Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraggle Rockin': A Collection

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraggle Rockin': A Collection

Found this when doing some checks of some old User:MascotGuy sockpuppets. Remarkably lucid for MG, but the rules as I understand them state that any edit from a banned user, even a helpful one, icn't allowed to stay. It has since become a target article for a slew of subsequent socks. I therefore vote to delete and to salt the title. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MG also created [[Category:Fraggle Rock albums]]. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would be G5 if Gogo Dodo hadn't touched it. :-P Seriously, doesn't seem to be notable either way, and it's just attracting socks out the yin-yang. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Keep per below, seems to be notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't blame me making G5 not apply. Another editor in September made two edits [1] [2]. If were not for these two edits, I would have deleted the article long ago. If you review my history with MascotGuy, you know that to be correct. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Where are you getting "any edit from a banned user, even a helpful one, isn't allowed to stay" from? That's virtually the opposite of what our policy says. "May be reverted" is most definitely not the same as "must be reverted". – iridescent 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not blaming you in the least, GD. I'm not de facto against the article, but it is a contribution from a hard-banned user, albeit a strange user with a mix of useful and vandalism. My understanding: No edit from a hard-banned user is allowed to stay, regardless of whether or not it's helpful. Is this helpful? Yes. Problem: It's also a target for his never-ending army of socks. Suggestion: How about long-term semi-protection if it stays? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked: Gogo Dodo is right. It was created in defiance of the ban, but it's had substantial edits by others. Good call, Iridescent. I'm withdrawing my delete, but I'm interested in seeing this run its course. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article looks fine to me. Dream Focus (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After going back and forth over this, I think it's worth keeping. The Fraggle Rock article has a music section, but its (as-yet-empty) pull-down box is for episode songs. It'll probably always be short, but seems to work as a summary derived from that main article. Whitehorse1 11:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 9 December 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.