833:...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 Knowledge 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.
31:
819:
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. Knowledge 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. --
799:. 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
437:
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.
1006:(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
1159:
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
970:
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
765:
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
818:
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
1194:
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.
436:
since when is the rule for notability being "useful to most users here"Â ? 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
781:
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
1131:
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.
848:
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.
1150:). 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. --
782:
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. --
756:
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
718:
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
363:
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.
1072:
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. --
742:(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. --
971:
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. --
541:
1146:
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
150:
1044:, 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. --
766:
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.
40:
1022:
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. --
197:
606:
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.
624:
796:
1058:
This name should in the worst case scenario be a redirect as editors and readers believe it a legitimate article and search term. --
77:. Knowledge is not an indisciminate collection of information. The keep arguments presented below are spectacularly unpersuasive.
1243:
1198:
1163:
1135:
1090:
1061:
1025:
974:
941:
909:
852:
822:
785:
745:
707:
701:
595:
485:
389:
345:
803:. 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.
117:
112:
1160:
our coverage and help out those editors working on it. If we outright redlink it, we don't really gain anything from that. --
1041:
920:
I looked through that preview, and it never goes into more detail than general discussion about cogs (which belong in the main
461:
121:
17:
104:
1180:
than this game. Each of the award winners is notable on their own. This has no relation to the current discussion. --
1225:
1037:
1014:
921:
519:
239:
65:
46:
1224:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
967:
739:
723:, which further convinces everyone that you have little to no clue of what you're trying to push through.
1204:
1189:
1169:
1154:
1141:
1126:
1096:
1082:
1067:
1053:
1031:
1017:
980:
961:
947:
933:
915:
897:
858:
843:
828:
813:
791:
776:
751:
733:
713:
695:
669:
636:
615:
601:
579:
548:
531:
509:
491:
473:
448:
427:
395:
373:
351:
314:
293:
270:
252:
229:
209:
188:
169:
86:
1011:
893:
418:, etc. While information may not be useful to most users here, it may be in more specialized wikis.
1003:
678:
654:
310:
179:
82:
415:
835:
805:
768:
725:
687:
505:
423:
327:
248:
158:
906:
and reviews of the game to find out of universe commentary to construct a reception section. --
653:- no notability. no notability claimed. no out of universe understandability. only use violates
801:
you know perfectly well that I don't consider the arguments convincing and yet you do so anyway
1119:
999:
682:
658:
567:
225:
205:
108:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1147:
632:
575:
331:
301:: No reliable third-party sources exist that substantially cover "Cogs", so cannot meet the
592:
by being discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable. --
1007:
889:
666:
649:
611:
589:
566:, a list of generic enemies lacks context of any sort. A textbook case of failing to meet
369:
266:
165:
261:
It really doesn't need a redirect. How many people would type in "list of Cogs" anyway?
1185:
1078:
1049:
957:
929:
527:
469:
334:
all being insufficient reasons for deletion. Plus, it is a legitimate search term per
306:
78:
1237:
1115:
885:
501:
444:
419:
323:
302:
289:
244:
178:
Unsourced trivia. How many of these have even made more than one appearance anyway?
1151:
1123:
762:
545:
221:
201:
100:
92:
335:
138:
884:
as there are no references to demonstrate notability, and this article violates
628:
571:
903:
662:
607:
365:
262:
161:
1181:
1074:
1045:
953:
925:
523:
465:
482:
If transwikied, then we should at least soft redirect to that location. --
282:
to preserve the history, even though the term is unlikely as a reference.
439:
284:
797:
I've improved a crapload more articles than you have, and enjoy doing so
522:
page. The cogs term is far too generic for a redirect to be useful. --
1177:
1122:. Any material from reviews should be added to the main article. --
411:
386:
policies and believe it meets them enough to edit the article. --
1040:
since this term is far too generic. It could also reference the
542:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 11#Akimichi clan
1218:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
625:
Knowledge:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists
25:
220:
per nom. Anything important is already in the main article.
382:
That still leaves a percentage of editors who do know the
938:
They are mentioned in other previews/reviews as well. --
888:
by being (largely) a collection of game guide material.
339:
145:
134:
130:
126:
540:
Knowledge shouldn't redirect to external sites. See
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1228:). No further edits should be made to this page.
627:: Even if we can, that does not mean we should.
