Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Collections

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 no consensus default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Collections

nn flash animations r3m0t ^talk 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with Newgrounds. --Liface 22:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete flashcruft. Stifle 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, important part of flash animations phenomenon. Kappa 06:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll withdraw my vote in the light of Aaron's homework, although it googles better without the definite article. Kappa 07:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not encyclopedic. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Homework 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)
• Comment: Please be more specific about which votes you consider to be "naked". As far as I can see, almost all the votes are longer than the nom. -- JJay 07:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've already given the nominator a poke about that. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as not notable enough. If they were more well known and/or existed for longer, perhaps. -- Kjkolb 12:06, 6 January 2006 (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)
• Delete. Even the article states that the 'animations are of extremely poor quality'. Nothing in the intro points to encylopedic. The amount of work does not equal encylopedic. Vegaswikian 05:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge about 5% of this with Newgrounds, then Redirect. -Colin Kimbrell 14:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge the information paragraph with Newgrounds then redirect -- Astrokey44|talk 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge information paragraph with Newgrounds, then redirect. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• SMerge to Newgrounds. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-13 04:47Z
• Delete. Nothing worth merging. —Cleared as filed. 05:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced vanity CDC (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- just not encyclopedic and never will be. Reyk 07:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm coining the term relist cruft: a second relist is a waste of space. The discussion already had nine votes. Durova 07:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity and non-notable. Zunaid 10:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zunaid. --Terence Ong ^Talk 15:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Summarize and Merge with Newgrounds. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per homework, nn WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, same as WAveg--SarekOfVulcan 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not encyclopedic Pintele Yid 22:55, 13 January 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.