Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cogs

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 August 7.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Wikipedia is not an indisciminate collection of information. The keep arguments presented below are spectacularly unpersuasive. Nandesuka (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cogs[edit]

non-notable list of WP:FANCRUFT Tavix (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced trivia. How many of these have even made more than one appearance anyway? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anything important is already in the main article. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disney's Toontown Online. MuZemike (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't need a redirect. How many people would type in "list of Cogs" anyway? Tavix (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to preserve the history, even though the term is unlikely as a reference. DGG (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable third-party sources exist that substantially cover "Cogs", so cannot meet the General Notability Guideline. Randomran (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN, WP:ITSCRUFT, and WP:PERNOM all being insufficient reasons for deletion. Plus, it is a legitimate search term per these readers and these editors. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Have you noticed that 95% of those editors are IPs or bots? This article was created by and maintained by people who don't know the Wikipeida policies. Its not a reason to keep something just because some IPs are happy editing the article. Tavix (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That still leaves a percentage of editors who do know the Wikipedia policies and believe it meets them enough to edit the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, transwiki all information to either Wikia, StrategyWiki, etc. While information may not be useful to most users here, it may be in more specialized wikis. MuZemike (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

since when is the rule for notability being "useful to most users here" ? Very few articles will be read by "most users"-- almost everyone coms to read a specific article, and expects to find it. sure, some browse, but they too only look at some of the articles. To whom are the wrestling articles useful except wrestling fans? To whom the articles about classical music? About Japanese history? about any topic at all--pick one that "most" of our users will have have actually read. Anything with enough people to write the articles has enough users. If we decline to include something, we need another reason, like--in this case--possibly inappropriate detail. DGG (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Transwiki'd to StrategyWiki:Disney's Toontown Online/Cogs. -- Prod (Talk) 05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If transwikied, then we should at least soft redirect to that location. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. MuZemike (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a an external link to the main Disney's Toontown Online page. The cogs term is far too generic for a redirect to be useful. -- Prod (Talk) 18:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia shouldn't redirect to external sites. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 11#Akimichi clan. --Phirazo 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a list of generic enemies lacks context of any sort. A textbook case of failing to meet WP:VGSCOPE. Nifboy (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It passes Wikipedia:Lists by being discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it isn't notable, discriminate, or encyclopedic for that matter. Please show me how this "list" is any of those and then we'll talk. Tavix (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists: Even if we can, that does not mean we should. Nifboy (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Toontown Online - no notability. no notability claimed. no out of universe understandability. only use violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. counter to WP:VGSCOPE. zero sources. --T-rex 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. Violates WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:VGSCOPE. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which doesn't matter in the slightest. A bunch of random essays don't trump guidelines and policy. So long as you continue to treat them like the holy grail, no one is going to take any of your arguments seriously. That and several of them aren't even related to the deletion of articles, which further convinces everyone that you have little to no clue of what you're trying to push through. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article meets Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), which is why your argument doesn't seem serious. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Citing the most vague and broad presentation of our guidelines and policies does not make your argument serious in any fashion. Seriously, don't bother replying in the future unless your response is "here are the sources". You're never going to convince anyone with WP:5P or your collection of essay dribble. Presenting the same arguments over and over again to someone who has heard them dozens of times and is simply tired of the sheer absurdity and nonsense that you are espousing doesn't work. You're never going to convince me going down this route, and the only thing you are doing is wasting my time and lowering my respect for you down to basically nothing. At this stage, it's simply trolling. Don't bother in the future. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Being incivil and making personal attacks is not how you are going to earn fellow editors' respect or convince anyone that there is a dire need to delete the article in question, nor is making the same inaccurate "arguments" over and over. I am not going to be baited by such unconstructive and misleading, possibly not even serious comment as the above. Thus, I urge you to work to help us improve these articles rather than attack other editors in the discussions and be open-minded to acknowledging when sources are presented in future AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've improved a crapload more articles than you have, and enjoy doing so. Trying to accuse me of not doing so is almost insulting. In any case, I've heard your arguments countless times. I don't consider them convincing or even relevant to the topic most of the time. I simply want you to stop replying to my !votes with the same collection of essays, links, and whatnot. I never reply to your !votes, and it's trolling on your part because you know perfectly well that I don't consider the arguments convincing and yet you do so anyway. Again, don't bother replying to my !votes in the future unless it's "here are the sources" when it is a question of notability. