Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Webkinz pets

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. Singu larity 03:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Webkinz pets[edit]

Procedural nomination after a readdition of a Prod tag. Prod reasoning was: "This page is heavily changed, edited, and vandalised by IP addresses and certain users. Remember to add symbols" Michael Greiner 01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but suggest WP:RFPP if the tagger believes there is enough IP vandalism to do so, but this should not be deleted because of vandalism or even just edits. Delete. I was only opposing deletion before because of the prod tag reasoning, while this information is basically, as Crazysuit put it, a "catalog" of a toy line. I do not understand the meaning of "procedural nomination". The prod tag wasn't removed, and deletion wasn't contested. If a prod tag remains for 5 days, it can be deleted after that without an AfD, right? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the article history. At least four times the prod tag was removed then readded by User:Superjustinbros. (example) against WP:PROD#Conflicts. Also, procedural nominations usually show that the nominator has no opinion on the deletion either way and is not involved with the article. --Michael Greiner 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant that here, the prod tag was replaced by you with an AfD tag. But I understand why you did that, because of all the prods it had seen. And thank you for clearing up the meaning of "Procedural nominations". I still do not believe that vandalism is a good enough reason for deletion. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Indiscriminate information, Wikipedia isn't an online catalog of every single animal available in a toy range. If the individual animals were notable (which they obviously aren't), then a list would be acceptable, but this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Crazysuit 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not sales catalog in WP:NOT and User:Crazysuit. Not the place to list every "toy" made for every line. Corpx 04:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I hate having to fix up this article every day. The IP address are vandalising the article every day! Superjustinbros. 11:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a good reason for deletion. It is, however, a good reason for page protection. I believe this is covered under WP:PROBLEM, because it is a surmountable problem. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correctable vandalism is not a deletion criterion. --Michael Greiner 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. However, the article fails to comply with a policy or two, so it will probably be deleted anyway. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Information is largely unverifiable by reliable sources. The vast majority of information about these toys on the internet comes from fan sites and commercial sites. The toys aren't terribly unique that they warrant a list. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2007 (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.