Profile image change   Profile quote change  Votes for deletion
Archive filingcabinent.png

Speedy • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15

In order to speed up the process, it can be beneficial to withhold your vote when you agree with the majority. Adding your own vote will reset the "five days without comment" waiting period for consensus.

Votes for deletion is where discussions on whether an article should be deleted are held.

  • Ensure you are familiar with our deletion policy. When nominating a page for discussion here, add {{VfD}} to the top of that page.
  • Use {{vote delete}} to support deleting a page, {{vote keep}} to support keeping it and {{vote merge}} to support merging the information from a page into another page. This is still a discussion; provide a reason for your position.
General toolbar
show/hide (all)purgereport bugs
Yakone's village [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page deleted.

Please do not edit this discussion.

Delete.png Delete — Very simply, there is not enough information relevant to the village itself to justify an article. Some minor additions could be made to the article describing the location, but I do not believe it would be enough. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 13:29, September 12, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — For me, it's just not notable enough in the story to have a dedicated article. It does not exist in any shape or form or anything outside the Skeletons in the Closet episode, which in my opinion makes it part of the Skeletons in the Closet episode and it should really only be on that article. Even when it comes to Tarrlok and Noatak, all you can say in reference to this village is that they were born there. Virtually all of that flashback story involves them going elsewhere for a camping trip. Also, the fact that it has no in-universe name contributes to my opinion on this as well. Zacatero(Wall)Varrick_Sprite.png 13:36, September 12, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I agree. We don't know enough about it. Dcasawang1wall 13:41, September 12, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I also agree with what was already said. Gligo's in love with Azula 14:40, September 12, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I agree that we do not have enough information about it to warrant its own page. IᖇOᕼ'ᔕ ᒍᗩᔕᗰIᑎE TEᗩ (wallcontribs) 21:26, September 13, 2020 (UTC)

Avatar The Last Airbender Online [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page deleted.

Please do not edit this discussion.

Delete.png Delete — Per the precedent set with the VfD for Avatar: The Four Elements, this is a closed fan-site, so it doesn't need a dedicated page. Zacatero(Wall)Varrick_Sprite.png 01:26, September 25, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I don't see the relevance of this fan page in the wiki. Dcasawang1wall 02:36, September 25, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — Per the above, though I feel like we could be having this discussion on every page of a fan site/other Avatar site we have, so perhaps a War Room about the removal of them all is more suited? Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 07:17, September 25, 2020 (UTC)

Avatar Wiki:Pro-Gamers [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page deleted.

Please do not edit this discussion.

Delete.png Delete — None of the members in this group are active, and there does not appear to have been any activity from the group itself in quite some time. Unless there is someone that wishes to take over and revive this group, I think it should be deleted. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 10:45, September 23, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — Per HoT. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 11:08, September 23, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png DeleteIᖇOᕼ'ᔕ ᒍᗩᔕᗰIᑎE TEᗩ (wallcontribs) 07:08, September 24, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png DeleteZacatero(Wall)Varrick_Sprite.png 10:37, September 24, 2020 (UTC)

Roku's waterbending master [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page kept

Please do not edit this discussion.

With similar previous discussions in mind, I present Roku's Waterbending Master. I believe this is a page that we don't necessarily need, since the information in it's entirety is 100% relevant for both the Roku article, as well as the article for The Avatar and the Fire Lord. This, coupled with the fact that this character has no voice lines and only appears once and is only ever mentioned this one time, I don't think an entire article needs to be here about him. Zacatero(Wall)Varrick_Sprite.png 04:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — I think the page must be kept, because each Avatar's bending masters must be mentioned in separate pages. Even if the page is less important, this page must not be deleted. My suggestion is try watching the episode which this master is in and write about the duel where Roku sent him crashing straight to the Royal Palace by making a massive wave. Even the profile picture is important. Also, what about the other bending masters, eg. Sud. This page too has less info but is of importance. It would be better to keep it. They say that little info makes a big difference (Yohan Mavely (wallcontribs) 07:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