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But it's okay for you to insult or make laughable accusations at me? I don't consider your arguments convincing or relevant and in a discussion, we discuss, i.e. we hold each other's arguments to task and we try to work through them. We don't delete articles unless there is absolutely no realistic way the article can ever be improved, as there is almost always at least a redirect location in the worst case scenario and we do need to be courteous to those members of our community working to improve these articles. Wikipedia is a work in progress without a deadline. I see no pressing need to delete this article right here and now, i.e. to stop all work on it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ...I don't interact with you at all on AfDs until you post a reply to one of my !votes. I never reply to your !vote (so long as it is the same boilerplate as usual) because I am perfectly aware that the discussion will not go anywhere. Posting a reply to one of my !votes with the same arguments that you've posted to my !votes in the past doesn't work. Discussion doesn't head anywhere because I don't consider any of the arguments you are using to be convincing. It's trolling because you know that the discussion won't head anywhere, that I don't consider your arguments convincing, and that it's pointless, yet you do so anyways. My only request is that you stop commenting to my !votes with SOFIXIT, "What Wikipedia is", 5P, or anything that you usually bring up because it's pointless and it wastes my time. If notability is in question, then feel free to comment with "here are the sources" (with direct links to the sources), which addresses my comment and thus is constructive discussion. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can dig that if you are indeed willing to be open-minded to when sources are provided or when a respectable number of editors are arguing that they want more time to see what they can do with the article in question to give them the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no references to demonstrate notability, and this article violates WP:NOT#GUIDE by being (largely) a collection of game guide material. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can use previews and reviews of the game to find out of universe commentary to construct a reception section. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked through that preview, and it never goes into more detail than general discussion about cogs (which belong in the main Disney's Toontown Online article). -- Prod (Talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are mentioned in other previews/reviews as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you please point some out? -- Prod (Talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure. See for example this review, which has a couple paragraphs entirely on the Cogs in a critical fashion. Notice such comments as "In December 2003, Disney introduced the first Cog Headquarters (Cog HQ) neighborhood to Toontown and since then, there have been many more. The Cog HQs adds depth and complexity for experienced players," which tells us out of universe information about when this feature was added and why it is significant. That's why I think we can add sections on Creation and Reception using this kind of information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook failure of WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE (the level ranges). The cogs do not seem to have received the considerable secondary coverage which would justify a separate article. Even if that was the case, you don't inform readers about a subject by offering them a list of componenents without context. The cogs are covered as much as needs be in the Toontown Online article. Someoneanother 00:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding the context is a fixable editorial effort and if they are covered elsewhere then that is a cause for merging and redirecting without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This name should not be a redirect to Disney's Toontown Online since this term is far too generic. It could also reference the Coalition of Ordered Governments, which was actually my initial reaction to this page. If this page is to be kept, it should be moved somewhere else, and this page turned into a disambiguation. -- Prod (Talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This name should in the worst case scenario be a redirect as editors and readers believe it a legitimate article and search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In that case I'd suggest it should be a redirect to the Gears of War COGs, since that is a far more popular game (based on google hits and overall media coverage). It is far more valid as an article and search term in that regard. -- Prod (Talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a list of enemies. It is game guide material and fails WP:VGSCOPE. Any material from reviews should be added to the main article. --Phirazo 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is no more a guide than a list of winners of the Academy Awards is a guide and it passes video game scope as lists of this nature concern key aspects of games. Material that can be added to the main article should be merged and redirected without deletion in the worst case scenario. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1.) Comparing this to the Academy Awards is apples and oranges. For one thing, the Academy Awards have a much larger impact on culture, so more coverage makes sense (see Undue weight). Most video games have enemy NPCs and I don't see what makes these enemies unique enough to warrant a seperate article. 2.)There isn't anything to merge at present time. I was saying that anything from reviews should go in the main article, not here. --Phirazo 17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see any reason why not to cover this stuff, i.e. I don't see how if editors and readers want to work on and learn about these items, they do augment our coverage of the overall topic, they are not hoaxes, why we would just outright delete it. If we keep it and improve it, we can only benefit our coverage and help out those editors working on it. If we outright redlink it, we don't really gain anything from that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Oscars get a lot more viewers than this game. Each of the award winners is notable on their own. This has no relation to the current discussion. -- Prod (Talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it may get more coverage, but the purpose of an encyclopedia is to catalog information that people will go to that encyclopedia looking for and so some people are interested in the Oscars, others are interested in Cogs. So long as it isn't total nonsense, than I see no reason not to keep it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:33, 5 August 2008 (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.