Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball alternate timelines
- 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. WjBscribe 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dragon Ball alternate timelines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This is another non-notable, crufty asset of Dragon Ball. Its only source is a random data book, and nothing else. Nemu 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, poorly sourced,
cruft. --Tractorkingsfan 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Keep Sourced, notable, and there is no such thing as "fancruft." Thanos6 22:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete above vote should be discounted as nonsense. JuJube 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fancruft is a particularly inflammatory word and have nothing to do with deletion policy. The article also has sources. So it may not be notable, but that comment isn't entirely nonsensical. - Mgm|(talk) 08:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think it is. That vote is basically only a contradiction of the vote above it. JuJube 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't like using the phrase 'fancruft' but this article defines it. Utterly non-encyclopedic. EliminatorJR Talk 23:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The nomination sums it up well, also with a lil considering of the WP:ATT policy. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eight manga volumes and one reference book about those volumes don't count as attributed? Thanos6 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go check a lil' bit o' this. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And that has nothing to do with attribution, it has to do with notablitity; and as I've said, WP should not care one bit about notability, we should be the Library of Alexandria and take in EVERYTHING verifiable. Thanos6 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no we shouldn't. I can verify that I lost a button off my shirt yesterday, but I don't think we need an article about it. EliminatorJR Talk 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? If we aim to be the sum total of all human knowledge, that's what we should shoot for. No half measures! Thanos6 10:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The GTA series is pretty notable, so, in turn, I can say that the events that happen in the series are notable; the two situations are very similar, and the two need to be shot in the head similarly. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 02:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that, indeed we are actively preventing that, if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity ; Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. ; the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.
This is NPOV. This is not original research. This is verified. If you think the references need to be made more specific, say so. If not, come up with a better reason than "cruft"; because I got all those quotes from WP essays and guidelines. Thanos6 10:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that, indeed we are actively preventing that, if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity ; Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. ; the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.
- Er, no we shouldn't. I can verify that I lost a button off my shirt yesterday, but I don't think we need an article about it. EliminatorJR Talk 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And that has nothing to do with attribution, it has to do with notablitity; and as I've said, WP should not care one bit about notability, we should be the Library of Alexandria and take in EVERYTHING verifiable. Thanos6 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go check a lil' bit o' this. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eight manga volumes and one reference book about those volumes don't count as attributed? Thanos6 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Overly detailed plot summary with no real world context. There is no means by which this situation can be fixed, except deletion. Jay32183 03:26, 17 April 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.