Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saicurtis
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 was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Saicurtis
Doesn't seem to be notable enough to have own article. thisisace 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There is an entire category dedicated to these... that and I had a Zoid as a kid. Oh Snap 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 03:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep We don't delete everything that's missing secondary sources. Eixo 09:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, we do. WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. Jay32183 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no we don't - an article lacking secondary sources does not mean secondary sources do not exist. Lack of sources in the article is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Burden of evidence for providing sources is on those wish to add, restore, or retain material, not on those wishing to remove material. WP:PROVEIT. Not listing any secondary sources and no secondary sources existing makes no difference to the people who read Wikipedia. Jay32183 05:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no we don't - an article lacking secondary sources does not mean secondary sources do not exist. Lack of sources in the article is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, we do. WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. Jay32183 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and Jay32183. JohnCD 12:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No reason to have individual articles on each toy, I feel that an aggregate article will suffice. Nickcich (talk) 04:24, 23 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.
