Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redpill

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) 00:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redpill

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

Unnecessary split that fails general notability guideline. cmadler (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep ~~at the moment~~ - I think this could probably be a decent article, as such I have tagged it for rescue. –xeno^talk 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Upgraded to regular-strengh keep per sources identified by Ceranthor and steps already taken towards improvement –xeno^talk 20:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's definitely notable, but the article is in bad shape. If I could improve it much, I would, but I am not good with media articles. Keep per Jacking in to the Matrix franchise: cultural reception and interpretation, Taking the red pill: science, philosophy and religion in The Matrix, this book, this book, Matrix Warrior: Being the One, and The Matrix in theory. I feel it is covered sufficiently in all of these books and therefore notable. ceranthor 19:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notability issues have been addressed for the most part. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept/metaphor is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Its a notable concept, and vital to the matrix articles, and the article merely needs improvement. 216.221.96.202 (talk) 03:56, 20 September 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.