Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kids Next Door Two-by-Four Technology


 * 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 Delete. --- Gl e n 05:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Kids Next Door Two-by-Four Technology
Fancruft, listcruft. Djcartwright 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, shouldn't List of Villains Inventions and Pets in Codename: Kids Next Door be nominated as well?--TBC TaLk?!? 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, there's an enormous category of this cruft, which I only recognized after tagging this. I just tagged the whole category. Djcartwright 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom; fancruft--TBC TaLk?!? 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per fancruft. Xiong Chiamiov    :: contact ::   01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and the List of Villains Inventions and Pets in Codename: Kids Next Door as well. Pavel Vozenilek 02:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 04:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete cruftalicious, also delete the article Pavel Vozenilek mentioned. Danny Lilithborne 05:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Michael 07:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A le_Jrb talk  09:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Th ε Halo Θ 10:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 11:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep verifiable as being in the series, good use of a list rather than seperate stubs, appropriate tone, clear definition as to the content, aspect of a notable production. Not excessive, unlike true fancruft. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, remember. LinaMishima 12:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. You've got to be kidding. Shadow1 12:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some one appears to have put a lot of work into this.  Maybe it would be a better idea to redirect to Codename: Kids Next Door in case some one wants to grab this for a TV wiki? - BalthCat 12:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what I had in mind. There's no need to keep it here, but if there's another appropriate wiki, then it really ought to be moved.
 * Keep. I'm going to have to agree with Lina.  The information is concise, well presented, sourced (if not in a preferrable style), and some items are used in as many as as twenty episodes.  Above all, it also seems very harmless.  It's true, Wikipedia *isn't* paper.  As long as it's well done and out of the way of the main articles (so as not to overwhelm), why list a handful of examples of common 2x4 Tech when we can show all the common devices?  I just don't see the value in deleting all this work. - BalthCat 13:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Consise accumlation of one of the most distinctive features of the show. I have made occassional passing references in my courses to the vision of technology presented on KND, and this would actually be a good reference to that end. Jdclevenger 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cruft with a capital C. --kingboyk 21:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Wikipedia has no need for any "List of merely incidental objects in fictional series." That said, if some other project does want this, I'd be happy to undelete and help them out with a transwiki. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep We allow similar lists for Star Wars and Star Trek related material. Seano1 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. GarrettTalk 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * One one hand, Star Wars and Star Trek have much more cultural relevance than this cartoon. On the other hand, just because there exist similar pages for them, doesn't mean that everything that can be listed, should be. Djcartwright 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep —  Some other series have similar pages and it is not too badly presented -- lucasbfr talk 23:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A black stain on Wikipedia.UberCryxic 23:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a different approach the editors could take then this? Just a pure list of obscure things in a kids show doesn't seem like the best one... RN 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep its a big part of the TV series. Perhaps a bit of clean-up too. -AMK152 01:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a big part of the TV series, but the TV series is not 'that' significant in and of itself. The TV series may deserve mention in the Wikipedia because it exists on a major network for a number of years, but there is really no need to explore it in such depth here.  There must be a TV- or Cartoon-related wiki where this kind of information would be more at home. Djcartwright 04:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps move it to Cartoons Wiki? -AMK152 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per LinaMishima. It's an important part of the show, and while it could use cleanup, it doesn't need to be deleted. Wiki is not paper. BryanG(talk) 02:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete poorly named ReverendG 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, particularly egregious fan/listcruft with absurdly detailed unencyclopedic content. My Alt Account 03:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per WP:FICT. Kappa 03:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate collection of information with no explanation of encyclopedic value. Lovely cruft! Wonderful cruft! Cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft. Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Cruft cruft cruft cruft! GarrettTalk 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete C.R.U.F.T (Clearly Removable Unencyclopedic Fan Trivia) Robert A.West (Talk) 04:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per LinaMishima. - TexasAndroid 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its a verifiaed, cited and annotated list of non-indiscriminate information. Although the formatting has to be overhauled, I can not find this list to be egregious enough to be excluded from Wikipedia.-- danntm T C 01:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That it can be demonstrated as true does not warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia.Djcartwright 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To what reliable source is it sourced? Right now, all I see is Bird written sourced to "I watched a bird." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Verifiability is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for inclusion. If kept, the primary source (i.e. DVD's of the episodes) would probably suffice for non-controversial information such as a pure listing.  Commentary (such as what was being parodied) would require a source or be original research.  Robert A.West (Talk) 03:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And if it's nothing but parroting pieces of story of a fictional work, it fails Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki if there is some sort of TV wiki out there. Recury 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Indrian 15:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If you have to delete this, why not delete everything on Template:KND while you're at it. If you're going to be so anti-KND, then just go delete EVERYTHING! User:Numbuh3.14 (Talk to me) 03: 23, 13 September 2006
 * Don't turn this around to be a personal attack on my part (nominator). I have no feelings for or against the show; I just don't think this article is the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia that attempts to take itself seriously.  Too much detail into a relatively trivial subject for any academic purpose. Djcartwright 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wonder whether the negative impact of this article on Wikipedia as a whole is worth the effort expended to take it down, the effort of those who believe it should remain to defend it, and the possibility that removing it may reduce the pool of willing volunteers. *Some one* put work into this.  - BalthCat 04:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Degree of effort is not a criterion for AFD, nor is the potential for hurt feelings. The question is what the dividing line is between an encyclopedic article and a trivia list, and where this particular article lies in relation to it.  Reasonable people may differ about such things -- that is what AFD is here to hash out.  If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, or even deleted, by others, do not submit it. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor niggle: Is the term "Two-by-four technology" actually used on the show? If not, that would seem to call for a retitling. Major point: Cruft cruft cruft cruft cruft cruft. FAR FAR too much detail. Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per . —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:24, 15 September 2006 (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.