Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhapsody in Drew (2nd nomination)

From 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhapsody in Drew

This is a poorly written Pokémon episode article, that doesn't even mention Pokémon until it's halfway through. The last AfD debate had pretty much reached a consensus on delete, except Your log in name and his/her various sockpuppets/meatpuppets. The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep again, isn't this a breach of WP:POINT? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, I'm pretty sure the admin completely ignored the "Votes by new users" section. And besides, I think your supposed to wait around 3 months or something before proposing an AFD again.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Speedy Keep per guidelines. Comment If you want to challenge the finding, post a deletion review. --Coredesat talk 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Isn't a Deletion Review meant only for articles that were deleted? The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 11:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Not necessarily, I see no-consensus keeps get contested there quite often, and "It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora". --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Here's a suggestion why can't put the words Pokemon Episode on top. Thief Lord 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's just a non-notable episode. Do you seriously want a Wikipedia article on every single Pokémon episode? The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 15:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ignoring the nominator's bad reasoning about the last debate, I don't see why this article should be deleted. There is a whole category of Pokemon episodes (Category:Pokémon episodes.) This is a stub, but stubs are okay. The only good alternative to having the article would be to merge articles like this into a list, but considering the detail in articles on other episodes, it's not reasonable. Mangojuicetalk 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Most of the other Pokémon episode articles are copied from Bulbapedia and, sooner or later, will be mass-tagged and -deleted as copyright violation. Check out Pokémon, I Choose You!. --The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So? I doubt this one is a copyvio. And anyways, Copyvio's are only supposed to be deleted if a new article is made at the temp subpage linked to from the copyvio template.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: This one isn't copyvio, but the rest of them are. And they have been/will soon be tagged as copyvio and removed from the aforementioned category, and this will probably be the only episode article left, an undesirable result, which if noted as a precedent will promote the writing of more trivial episode articles. Moreover, the relevant Wikiproject and many of its members are against having episode articles, as noted here, here, here and here. --The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since there is a no-consensus exception to AfD. This article is poorly written, and reads like original research. There was a clear consensus to delete in the previous AfD debate before sockpuppets hijacked it. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: There was some non sockpuppet users who did not want it to be deleted. I was one of them. Thief Lord 11:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • And, had you checked, It was made clear which votes were made by the new users/sockpuppets. Thus, the person who closed the AFD made it clear which votes where leginamite and which weren't.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: The point of this discussion is to decide whether the article should be deleted or not, and not to ascertain whether I'm senile and/or negligent. Please refrain from personal conversation. The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • What personal conversation? I am just pointing out that the sockpuppet votes were ignored.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Is Bulbapedia owned by the same people who own Wikipedia? Thief Lord 18:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: no, they are completely unaffailated.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 18:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is useful. GangstaEB• ice slides) 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Rhapsody_in_Drew_%282nd_nomination%29_d3f3.html"