Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VG Cats (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→VG Cats: (+keep) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*'''keep''' it wasn't deleted in 2006, and its a better article then it was then--<small><span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">[[User:Pewwer42|<b>Pewwer42</b>]] [[User_talk:Pewwer42|<font style="color:#089852;background:#0000ff;"> Talk </font>]]</span></small> 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
*'''keep''' it wasn't deleted in 2006, and its a better article then it was then--<small><span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">[[User:Pewwer42|<b>Pewwer42</b>]] [[User_talk:Pewwer42|<font style="color:#089852;background:#0000ff;"> Talk </font>]]</span></small> 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' I normally agree with JzG in things like this, but not this time. This is certainly a notable webcomic and it certainly needs a hell of a lot of cleanup. Deletion? No. [[User:JuJube|JuJube]] ([[User talk:JuJube|talk]]) 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' I normally agree with JzG in things like this, but not this time. This is certainly a notable webcomic and it certainly needs a hell of a lot of cleanup. Deletion? No. [[User:JuJube|JuJube]] ([[User talk:JuJube|talk]]) 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' Multiple award winning comic. Article has been significantly cleaned up, can use more, but is not so bad as to require deletion [[User:Wouh|Wouh]] ([[User talk:Wouh|talk]]) 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:53, 23 April 2008
AfDs for this article:
- VG Cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Horrible article, almost entirely self-sourced, was absolutely laden with merchandising and spam, still reads as advertorial, includes unfree image gallery. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but major cleanup - Can't disagree that the writing and the rest mentioned is bad and desperately needs improvement, but that's exactly a reason not to delete, particularly as no one has placed any tags on this page requesting cleanup/improvements in the recent history. --MASEM 13:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but cleanup Clearly needs improvement ({{Primary sources}}?), but the fact that it's won two Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards seems to indicate notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Cleanup has already started, I am confident that it will continue and help the article meet Wikipedia's standards. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep notable article for awards, just needs cleanup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesn84 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strongest possible keep. One of the most notable webcomics in existence, has won numerous awards and the focus of multiple reviews and other coverage. Apart from the article needing cleanup (which AfD is not a mechanism for, since the problems are resolvable by non-deletion methods; I suggest nominator review BEFORE and deletion policy), nominator doesn't bring forth any reasons that the article is somehow unsalvagable; in short, no reason to delete is provided. Celarnor Talk to me 23:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- keep it wasn't deleted in 2006, and its a better article then it was then--Pewwer42 Talk 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I normally agree with JzG in things like this, but not this time. This is certainly a notable webcomic and it certainly needs a hell of a lot of cleanup. Deletion? No. JuJube (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Multiple award winning comic. Article has been significantly cleaned up, can use more, but is not so bad as to require deletion Wouh (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)