Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toonami glossary (2nd nomination)

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. SilkTork *^YES! 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toonami glossary

Last AfD discussion for this article resulted in a keep though WP:SPINOUT and with a view to improvement. Nothing has been improved since so back here it comes. As before, a ragtag bunch of unsourced in-depth analysis on wholly in-universe subjects with no recognition of notability outside the programming strand treelo _radda 23:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 23:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Treelo, absolutely no sources, no out of universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bunch of WP:OR does not add up to an article. It's fine to cover culture and cartoons here, but this much detail should be on a fan site. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a glossary, it's a pile of miscellanea. And none of it is sourced or necessary to understanding of the subject. Delete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. AMIB said it well. Powers ^T 12:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Comment A special thanks to Treel for NOT adding a "hey, I'm in the process of having your article deleted; would you like to comment on it?" tag to my talk page like the afd tags says your supposed to do under such circumstances so I could graciously join the conversation. Its by sheer happenstance that I happen to have found this afd, and in case the bold letters were not enough of an indicator I AM PISSED that I was NOT informed of this right from the start. God #%$&^@ people, this is common curtesy, and it is NOT that *^%&#!$ hard to add one template to a user's talk page. I know this because I'm a coordinator and admin, and I have done both in the past. If I can do it, surely you can do it too... TomStar81 (Talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlist much? HiDrNick! 14:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be obnoxious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is TomStar81's comment inappropriate and a vandalism (or just having too much coffee)? I know he's an admin but there should not be impolite opinions. All he's saying is complaining something unrelated to this article. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reply was to HiDrNick. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, no its not vandalism, but it is a gross breach of WP:CIVIL and in this respect would be considered inappropriate. I do not believe that my actions warrent a block yet (I haven't actually disrupted anything, just left an unpleasant comment here), although a few more comments like this would put me in hot water. As it is, I qualify for censorship (a template admonishing me to refrain from making disruptive edits would be appropriate), and if one of you feels the need to add that to my talk page then I accept that as a result of my actions. For all this though my point remains valid: its not that hard to add a simple template to the talk page of a user. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just saying that HiDrNick was being obnoxiously sarcastic. You were ticked because you weren't notified, and while your comment wasn't exactly calm and collected I understood where it was coming from. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a WP:TROUT for both of you then. Let's get back to writing an encyclopedia. Powers ^T 13:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.