Zoffy – Endorse original AfD deletion. The general (but weak) consensus here is that the existing material at
Ultraman#Zoffy is the appropriate level of detail, and the draft presented here should not be moved into mainspace due to
WP:WAF issues. The best place to continue this discussion would be at
Talk:Ultraman – --
RoySmith(talk) 16:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
A long time ago, Zoffy's page was deleted and turned into a redirect due to lacking reliable source. I have met the person in charge of the deletion/redirection,
User:Mark Arsten and he agreed that if I provide a reliable source, the deletion can be overturned. Here's a draft page of my version of Zoffy's page.
User:Zero stylinx/sandbox/ZoffyZero stylinx (
talk) 04:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Well the AfD was three years ago, wasn't well attended (two participants including the nominator), and the deleted article didn't cite any sources at all. The draft does have some citations and isn't as reliant on in-universe plot summary as the original. While I don't think I can give a proper evaluation of Japanese sources quite a few seem to be to blogs or to fictional works featuring the character, which won't fare well at AfD. I think there is enough here to justify reopening the issue though, even if it's just another AfD. Hut 8.5 08:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
My only regret is how past Wikipedians endlessly creating articles without proper retribution. Oh and that blog you just watch mostly refers to the
Tsuburaya Productions' official blog. I wish things can be considered as quick as possible, whether it's rejected or accepted.
Zero stylinx (
talk) 09:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The draft fails
WP:WAF. If you can make it comply with
WP:WAF, while maintaining attribution to sources, then it will be notable, otherwise no. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The relatively concise treatment at [
[1]] is more appropriate for a general-interest encyclopedia than the draft, which is really just a pile of plot details and sub-trivia. That level of detail is better for a fan website or a fan wiki.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Zoffy – Endorse original AfD deletion. The general (but weak) consensus here is that the existing material at
Ultraman#Zoffy is the appropriate level of detail, and the draft presented here should not be moved into mainspace due to
WP:WAF issues. The best place to continue this discussion would be at
Talk:Ultraman – --
RoySmith(talk) 16:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
A long time ago, Zoffy's page was deleted and turned into a redirect due to lacking reliable source. I have met the person in charge of the deletion/redirection,
User:Mark Arsten and he agreed that if I provide a reliable source, the deletion can be overturned. Here's a draft page of my version of Zoffy's page.
User:Zero stylinx/sandbox/ZoffyZero stylinx (
talk) 04:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Well the AfD was three years ago, wasn't well attended (two participants including the nominator), and the deleted article didn't cite any sources at all. The draft does have some citations and isn't as reliant on in-universe plot summary as the original. While I don't think I can give a proper evaluation of Japanese sources quite a few seem to be to blogs or to fictional works featuring the character, which won't fare well at AfD. I think there is enough here to justify reopening the issue though, even if it's just another AfD. Hut 8.5 08:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
My only regret is how past Wikipedians endlessly creating articles without proper retribution. Oh and that blog you just watch mostly refers to the
Tsuburaya Productions' official blog. I wish things can be considered as quick as possible, whether it's rejected or accepted.
Zero stylinx (
talk) 09:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The draft fails
WP:WAF. If you can make it comply with
WP:WAF, while maintaining attribution to sources, then it will be notable, otherwise no. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The relatively concise treatment at [
[1]] is more appropriate for a general-interest encyclopedia than the draft, which is really just a pile of plot details and sub-trivia. That level of detail is better for a fan website or a fan wiki.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.