have only nominated 7 or 8 of those, yet you have managed to find 3 of them, while ignoring hundreds of others. I can only assume my criticism at the Hydra AFD offended you, but you did ask for other editors' opinions on the article. Targetting my AFDs isn't going to have much effect, other than make people suspicious of your motives. Masaruemoto 05:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are way off base and should lay off on accusations. I have participated in numerous discussions, several of which I don't believe you commented in, and I have made scores of edits to articles that I don't believe you had any participation in either. If in the off chance out of multiple edits, I happened to "vote" in a mere three of these that you also contributed in is nothing to get excited about. Please do not be paranoid. I think you're trying to distract from the actual discussion at hand and I hope that isn't the case. I will avoid debating you further and request that you be Wikipedia:Civility and do the same. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I thought we had enough trouble with plot summaries....What exactly is notable about this opening sequence. Lots of WP:OR in there too Corpx 01:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Corpx. Why an opening sequence? Oyster guitarist 03:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR, reads in part like a poor essay, and per Corpx. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nicely-presented article for utter lack of sources, which are probably impossible to find. --Huon 09:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No opening sequence is notable enough to require an article. No third parties are talking about the opening sequence to this cancelled (but highly notable) program. --Charlene 10:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't nominate this myself previously and was planning on !voting "weak keep" here because of the use of a Billboard Top 100 hit as the theme music. However, there does not appear to be a separate article for the theme music so I can't in any way now justify this article. The show is very notable. Notability of the show does not mean that every aspect of the show is also independently notable. Otto4711 18:40, 10 July 2007 (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.