Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shaman King chapters
- 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The result was Withdrawn[1] (Non-admin closure). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Shaman King chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This list duplicates my sandboxed draft (which has been around for months, as opposed to this, which was created today), without much of the information in my version. The provided chapter titles seem to be unofficial translations. I notified editors of the main article of my sandboxed list the same day I created it, so the creation of this list was inappropriate (although I am assuming that the editor who did so was merely ignorant of my list). To that end, I would like to stress that I have nothing against this editor's contributions, and would in fact encourage them to contribute to my own list until such time as it is ready to be moved to the article space. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 06:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So... your basis for wanting to delete is that somebody beat you to the punch in creating the article...? Because that's how it reads to me. Sure, its nice to be able to put a 100% finished article up, but it isn't even remotely mandatory. Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate your work-in-progress into this new article? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to wonder the same thing as the anon IP. Especially since it's policy that things don't have to be 100% there from the git-go. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The list is fine. It doesn't matter who put it there. Its just a list of chapters, and nothing else. Anyone could find that information and write it out. Don't nominate things out of jealously or spite. Dream Focus (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whats to stop you merging current draft into the article, either now or later? Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I should have counted on the above responses. =P As I stated in my nom, I have nothing against the editor or their contributions (including the list), it's simply that my sandbox is better formed (though it admittedly needs some work too). If this list had been better than my list (which actually sounds pretty petty, doesn't it? And yes, I am aware of WP:PERFECT), I would have gone ahead and merged anything worthwhile from my list to this one. That being said, it was decently late when I made this nom, and I probably wouldn't do it now. Since I've taken the time to write this out, and carefully review my motivations for this nomination (I would be a fool to claim that I had no personal motivations for it), I've decided to go ahead and withdraw it - this doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell, and I'm too lazy to argue it anyways. And Dream, I'd appreciate more good faith from you. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:59, 10 February 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.