Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chibot Ultra Battle

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. --

Chibot Ultra Battle

Non-notable chatroom game, fails

• Delete Fancruft foolishness.
  L0b0t 14:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Could you try to be a little more civil? You're attacking the work of someone, "foolishness" isn't exactly a positive term. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Notability is a policy, and this article doesn't even claim to try to meet it. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability is not a policy, it is a guideline. There is a difference. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep None of WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE or WP:NN are actual policies. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all three of those. Let's just follow the guidelines, then, shall we? Shimeru 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI don't think WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE are even guidelines. Correction, WP:SOFTWARE is not. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 00:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:OR. And two of these ARE policies. I'll leave it up to you to find which ones. Also, Fancruft foolishness. Pretty much Vanispamcruftisement.The Kinslayer 09:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's true, but {{

OR}} exist for a reason. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 13:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

So does

WP:V#Burden of evidence. If you've got the necessary details to fulfil the articles shortcomings, add them to the article and ask the nominator if it's now at a quality that would warrant withdrawing the AfD. The Kinslayer 13:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I could gather some details, which would take me some time. But I'm pretty busy now with college work and the like, no time to do much until semester ends. I don't exactly agree with Burden of evidence or NN in certain situations, either. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 22:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can argue over policies and guidelines all you like, but your managing to completely avoid the fact that this article fails nearly any guideline or policy you care to name. It since your the only person to vote to keep it (which is raises questions in my head) it WILL be deleted. And as for not afreeing with NN and BOE, all I can say is tough. They are there for a reason. I think the article should be deleted, you don't. Therefore the responsibility is yours to provide evidence for why this article should be allowed to remain. And I haven't seen anything so far. All you've done is acted pedantic over whether things are policies or guidelines, then said you don't really agree with the policies. You've not once stated anything about the article itself or Chibot to convince us to change our vote. The Kinslayer 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I already stated, I do not have the time to add refs and the like. Thus I am expecting the article to be deleted. I do not see how I acted pedantic either, I had already said I would add refs if I had the time. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 03:45, 27 October 2006 (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.