Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ez Station


 * 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   redirect to Shanda. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ez Station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is still too short and has not been edited for four years.  Eye snore  (pc) 17:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are reasons to delete. But the article fails to assert notability, which gets into the realm of speedy-deletion. Needs minimal commentary and ref about why it's a notable product; just becoming a long description is not enough. DMacks (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep - no valid reason given for deletion. ~KvnG 23:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My previous comment "fails to assert notability" is a policy-based reason. Just because the nom that started us is invalid doesn't mean the resulting discussion can't progress (for example, if someone procedurally closes it, I would immediately re-file with this new nom, and we'd just all have wasted our time). DMacks (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see your comment, it blends in with the other bureaucratic notes. Whoever closes this AfD might also miss your "vote".
 * Articles that do not assert their notability (e.g. through references) are not automatically eligible for deletion. Editors who advocate for deletion should research notability of the topic WP:BEFORE nominating or supporting an AfD. Realize that from my POV, quickly dismissing this ill-formed AfD saves time and if you chose to refile, that would be wasting time. ~KvnG 02:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly correct - if the nominator doesn't provide a policy-based rationale, but someone else does afterwards, that second person effectively becomes the nominator. In this case, your "procedural keep" !vote is invalidated by DMacks citing WP:NOT. (In case you don't think I know what I'm talking about, I just NAC-ed an AfD using SK#1.) And look, my time was wasted explaining this. Ansh666 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Shanda. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Odie. I see some coverage in GNews search, but majority is of the press release/product announcement type. If someone can find a good source (like Ez Mini), it can be remade. Ansh666 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.