Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denn'Bok

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 Merge to Ranger (Babylon 5). CitiCat ^♫ 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denn'Bok

Denn'Bok (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - prod removed by SPA without comment. This fictional weapon has no real-world significance and no reliable sources that establish its notability. At best this merits a sentence at Ranger (Babylon 5), not an in-universe plot summary. Otto4711 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ranger (Babylon 5). Pagrashtak 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ranger (Babylon 5). Pinball22 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ranger (Babylon 5).   jj137 (Talk) 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And how is that a bad thing? That it violates a guideline? And how is that guideline a good thing?--Neverpitch 00:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)— Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Yes, violating policies and guidelines is a bad thing. Perhaps you should read some of those policies and guidelines and try to understand the reasons for them before spamming AFDs with largely identical comments that bear no relationship to the topic at hand? Otto4711 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• And they bear no relationship to the topic at hand how? The only guideline this violates (it violates no policies) is Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), a new guideline established after this article was created and which only the handful of deletionists on Wikipedia agree with, anyway. It is you spamming Wikipedia with this Articles for Deletion nonsense in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia and turn it into a redundant version of Encyclopædia Britannica or Encarta.--Neverpitch 03:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)— Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• They demonstrate that you're putting no actual thought into the specific issues of the debate at hand but are instead seeking to make a point about your disdain for the consensus that the guidelines represent. The fact that you use the somewhat derogatory term "deletionists" and deem the entire AFD process to be "nonsense" further illustrates it. Individual AFD discussions are not the place to try to change policy or guidelines with which you don't agree. In the long run it doesn't really matter if you continue to troll AFD in this fashion because any admin who's paying any attention will recognize what you're doing and completely discount your "contributions" anyway, but it's still a nuisance. Wikipedia has standards and articles are expected to meet those standards. If you don't like the standards, work within the appropriate channels to modify them or start your own website for whatever you want. Otto4711 04:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Ranger (Babylon 5). --Fang Aili ^talk 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect view to Ranger (Babylon 5). No sources, bags of OR ... Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2007 (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.