Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcade Game Construction Kit

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 keep. – Robert 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pure nonsense and spam on article on obscure construction kit Mecanismo | Talk 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously not spam as it has no link and refers to a game for an obsolete system. I vaguely remember this program, although I believe it was from Activision, not Broderbund. Gazpacho 23:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not spam. Real product from notable company. Kappa 23:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- JJay 02:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why? --Mecanismo | Talk 12:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• For reasons stated above. Please consider issues carefully before nominating. -- JJay 18:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The votes for deletion are supposed to be a discussion about the merits (or the lack of them) of keeping an article. When someone votes without stating any basis on their vote it seems that the votes are...well... baseless. What is the value of a baseless vote? Therefore, what's the point of voting without stating any motive behind it? So, in the next time you vote please consider taking some time to reflect on the subject instead of mindlessly jumping the gun. --Mecanismo | Talk 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have zero obligation to justify my vote, baseless or otherwise; -- JJay 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• read parent comment above. If someone participates on a public vote and discussion about a change in a community, it is expected that the voter bases his/her/its vote on logical arguments and therefore fundaments his/her/its vote. If the voter doesn't vote based on any logical argument, why is he/she/it voting in the first place? The objective is to induce positive change and that can't be achieved with users casting mindless and baseless votes on the elimination of content. --Mecanismo | Talk 03:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not ask you if you had any motives for your nom- do you?; -- JJay 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You should know that it is expected that the nominator lists arguments which justify the AFD nomination. --Mecanismo | Talk 03:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not mindlessly jump the gun, as I was the third to vote Keep; -- JJay 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• And apparently you voted without reflecting on the subject and apparently it is something of a recurrent pattern of yours, since you do the exact same thing on other votes. Hence the "jumping the gun". --Mecanismo | Talk 03:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to withdraw this nom, I would have no objection and will not ask for reasons. -- JJay 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why I should withdraw a nomination which is not only solid but also deserved and justified. --Mecanismo | Talk 03:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, thanks for the comments. But I'm going to leave my vote unchanged at keep. For the reasons stated above. -- JJay 03:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - obviously notable and influential to other systems. Needs to be massively expanded though. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:22, 17 December 2005 (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.