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 speedy keep. Appears to be pointy nomination - AFD is not for "blowing up and restarting" the panda ₯’ 19:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superbook[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fundamentally screwed up article. Not clear what is correct and what is wrong. Looks like a vandalism magnet. In my opinion, article is a candidate for WP:TNT and should at least be semi-protected by recreation. The Banner talk 23:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD isn't cleanup. Seek semi-protection and WP:FIXIT; notable early anime series airing on major American cable network. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read my comment about what the problem is? Did you take a look in the history? Did you take a look at the talkpage? WP:TNT is not about clean up, it is about blowing it up and starting all over again. The Banner talk 00:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did; you have the wrong venue for asking for action on this page. The program is obviously notable and this article will be kept; ask for a good period of semi-protection and cleanup the page rather than going through a venue where nothing can really be done except a nuclear option. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the article is by now totally unreliable and in my opinion beyond rescue. When you want to rescue it, fine. My intention is to blow it up and let somebody with knowledge of this program start all over again. The Banner talk 03:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article has good references, just take things from those and delete and re-arrange it will prob take you 30 - 45 mins tops to do so. I will do what I can to help out too - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm with Mrschimf. It is clear that this nominator is just a beginner. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that FilmandTVFan28 is willing to take down his false accusation that I am a beginner down. The facts clearly point out otherwise. The Banner talk 03:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not accusing anyone. Me and Mrschimf are actually right. You could've at least discussed your problem with Superbook on the article's talk page instead of making a nomination. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. The problems with the article are not so overwhelmingly awful that it should be deleted and re-created, and AfD is not the proper place to seek article protection. Sometimes articles can receive protection (usually WP:SALTing), but this is not the right avenue for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting a page is definitely not the correct way to go about trying to fix it. WP:TNT isn't a policy either, and WP:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion suggests that one should always edit not delete if possible. That said, we shouldn't be accusing people of being beginners because we disagree with them. JTdale ^Talk 11:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as others have said WP:AfD is not the place for an article just needing cleanup done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, an article that needs cleanup does not need to be deleted. LuigiToeness (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominators rational is no reason to delete an article an the essay he links to as a very bad idea. AfD is not cleanup nor is WP:SUSCEPTIBLE ever a reason to do anything but clean the article up and protect it. I'll finally point out that the article has not been vandalized in the last two months. So this is a non-issue. —Farix (t | c) 00:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of calendar do you use? I see a massive revert of your hand on 21 May, what is less then two months ago according to my calender. The Banner talk 01:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant, this article's not in danger of constant vandalism. And, even if it were, the article would receive temporary protection preventing such attacks. I change my vote from "keep" to speedy keep. LuigiToeness (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last time it was vandalized was mid May. Now it is mid July. That is a two month difference. However, you were trying to imply that the article was being heavily vandalized now as part of your justification to delete it. —Farix (t | c) 04:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to make a reliable encyclopaedia with reliable articles. Can you vouch for it that this article is 100% reliable? The Banner talk 11:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just trolling because you cannot vouch that any article is 100% reliable. But that is still no reason to delete. —Farix (t | c) 11:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trolling, I did ask you a question. The Banner talk 11:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you purposely throw out red herring questions, it is trolling. —Farix (t | c) 13:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, so you have no arguments that you have to get personal. The Banner talk 13:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No article can be 100% reliable on Wikipedia. That is it's nature. JTdale ^Talk 13:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I even doubt that it is 75% reliable within the given sources... The Banner talk 13:15, 14 July 2014 (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.