721:aren't even related to the deletion of articles
8:
518:I've added a an external link to the main
462:StrategyWiki:Disney's Toontown Online/Cogs
196:Note: This debate has been added to the
677:- no assertion of notability. Violates
45:For an explanation of the process, see
1114:This is just a list of enemies. It is
1036:This name should not be a redirect to
7:
952:Could you please point some out? --
198:list of video game related deletions
24:
1042:Coalition of Ordered Governments
41:deletion review on 2008 August 7
29:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1200:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1165:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1137:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1092:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1063:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1027:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
976:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
943:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
911:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
854:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
824:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
787:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
747:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
709:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
597:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
487:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
391:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
347:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
303:General Notability Guideline
1197:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1162:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1134:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1089:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1060:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1024:Happy editing! Sincerely,
973:Happy editing! Sincerely,
940:Happy editing! Sincerely,
908:Happy editing! Sincerely,
851:Happy editing! Sincerely,
821:Happy editing! Sincerely,
784:Happy editing! Sincerely,
744:Happy editing! Sincerely,
706:Happy editing! Sincerely,
594:Happy editing! Sincerely,
484:Happy editing! Sincerely,
388:Happy editing! Sincerely,
344:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1260:
1205:02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1190:20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1176:The Oscars get a lot more
1170:02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1155:17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1142:17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1127:16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1097:02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1083:20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1068:17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1054:16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1032:16:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1018:00:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
981:02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
962:20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
948:17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
934:16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
916:22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
898:22:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
859:23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
844:23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
829:22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
814:22:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
792:22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
777:22:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
752:21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
734:20:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
714:07:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
696:22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
670:18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
637:16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
616:17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
602:14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
580:14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
549:16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
532:18:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
510:16:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
492:14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
474:05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
449:03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
410:all information to either
396:14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
374:04:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
87:19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
428:19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
352:17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
315:15:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
294:02:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
271:21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
253:20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
230:20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
210:20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
189:19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
170:19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
1244:Pages at deletion review
1221:Please do not modify it.
1038:Disney's Toontown Online
922:Disney's Toontown Online
520:Disney's Toontown Online
240:Disney's Toontown Online
61:Please do not modify it.
966:Sure. See for example
648:Delete and redirect to
740:Knowledge:Five pillars
998:Textbook failure of
157:non-notable list of
1118:material and fails
738:The article meets
661:. zero sources. --
702:What Knowledge is
460:: Transwiki'd to
186:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1251:
1223:
1203:
1201:
1168:
1166:
1140:
1138:
1095:
1093:
1087:Fair enough. --
1066:
1064:
1030:
1028:
979:
977:
946:
944:
914:
912:
857:
855:
842:
840:
827:
825:
812:
810:
790:
788:
775:
773:
750:
748:
732:
730:
712:
710:
694:
692:
600:
598:
490:
488:
394:
392:
350:
348:
212:
184:
182:
181:Ten Pound Hammer
148:
142:
124:
73:The result was
63:
33:
32:
26:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1226:deletion review
1219:
1199:
1196:
1164:
1161:
1136:
1133:
1091:
1088:
1062:
1059:
1026:
1023:
1008:Toontown Online
975:
972:
942:
939:
910:
907:
853:
850:
836:
834:
823:
820:
806:
804:
786:
783:
769:
767:
746:
743:
726:
724:
708:
705:
688:
686:
650:Toontown Online
596:
593:
590:Knowledge:Lists
486:
483:
390:
387:
346:
343:
195:
180:
144:
115:
99:
96:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1257:
1255:
1247:
1246:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
924:article). --
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
672:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
619:
618:
604:
583:
582:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
535:
534:
513:
512:
500:Yes, I agree.
