Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/One Piece Games

Not happy[edit]

I just set up the One Piece games section and was WAITING for others help on it. ther3e is about 20+ games info we need to put on here, I didn't know how to set it up. Sure you like your games, but not giving others a chance. And now your picking on the other One Piece pages??? Your arguing here also certain pages should just be merge, well, we tried those, they didn't work. Mind butting out here! Angel Emfrbl 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, now. Please take a moment and assume good faith: nobody's trying to get in the way of your work. These pages were nominated for deletion and merger on the basis of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information: personally, I do not believe that there is a sufficient need for these articles to exist in their own right, and have nominated them for deletion to see if the community agrees. If you disagree with the nomination, please explain why here. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I am considering that. Listen, everyone has been working on bringing those pages up to standard for wikipedia the last few weeks, most of them are not things that can be done in one hit. I don't want everyone's hard work to be lost. The template in itself is something we're still discussing, I want it to be made smaller, yes, but you must understand One Piece is a HUGE series with a lot of information to be double checked, assessed and debated on correctness. Currently this has given me a guilt trip since I set up the Games page just because no one else took the time to set it up and before it can be improved you it got preposed for deletion. A lot of peoples hard work could be lost. A lot of your changes that have been purposed, note: the mergers, simply DIDN'T work when they were as one article in the first place. There have been some arguments such as the One Piece abilities page over the value, but others, they are need to explain other important things in the storyline. Angel Emfrbl 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]