Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Complete Peanuts: 1950 to 1952 Annotations


 * 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 of the debate was transwikied clear consensus to transwiki Pegasus1138 Talk 19:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Complete Peanuts: 1950 to 1952 Annotations and others
Wikipedia is not a guide to another's work. Kotepho 12:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Complete Peanuts: 1953 to 1954 Annotations
 * The Complete Peanuts: 1955 to 1956 Annotations
 * The Complete Peanuts: 1957 to 1958 Annotations
 * The Complete Peanuts: 1959 to 1960 Annotations
 * The Complete Peanuts: 1961 to 1962 Annotations
 * The Complete Peanuts: 1963 to 1964 Annotations
 * The Complete Peanuts: 1965 to 1966 Annotations

I'm the creator of these pages. Actually, Wikipedia frequently serves as a guide to other people's work. See the entries on Stephen King's The Dark Tower books, and The Wheel of Time. More importantly, Wikipedia is a reference source, and people reading the Peanuts books may be confused by the cultural references. Wikipedia is the perfect tool for clarification. KXL 25 May 2006.


 * Strong Keep MarineCorps 13:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Take it to wikibooks. Not suitable here. Dr Zak 13:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks, amazing bit of work, but as per Dr Zak, not suitable for Wikipedia. --Canley 13:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. The Dark Tower (series) describe the works, not annotations. I'd like a bit more info on the source of these annotations. Did you come up with them yourself? Then it's original research, which may be fine for Wikibooks, but not for Wikipedia. Did you copy them from somewhere? Then they're likely a copyright violation. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

These annotations are my own (Sometimes incorporating phrases from the main Wiki articles I am linking to). I will look into Wikibooks, but I still feel that a link right by the main entry on Peanuts is the best way to do this. KXL 25 May
 * You can link to wikibooks from wikipedia articles, there is even a template . Kotepho 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki per above. -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 16:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki per above. A detailed discussion of a work is not the same as annotations to a work.  Brilliant piece of research, though.  -- GWO
 * Transwiki per above. Hits a little too close to original research to work for the main Wikipedia. 23skidoo 19:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki per above. --Starionwolf 04:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * transwiki per canley M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what I'm doing, but my concern is that regular users such as myself will not be able to find these great annotations if they are transfered.
 * Keep it where it is. I agree with the above guy. Even with the big grey box (which I think people don't really see), it will be too hard for folks to find.  The links are right there, by the entries for the books.  They are already at the most logical place.


 * 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.