Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geronimo Jackson

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo Jackson

DELETE - No record of album having ever been bought or sold- JM Band does not actually exist. Unverifiable. Lostcruft. — TheKMantalk 00:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above Liamdaly620 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. [1] PJM 01:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There appears to be a debate at the Lost television series forums and blogs (where its current claim of notability is allegedly asserted) whether or not this band ever existed. Nearly all online sources appear to agree that it actually never did, and that in fact the production mistook a certain band named Geronimo Black for some reason. Thus there is no real reason to keep an article that seems to assume otherwise. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 05:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Hurricanehink 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-verifiable fancruft. Rillian 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Sunray 01:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. The Lost cruft battle continues. Baryonyx 07:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, I agree, not verifiable. 209.177.232.139 almabes
  • Strong keep As article says, mentioned in an episode of the television show Lost -- & information about this band (even verification whether it existed or was invented by the show's writers) is badly desired by every viewer of Lost. Sheesh, take a peak at any Lost discussion site on the Internet. (Want examples? I can furnish examples.) I believe so firmly that we should keep this article that I am willing to take extreme measures to keep it, but am quite willing to discuss the matter first. -- llywrch 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC) After a discussion with LeFlyman yesterday, I still say Keep, but will accept the determination of the Admin who closes this discussion. -- llywrch 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You raise an interesting point. I was considering changing my vote until I read your last sentence. What do you mean "I am willing to take extreme measures to keep it"? Are you saying you would not abide by the consensus decision made here? Sunray 16:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am saying that to delete this article would be a grave mistake, & am emphasing just how fiercely I believe this. Part of my zeal for this article is out of surprise that no one else until this moment has spoken up in defense of it -- even an article that said it was a fictional band & never existed outside of Lost would justify the article's existence. (However, this morning I discovered a web page about this group & added it to the article, so I'd say that either it did exist or is a noteable hoax by the creators of Lost.) In short, had I a "save this article" chit as a long-time contributor to Wikipedia (or any credibility), I would spend it on this article. -- llywrch 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • even an article that said it was a fictional band & never existed outside of Lost would justify the article's existence -- that's where you and most everyone else here disagrees. As for that link you added, there's no there there. As I noted on the article's talk page, domain registrant information suggests that this is just another hoax website set up by ABC or some enterprising fan. If that's what it is, it deserves a brief mention in a couple of the Lost articles, just like the rest of the hoax sites. android79 16:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not every Lost fan wants this page up on Wikipedia. I sure don't, because that's not what Wikipedia is for. Go hog wild about this on The Fuselage or some other fan forum, but Wikipedia is not a fansite, not a place for OR, unverifiable content, or speculation. As someone who's both a dedicated fan of Lost and someone who's worked very hard to get and keep the Lost articles in encyclopedic shape, I find your assertions inaccurate distortions of the truth and potentially harmful to the work so many others have dedicated their time to. Baryonyx 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baronyx, I assume you'd rather delete this article instead of trying to rewrite it into acceptible form? If this article is deleted, & later events prove that either the group did exist, or it was important to the plot of Lost, it will be more difficult to recreate this article than you may think. According to current practice, deleting this article means it goes away with little or no chance of recreation. -- llywrch 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's also incorrect. If this band suddenly becomes an important plot point in the show or otherwise notable, there's nothing stopping anyone from recreating it. If it's deleted, you can even request that someone undelete the old content through deletion review. android79 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's no acceptable form for an article like this, with virtually no verifiable content and non-notability besides a less than 20s scene on Lost. What can it be reduced to? One unexpandable line. That's like saying we should have left the page 540 when its sole contents were (4+8+15+16+23+42)*5. It won't be difficult to recreate the article... notice the page 4 8 15 16 23 42 which was resurrected recently, and instead of being deleted this time, is headed to a redirect. I'm most certainly not opposed to having this page resurrected should the band one day prove pivotal. But, the situation with Lost cruft has gotten beyond reasonable limits, and I'm of the opinion that these types of pages are an embarrassment and discouragement to those who diligently work on the Lost articles. As editors, it is our responsibility to hold Wikipedia to a higher standard of quality in the information we present. We've just deleted the article on the "security system", for example, because of its hefty OR and unverifiability. Will there possibly be a page on the "security system" when the show is done? Sure thing. But just because the "security system" may one day have its own page does not mean that we have to have any old poor quality page that gets made now. There's just not enough on the "security system" to merit an encyclopedic article under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The same applies to this "band": it may very well be that this is critical to the future of the show (which, note is speculation)... but what may one day be is not an excuse for retaining a substandard article that lowers the quality of Wikipedia. Baryonyx 06:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with redirect to Episodes of Lost (season 2)#The Hunting Party. Everything that can be said about this "band" at this point is already covered in the episode synopsis. This is/was unverifiable fancruft of the sort that will get re-created over and over again. android79 16:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Does not even merit discussion -- this is a hoax page. There is no band "Geronimo Jackson" which ever topped the charts in August 1978 (See this Canadian chart list for August 19, 1978)-- it was created for LOST, likely based on an actual band from 1972, "Geronimo Black," formed by a member of Frank Zappa's Mothers of Invention. (Incidentally, check out the fourth song on the real album.)—LeFlyman 17:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Driveshaft (another Lost band) has a wiki page, why can't other fictional aspects of the show?. toxikgrrl 16:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article isn't being advocated for deletion merely because its a fictional band. It is advocated for deletion as non-notable, unverifiable, originally researched cruft material, mentioned for a few seconds in a single episode. There's a rather obvious difference between being a factual, accurate article on a recurring fictional character and a made-up article of a very minor fictional reference, IMHO. As for DriveShaft, I don't think it should be an article, either, even if it is Charlie's band. However, it has more accurate content derived from the show itself, and a more central role to a main character, so the argument for that band's inclusion has stronger footing than this one's.Baryonyx 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The band is not notable so far in the show. It was mentioned once. Jtrost 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Danflave 19:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Dan and others voting speedy: this article does not fit any criterion for speedy deletion. android79 19:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose you are right, but I still do not want this übercruft sitting on Wikipedia for a week. I've begrudgingly changed my vote to "Delete." Danflave 19:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, hoax articles do fit the criteria ("Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism"). Just because it's not specifically addressed on CSD, does not necessarily mean that it's not appropriate for speed deletion. Reducing the load on AfD by improving the Speed-Delete categories has been an on-going discussion. This highlights one area that has been "overlooked."—LeFlyman 22:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Err, this article isn't a hoax. It's an article about a hoax. android79 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To clarify: prior to your revising it, the content of the article was made-up (i.e. a hoax) about a fictional band; hence it was a "meta-hoax". The material didn't even refer to the fan-hoax recently registered Web site. Now that it's a single verifiable sentence, it's no longer a hoax, but may never grow beyond the stub.—LeFlyman 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and OR Rillian 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Worthy of maybe a passing mention in the Lost episode summary, if that, not of its own page. ddevlin

  • Keep - i looked it up becuase i wanted to see if it was a real band or not, the article gave me exactly the infor i needed as i have come to expect from wikipedia. Also, as a side note i think the band will come up again in the show...obviously i can not prove this though. --24.18.237.53 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it does, the situation may have to be re-evaluated. Until then, let the axe fall, as it were. --Agamemnon2 06:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete There is no reason for this article. It's not notable. Archon Divinus 12:48 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Unless we want to delete all references from fiction --Kahlfin 19:20, 27 January 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geronimo_Jackson&oldid=1146585753"