Keep.png Keep — I don't see that any of the reasons you have brought up Zac are reasons to delete the article. As had been mentioned before, the fact a character appears in only one episode or does not have any voice lines is irrelevant on whether their article should be kept. It doesn't matter if these points are brought up in conjunction with others, they are irrelevant in a deletion discussion. Regarding the point on it being 100% relevant to the Roku article; the character of Roku's waterbending master is not a subset of Roku in the way that a member of an organisation might be, so the idea that this information can just be included on Roku's article separately makes no sense here. The mention of the episode also makes no sense, as character and episode articles are entirely separate and cover different things. The information included on the article is relevant, and I would say there is just about enough content for it to be kept. Therefore, since in my view no justification for why this article should be deleted has actually been given, I vote to keep. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 10:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I was more thinking along the lines of, this character exists solely within that flashback. it's as if he does not exist at all otherwise. he doesn't have any history that can't also be put on the episode article, or even Roku's. And they don't cover different things. the article is entirely inside that one flashback from the episode. there's no information from any other point, so yes all of the information could fit perfectly on the episode page without any irrelevance. Zacatero(Wall)Varrick_Sprite.png 11:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The fact he only appeared in a flashback or only in one episode is irrelevant. You keep bringing it up every time in these deletion discussions as a criteria for whether a character should or should not have an article, but it has no relevance here. Does his article repeat things that happen in the episode; yes, because that it how the character articles work. They do not consist of information external to the episode, rather reflect the episode as they pertain to the specific character. Sometimes it can be argued that there isn't enough information/history to justify a character article, or it can be merged with other similar characters with shared history (the Earth Kingdom sages article, for example). For this article, I believe there is enough information (though as noted above, just barely), and there is no clear article to merge it with. Merging with Roku's article isn't merging, it is just deleting the information and saying "he is also mentioned on this article, so that will do". HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 13:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with HoT on why we should keep the article. I think that it's not important whether the character had lines or how many times he appeared, but whether there is enough information focusing solely on him to warrant an article. Although it is pretty short, I'd say that the page covers enough about the waterbending master to be kept. Gligo's in love with Azula 17:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Moon [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page deleted

Please do not edit this discussion.

Delete.png Delete — There is no content on this page that isn't already covered elsewhere more appropriately. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 20:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — This is a recently created page. Actually I am the one who had the idea of creating the page. I am adding info into this page because I think the Sun (not created yet) and Moon pages must be given importance separately as well, since they are the original sources of the respective bending, namely firebending and waterbending. I know there is enough information of them in other pages, but they can given a separate page to help the wikians learn about them and at the same time, add info. I created it for a sole purpose, they must be given separate importance as well, not just joint importance. So, it will be appropriate to keep them while I continue adding info on them (Yohan Mavely (wallcontribs) 20:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC))

Delete.png Delete — Even if all the available and relevant information from the franchise is added to the page, I don't think there is enough to deserve its own article which content is not already on Tui. Dcasawang1wall 20:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

But what about the effect of the Moon on waterbending and bloodbending? I know this means taking info from the entire franchise, but......lets wait for a few days and while I continue on the addition of info into the page. Also, in case of Tui, she's a spirit. Moon is spiritually connected to her but it is a celestial body and if we take real life examples, then it needs a separate page, adding info on the effect in real life (if necessary), effect on the bending, the Moon spirit, the Full Moon, history of significance of the moon in the franchise. The same applies for the Sun.
Also, like dragons, they are sources of bending, so that's another point to take. But they are original sources of bending (Yohan Mavely (wallcontribs) 20:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC))
The effect of the moon on waterbending and bloodbending is already completely covered on those pages, so no need to repeat again on a separate page. I have no doubt more bloat can be added to the article, but it would be just that, bloat. There is no relevant, new info that isn't covered elsewhere already. Info in relation to Tui is already added there and should be expanded on there if you feel it's not sufficiently covered (without bloating the article with unnecessary detail). Writing about the moon as celestial body just falls outside the scope of the Avatar Wiki. The same also applies for the sun. Lady Lostris 20:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Very well,....I concede defeat.....Well, the page can be deleted if you wish.(Yohan Mavely (wallcontribs) 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC))
Animatics of Avatar: The Animated Series [hide]OPEN: 21/01/21 edit
Information.png Agree with the majority? Speed up consensus by not commenting. Discussion ends five days after the last post.

