Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer Japanese Seizure Robots


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer  T - 02:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Killer Japanese Seizure Robots
Prior nomination was found with no consensus: Articles for deletion/Killer Japanese Seizure Robots/Archive --AllyUnion (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about a single page website Do not click if prone to epilepsy or bad taste. The article references a small part of a Simpson's episode, Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. I really don't think that the website warrants an article of it's own. It was previously nominated for deletion here. The discussion in the previous nomination tended towards a merge, but I feel that there is already sufficient text in the Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo Trivia section. Does this prank webpage warrant an article? Is there sufficient text in the Thirty Minutes article? I don't think that merging is a good idea, especially given the backlog. - Hahnchen 02:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. ··gracefool |&#9786; 07:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We can verify lots of none notable websites, just because we can verify it doesn't mean it deserves a wikipedia article. I could provide photoevidence for the existence of a local cul-de-sac, it's verifiable, wiki isn't paper, so let's do cul-de-sac articles!  No. - Hahnchen 14:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I'd say it's notable enough. Tens of thousands of people know what it is. Whereas a local cul-de-sac is probably of interest to only a few hundred people. But in any case, I don't see how an article on a local cul-de-sac could hurt Wikipedia. ··gracefool |&#9786; 13:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - This AFD was deformed for its first few days and garnered no votes at all during the most popular voting period. Is it possible to relink this to the current day of voting?  I would be grateful if it is allowed. - Hahnchen 18:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm relisting this as it was deformed the first couple days and didn't draw as much participation as it might have. Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Groeck 04:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. I'm sure I've seen something about this already.  Brrr, Déjà vu. Proto t c 08:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Ryan Norton T 10:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete one-joke spamalicious fancruft. --Calton | Talk 10:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Individual episodes are debatable enough but individual scenes? I think not. Marskell 11:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete do not redirect, as I'm pretty sure they're not called that during the show. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 11:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I was against this article when I nominated it for deletion awhile back, and I still am. I love The Simpsons, but this is cruft, plain and simple. Karmafist 20:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - A small joke in an episode doesn't deserve an article. Fancruft. Wikipedia is not a web guide. --J. Nguyen 20:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo --Apyule 06:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not significant to be merged with ep of simpsons. Great episode, great joke, useless article. alf 11:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with the episode article. I think it deserves a place here.--Tedzsee 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete-I'm not epileptic, but it had some negative physical effects on me. Imagine what it would do to someone who is epileptic.


 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.