Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absolute Boyfriend
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. Owen× ☎ 00:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Absolute Boyfriend
Obviously advertising--Superm401 | Talk 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete candidate. (Notorious4life 06:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
Speedy Delete no context.--Alhutch 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)- Speedy Delete clearly advertising and non-encyclopaedic --Drno007 07:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete I agree with all of the above. --ParkerHiggins 07:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I'm not sure if it's advertising or if it's merely badly written.B.Wind 07:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)- Now that it's been rewritten so that readers can understand, keep. B.Wind 09:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - per 19,600 google hits. Is a popular anime series with its own product range [1]. Amazed that this was considered for deletion at all. Zordrac 08:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment i had no idea what it was from the way the article was written. there is no context in the article for any reader to figure out what it means. If you know something about it, i suggest you rewrite the article.--Alhutch 08:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know anything about it. I just always check things before voting. I think too many people make ill informed votes and it upsets the voting process. I did re-write the article a little though. But it does appear to be a very popular anime series. All of the google hits are about it. It has its own product range, at least 20 fan sites, is well and truly published. Rather than a speedy delete, it should be the opposite, a speedy keep. Zordrac 08:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment i had no idea what it was from the way the article was written. there is no context in the article for any reader to figure out what it means. If you know something about it, i suggest you rewrite the article.--Alhutch 08:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Just going to make another comment here. This article is a perfect example of the difference between a poorly written article and a topic that is of no encyclopaedic value. The article was terribly written (still is, really, its just a stub after my partial rewrite). But people voted on it because they didn't check. Simply google search finds it. Rather than a Vfd, it should have been asked for a cleanup and some stubs. Yet the first 4 votes were all for speedy delete. This says to me that we have to rethink how we go about the voting process, if this was nearly speedied. Zordrac 08:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it was entirely wrong to want to speedy it since it qualifies under the no context category, and it was hard to figure out what to do a google search on when the article was almost complete nonsense. If people don't want their articles speedied, then they should write them according to Wikipedia guidelines. By the way, good job with the cleanup. :-)--Alhutch 08:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Well, just out of interest here, the article in its original form, was describing the latest episode, from what I could gather from the references. It was saying the latest thing that happened. Anyway, but the thing is that the topic is encyclopaedic. If it had been speedied, and then someone later on had created it, as a valid article, then it'd be deleted as vandalism (assuming that nobody thought to make a request for undeletion). IMO that's the problem. Zordrac 10:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Not so. If an article is recreated afteer a deletion, and it is substantially the same, ie, a recreation, it will simply be re-deleted. If the article is substantially different, it counts as a new article. Denni ☯ 05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, just to comment on this. I created an article on Mediacrat a while ago, not realising that it had previously been deleted, and the content was entirely factual, something which was patently not the case in its original creation by a person who was trying to smear his name. The article was speedy deleted with no vote and I was warned for vandalism - in spite of not realising it had previously been deleted, and secondly creating an entirely different article, and one that was sourced. So its not actually true then. If I can be warned for vandalism for recreating an article that I didn't realise was deleted, for creating it in an accurate manner, and for creating it in a manner 100% different to the original article, then ergo what you say is plainly not true in practise. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not so. If an article is recreated afteer a deletion, and it is substantially the same, ie, a recreation, it will simply be re-deleted. If the article is substantially different, it counts as a new article. Denni ☯ 05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- comment What Denni says is true. that's why you're not supposed to use the db-repost CSD tag on a previously deleted article unless the content is exactly the same.--Alhutch 20:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Well, just out of interest here, the article in its original form, was describing the latest episode, from what I could gather from the references. It was saying the latest thing that happened. Anyway, but the thing is that the topic is encyclopaedic. If it had been speedied, and then someone later on had created it, as a valid article, then it'd be deleted as vandalism (assuming that nobody thought to make a request for undeletion). IMO that's the problem. Zordrac 10:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it was entirely wrong to want to speedy it since it qualifies under the no context category, and it was hard to figure out what to do a google search on when the article was almost complete nonsense. If people don't want their articles speedied, then they should write them according to Wikipedia guidelines. By the way, good job with the cleanup. :-)--Alhutch 08:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep changing my vote after changes made by Zordrac to the article. This appears to be a notable anime series, and the article now makes sense.--Alhutch 08:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the rewritten version. I don't care a hoot about Manga myself but this seems to be notable enough. Personally, I prefer Viz instead of VIZ. — JIP | Talk 08:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as above. Trollderella 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep after rewrite, manga series by notable publisher. -- Creidieki 00:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- keep please now that it is rewritten erasing does not make any sense Yuckfoo 01:07, 29 November 2005 (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.