I don't believe this article contributes with new relevant information to the wiki. What little it adds can easily be put in the respective articles for each episode under their trivia sections. Otherwise it only works as a list for animatic videos that rarely have anything different from the final episode. Dcasawang1wall 20:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I agree. It would be one thing if these animatics were conceptual or showed an earlier thought process than what we ended up getting, but the article only has information that we already know from the final product. Zacatero(Wall)Varrick_Sprite.png 20:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — I have to disagree. Honestly, even if it were just a list, I think that it would be useful for anyone searching for information on the animatics. I always considered the argument that information could just be put into the trivia of several articles problematic, as the trivia sections tend to be overly long anyway. To have a place to put all content of a certain type - such as in this case - even if not all that much is known, helps to keep order. In addition, the animatics were released to the public in official media which already makes them at least a bit noteworthy. DyingFlameTsui (wallcontribs) 21:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I am putting vote delete for this, but I agree that some of the information can be moved to other more relevant articles. The reason I support deleting this is that the existence of animatics for scenes in certain episodes is not notable, but an incredibly standard part of the production process for animated shows. I don't find the fact that these videos were later made available publicly to be an argument for them needing an article. As I noted when this deletion was brought up on the Discord server, the article can be summarised as "Animatics for scenes in several episodes were created during the production process and later made available on the official Nick Animation YouTube channel.[ref]" This sentence (adapted as needed) can be added to either the episode trivia, or what I would consider a better option the individual articles for each Book. If there is something in a specific animatic for an episode that is notable (for example, a large difference to the final episode) then this could be noted as a trivia on the episode. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 21:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — I disagree. Even though it is just references to where the animatics are available, it would me much easier to simply look at the existing page than have to go through multiple in order to find what you are looking for. Although it is not likely that many people will actually use this page, it will greatly help those who do, therefore I vote to keep it. latest?cb=20110527184922💛💚 Kyoshiyangchen22💚💛latest?cb=20110527184922 (wallcontribs) 21:48, 18th January 2921 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue with this logic though, is assuming that these are in any way notable when stacked all together. At least if it were on the individual episode articles, then it's relevant to the episode you're already reading about. What would entice somebody to want to research this standalone article? Zacatero(Wall)Varrick_Sprite.png 22:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — While I agree that this information can (and should) also be added to the respective episodes with a link back to this article, I see no harm in keeping it around, as it is a decent enough page to stand on its own, and it is the easiest way to convey this type of info. Since not all episodes have animatics, it's informational to have one page listing all the episodes that do have one, which is a better format than having to go around all episodes to find this particular trivia or having things like "This episode is one of few to have had an animatic released, the others being X, Y, Z." Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 08:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — Well, I first thought that this page could possibly be submitted for deletion, but after some contributions by other community members, I gave up on this possibility. But I was shocked when it was in fact put for the same. As you know, animatics are really rare to find today, especially of ATLA and LOK and if you take a look at videos, they have quite less views. Thus, I was excited to add these info into a page, hoping that such content would be readily acceptable. Also I am planning to add pics of the episodes and differences into the page. Also, though it looks like a table page, it does have info already, Initially, I planned of writing in sections rather than in tables, then I thought that this would not be acceptable, so to simplify things, I created the tables, due to which the page looks odd. But still, writing these info in related pages, don't you'll think they might be less noticed, although trivia is largely read? So that's why it is better to keep these info in one page. Thus, I vote to keep it (it's reasonable for me to keep my page rather than delete it, unlike the previous two discussions that I had started). Yohan Mavely talk 18:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to be clear that my view (and I am sure the others as well) towards deleting the article is not due to the quality of the content itself, but rather because I feel it is unnecessary to have an article detailing the animatics in this way. Nothing in your response has convinced me as to why this needs a separate article, and cannot just be added to the relevant episode or other articles. The fact these videos have a low number of views is irrelevant to the wiki and has no bearing on whether the article should be kept; increasing viewership is for the uploader of the videos, not us. If the intention/desire is to have this information detailed somewhere (which I fully support), then I feel the inclusion on the other articles detailed is more than sufficient. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 21:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
