Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Gojulas
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 was no consensus. Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
King Gojulas
- King Gojulas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into a list of Zoids. A whole article for each Zoid is a bit much, but we should keep at least the more notable ones for people who come to wikipedia looking to learn, as WP is probably an early stop for someone unfamiliar with the show. Tealwisp (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- discuss the merge elsewhere. as it would make no sense for there not to be at least a redirect, this is not a deletion question./DGG (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Merge or redirect arguments are perfectly fine for an AfD and are not grounds to get the discussion thrown out. Both are arguments to remove an article from Wikipedia, so they are forms of deletion. It makes no sense to derail a legitimate discussion and start another one somewhere else, because everyone knows that there will be no other discussion, that nothing will get done, and that these inappropriate articles will languish in the same unacceptable state forever. Reyk YO! 02:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- what you say here is clear contrary to present WP:Deletion policy [1]--they are unambiguously forms of keep. If they were forms of delete, how could a merge or a redirect be done by editing without coming here? It has to be one way or the other about a merge: if it is deletion, it can be done only here (which i think would be absurdly limited & greatly discourage compromise and add to the work) or it is a form of editing, in which case it does not belong here at all. The way to get articles improved is to discuss them; the way to get merges performed is to propose them. almost all of these groups of afd proposals are for things where there would be agreement on a reasonable merge. DGG (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Baloney. Plenty of deletes don't end up here: speedies, prods and transwikis to name three. Also plenty of obvious speedies and transwikis end up here and having that as the outcome of the deletion discussion is perfectly legit. Redirects and merges can therefore also be acceptable results of an AfD discussion. But you haven't addressed the real point of my argument: the fact that it is useless to move discussion from a forum where things get discussed and things get done to an out-of-the-way talk page somewhere where nothing will get discussed and nothing will get done. Reyk YO! 07:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, they can be acceptable outcomes, but these pages are supposed to discuss deletion, so someone should only bring the page here if it should be deleted rather than redirected, merged, kept or otherwise edited. As for your claim: "Merge or redirect arguments are perfectly fine for an AfD and are not grounds to get the discussion thrown out. Both are arguments to remove an article from Wikipedia, so they are forms of deletion." That is incorrect. Merge is incorporation of material in a different article and redirect retains the article history, so neither leads to removal of material. Neither - especially merge - removes the article from Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Baloney. Plenty of deletes don't end up here: speedies, prods and transwikis to name three. Also plenty of obvious speedies and transwikis end up here and having that as the outcome of the deletion discussion is perfectly legit. Redirects and merges can therefore also be acceptable results of an AfD discussion. But you haven't addressed the real point of my argument: the fact that it is useless to move discussion from a forum where things get discussed and things get done to an out-of-the-way talk page somewhere where nothing will get discussed and nothing will get done. Reyk YO! 07:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- what you say here is clear contrary to present WP:Deletion policy [1]--they are unambiguously forms of keep. If they were forms of delete, how could a merge or a redirect be done by editing without coming here? It has to be one way or the other about a merge: if it is deletion, it can be done only here (which i think would be absurdly limited & greatly discourage compromise and add to the work) or it is a form of editing, in which case it does not belong here at all. The way to get articles improved is to discuss them; the way to get merges performed is to propose them. almost all of these groups of afd proposals are for things where there would be agreement on a reasonable merge. DGG (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 00:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unnotable fictional weapon. Tavix (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not Delete per DGG. Redirect or merge is appropriate her and neither option requires deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:22, 22 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.