Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZZZap!


 * 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 Keep Eluchil404 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

ZZZap!

 * — (View AfD)

This article does not assert notability and contains no reliable references. It would also be easier to write this article from scratch than leave it in its present messy state. I nominate this page for deletion. Yuser31415 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Notability is asserted. This is a candidate for cleaning up and referencing, not deletion. --Ezeu 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepZakTek 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeez... I mean, let's face the facts: Is the show notable? Absolutely. There is no question about this. Is the article a huge mess? Absolutely. I guess I would say keep, since I'd think it would be harder to make a good article from scratch than to clean up this one. Of course, that brings up the question as to whether the cleanup tag is sufficient... -- Kicking222 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep needs a lot of clean-up, but theres more than enough there to assert notability. Artw 01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for appropriate maintenance activity. Baby, bathwater, etc. Messy is in no way unsalvageable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has taken over a year to make the article, and if it's deleted, how long will it take to make of of that again? It will be a lot easier to clean it than to create. Sponge6778 16:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DON'T DELETE IT!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.121 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. Notable within its context, with ample evidence to support this available from independent sources. But article requires Cleanup. WMMartin 19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree that this is in desperate need of cleanup, but this would be easier to achieve with the article still available, rather than being deleted.Elcondor 20:50, 15 January 2007 (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.