What's the harm in doing both though? Have the general overview and then add the piece of trivia to each page leading back to the general overview page where users can find all the animatics, which they otherwise would not have found, lets they click through all the episodes.
@Yohan: one note though, uploading many more images to that page may be cluttering things too much, just already putting that out there, but to echo HoT, we do appreciate you making the effort to create this page! Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 23:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The reason why I don't agree with having both is mainly because I don't see this new article as necessary. It's not like any other article in the wiki and not very enciclopedic in my opinion. I could see that compilation belonging to a blog or a Discussions post if you want to offer people a place to find them all. The whole content is trivial and we don't usually have articles for just trivia. Dcasawang1wall 01:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
What's not encyclopedic about it? It's different because it's not about a character, episode, or event of the show, like most to all of our pages are, but the fact that it is related to the creation process of the series and was important enough to be included on the DVDs and later released online via official channels makes it noteworthy enough for the wiki to have a page on it. If this was a short page that could be harmful for our SEO, then this would be a different story, but as it stands, the page is long enough and contains info that is apparently rather hard to find in one collective place, so why not be that one place that does offer that info on an overview page? Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 08:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact that it is not complete knowledge on something related to Avatar, it's just a list of links to pages outside the wiki. Several interviews have also been released in different official media, including the DVDs. Should we also have a page to list all interviews with links to YouTube? The information we should show is what is extracted from there, the new content or the script if you will, but not the fact that it just exists. If these animatics offered us some new information, then I would be okay with keeping the articles as we could explain these points, but they don't. And also, the fact that it's still an orphaned page makes me think it's unnecessary. Dcasawang1wall 22:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
What's not "complete knowledge on something related to Avatar"? Did you know which selected episodes had animatics released somewhere at some time? I didn't. I definitely agree that this page is not the "well of information" most other pages are, but it does offer something that isn't offered anywhere else: a complete overview of the animatics and which episodes had them release, when, and where, thus helping any interested fan to possibly track them down should they be interested.
As for the interviews, we actually have several transcripts about interviews or roundtable discussions, so ... I guess we also just show that they exist. That said though, that is a moot comparison, cause animatics were part of the creation process of the show--common or not. It's also just still an orphaned page, because I doubt anyone wants to go around to all the relevant episode pages and the TLoK e-book to add a link to this page if the community would end up deciding it should be deleted. That's just inefficient work then.
But anyway, we're starting to go in an endless back and forth. In the end, it just boils down to this: those that wish to have the page deleted should be the ones bringing the proof as to why it needs to be gone, not the other way around. Currently the following has been stated:
  1. DC: What little it adds can easily be put in the respective articles for each episode under their trivia sections.
    This is countered by "Since not all episodes have animatics, it's informational to have one page listing all the episodes that do have one, which is a better format than having to go around all episodes to find this particular trivia or having things like "This episode is one of few to have had an animatic released, the others being X, Y, Z."
  2. Zacatero: "the article only has information that we already know from the final product"
    Does it? I legit didn't know which episodes all had animatics for it. The only overview page we have for this is the one currently up to be deleted. That the visual info from the animatics matches the final scenes is not the info the page is giving.
  3. HoT's suggestion to add it elsewhere.
    Lol, I actually agree with what he said, but I don't see a reason in that why there also cannot be an overview of all the episodes that do have animatics released somewhere. If someone is interested in that tiny tidbit of information, then what is the harm in offering it to them in a full-length page?
The way I ultimately see it, going by the fact that this is the only way to provide an overview, which is something that cannot be properly covered by just adding it to other relevant pages's trivia section, is that the following question needs to be answered in order to have a case to delete this: "Who is having this page hurting?" It is not harmful for our SEO (may even be good, since it is apparently hard to find all of these animatics). The page can also easily be linked to from other pages, thus ensuring a continued flow around the wiki, and it would just be one more extra bit of info we offer on the wiki. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 12:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.