Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Collections (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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Daily Collections (2nd nomination)

This is the article's second nomination for Articles for Deletion. An archive of the original discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Collections.

As the Daily Collections is a non-notable collection of flash animations, I propose this page to be removed. The article is very unorganized and polluted with vanity information. It seems futile to clean up the text, as it is very likely the article will gradually deteriorate to its present state in the future.

From the past discussion, I have recovered the following:

  • I apologise for not providing this before. Almost nonexistant Google, even when too broad a search is used. Nothing on news either way. As I see the recomendation to date, we have a three naked votes without any backing rational, one "important" and one "helpful". As always, I would be happy to see this included if any evidence of notability is presented. WP:WEB has further notes on how to demonstrate this for websites. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's "Daily Collections", not "The Daily Collections" - try this search instead ("daily collections" newgrounds → 180 results). r3m0t talk 15:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Because of the above, one or more of four actions should be taken:

  1. Delete. The article's contents and history will be removed.
  2. Merge. The article will be briefly summarized and placed into Newgrounds as a short section.
  3. Redirect. The article will redirect to Newgrounds.
  4. Userfy. The article will be placed onto the user pages of the original editor, 24.109.9.205, and all primary editors.

My recommendation is to perform all four actions. Delete, merge, redirect, and userfy, all speedily if possible. --SYCTHOStalk 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum

Additionally, there was no legitimate reason to keep the article in the first discussion. All keep comments are shown below:

  • Keep or merge with Newgrounds. --Liface 22:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge as per Liface B.ellis 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or userfy. A large amount of work seems to have gone into this--which is by itself insufficient reason for a keep. However, this article is helpful in identifying a "genre" (if you will) of online media creation.--eleuthero 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above. -- JJay 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The only appropriate argument given was by Eleuthero, but as the "work" can be userfied, there is no need to keep the article.

[edit] Log

  • Proposal editied to include R. fiend's suggestion below. --SYCTHOStalk 02:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Proposal editied to include addendum. --SYCTHOStalk 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Please post comments and suggestions below.

  • This was a redirect to Newgrounds, and that was working well. Restore the redirect and protect. I have half a mind to do this right now, but I'll wait for more comments. -R. fiend 02:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete article as non-notable (I don't seem to get any more than 20 unique pages, nowhere near all of which are relevant). I will support redirecting or recreation as redirect, but if we merged one article about a flash series to Newgrounds, we'd have to be fair and include every flash series in that article (the mind boggles), and I'd only be inclined to userfy if the editor(s) involved requested it. -- Saberwyn 05:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: We could ask the editors whether they wish to userfy, and conform with their requests. We could also allow the editors themselves to add the redirects at their discretion. --SYCTHOStalk 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this, re-create the redirect per R.fiend. Just zis Guy you know? 13:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per R.fiend. --Terence Ong 15:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Billpg 18:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable website. An excellent display as to why re-nominating is and should be permitted. Lord Bob 20:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. -- Krash (Talk) 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per R. fiend. Grandmasterka 01:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lord Bob. Stifle 13:55, 1 March 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.