495:
494:
477:
476:
454:
453:
452:
451:
431:
430:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
377:
376:
355:
354:
317:
296:
276:
275:
274:
273:
256:
255:
232:
214:
213:
192:
191:
185:and his otters
155:
154:
95:
90:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1256:
1245:
1242:
1241:
1239:
1229:
1227:
1222:
1216:
1215:
1206:
1202:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1098:
1094:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
994:
982:
978:
969:
965:
964:
963:
959:
955:
951:
950:
949:
945:
937:
936:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
918:
917:
913:
905:
901:
900:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
880:
860:
856:
847:
846:
845:
841:
839:
838:sephiroth bcr
832:
831:
830:
826:
817:
816:
815:
811:
809:
808:sephiroth bcr
802:
798:
795:
794:
793:
789:
780:
779:
778:
774:
772:
771:sephiroth bcr
764:
760:
755:
754:
753:
749:
741:
737:
736:
735:
731:
729:
728:sephiroth bcr
722:
717:
716:
715:
711:
703:
699:
698:
697:
693:
691:
690:sephiroth bcr
684:
680:
676:
673:
671:
668:
664:
660:
657:. counter to
656:
652:
651:
646:
645:
638:
634:
630:
626:
623:
622:
621:
620:
617:
613:
609:
605:
603:
599:
591:
587:
586:
585:
584:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
562:
561:
550:
547:
543:
539:
538:
537:
536:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
514:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:
497:
496:
493:
489:
481:
480:
479:
478:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:
455:
450:
446:
442:
441:
435:
434:
433:
432:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:In addition,
405:
404:
397:
393:
385:
381:
380:
379:
378:
375:
371:
367:
362:
359:
358:
357:
356:
353:
349:
341:
340:these editors
337:
336:these readers
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
295:
291:
287:
286:
281:
278:
277:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
250:
246:
242:
241:
236:
233:
231:
227:
223:
219:
216:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
194:
193:
190:
183:
177:
174:
173:
172:
171:
167:
163:
160:
152:
147:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
94:
91:
89:
88:
84:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1220:
1217:
1148:Undue weight
1111:
1004:WP:GAMEGUIDE
995:
890:--Craw-daddy
886:WP:NOT#GUIDE
881:
837:
807:
800:
770:
758:
727:
720:
689:
679:WP:GAMEGUIDE
674:
655:WP:GAMEGUIDE
647:
563:
457:
438:
416:StrategyWiki
407:
383:
360:
319:
298:
283:
279:
238:
234:
217:
175:
156:
101:List of Cogs
93:List of Cogs
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
902:We can use
328:WP:ITSCRUFT
159:WP:FANCRUFT
1120:WP:VGSCOPE
1116:game guide
1000:WP:VGSCOPE
700:It passes
683:WP:VGSCOPE
659:WP:VGSCOPE
588:It passes
568:WP:VGSCOPE
1010:article.
408:transwiki
384:Knowledge
332:WP:PERNOM
307:Randomran
79:Nandesuka
1238:Category
904:previews
502:MuZemike
420:MuZemike
280:Redirect
245:MuZemike
235:Redirect
151:View log
1178:viewers
1152:Phirazo
1124:Phirazo
1015:another
1012:Someone
546:Phirazo
458:Comment
361:comment
222:MrKIA11
202:MrKIA11
118:protect
113:history
1112:Delete
996:Delete
882:Delete
759:anyone
675:Delete
629:Nifboy
572:Nifboy
564:Delete
330:, and
324:WP:JNN
299:Delete
218:Delete
176:Delete
146:delete
122:delete
75:delete
763:WP:5P
761:with
704:. --
608:Tavix
464:. --
412:Wikia
366:Tavix
342:. --
263:Tavix
162:Tavix
149:) – (
139:views
131:watch
127:links
16:<
1186:Talk
1182:Prod
1079:Talk
1075:Prod
1050:Talk
1046:Prod
1002:and
968:this
958:Talk
954:Prod
930:Talk
926:Prod
633:talk
612:talk
576:talk
544:. --
528:Talk
524:Prod
506:talk
470:Talk
466:Prod
445:talk
424:talk
370:talk
338:and
322:per
320:Keep
311:talk
290:talk
267:talk
249:talk
226:talk
206:talk
166:talk
135:logs
109:talk
105:edit
83:talk
667:rex
440:DGG
285:DGG
237:to
187:•
1240::
1195:--
1188:)
1132:--
1081:)
1052:)
960:)
932:)
896:|
892:|
849:--
685:.
681:,
635:)
614:)
578:)
570:.
530:)
508:)
472:)
447:)
426:)
414:,
372:)
326:,
313:)
305:.
292:)
269:)
251:)
243:.
228:)
208:)
200:.
168:)
137:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
85:)
43:.
1184:(
1077:(
1048:(
956:(
928:(
894:T
665:-
663:T
631:(
610:(
574:(
526:(
504:(
468:(
443:(
422:(
368:(
309:(
288:(
265:(
247:(
224:(
204:(
164:(
153:)
143:(
141:)
103:(
81:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.