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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Mailer Diablo10:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable actress. No IMDB entry.Mad Jack23:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nodMad Jack23:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Michael05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Samsara (talk •contribs)20:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete will probably appear on Disney Channel in a lead role, but not yet notable --zzuuzz^(talk)19:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, can't speedy under nn-bio. Well definitelydelete for lack of notabilityAntares3371220:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.KarenAnn16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasSpeedy delete as copyvio.CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)00:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the article or the band is notable enough for Wikipedia, I also don't feel this is a speedy issue

Comment, for the record, I believe indelete, but I don't think this is a speedyAntares3371214:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I proposed a speedy delete as the main text taken from the pagehttp://www.myspace.com/themaryjanesdc without any mention of permission.Travelbird14:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, true, then the text should go. However, I think he band itself deserves an AfD vote. The copyvio text may be a speedy, but the band may not necessarily be.Antares3371215:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The text was a copyvio. It has been marked as such and will be removed in due time. I expect that the person removing the article will handle closing out this AfD. -Harmil16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Until someone with knowledge of the band takes the initiative to write a non-copyvio article, this is a speedy situation. Without the copyvio, there'sno article.AdamBiswanger116:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deleteWP:COPY violation --Alias Flood17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom andWP:COPY vio —(chubbstar) ^{—talk |contrib |17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete copyvio perWP:BAND. (No offense, but, man, I was confusing them for theone-hit wonder,Mary Jane Girls!) --Slgr@ndson(page -messages -contribs)18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above.SynergeticMaggot19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above. If not deemed appropriate, then at leastdelete perWP:MUSIC not being met. (There's a different group called Mary Janes on allmusic, and the previous version of the article didn't make any real claim of notability.) --H·G (^words/_works)

20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note I tagged it for speedy as per the lack of opposition and the consensus toward "speedy".AdamBiswanger121:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom - can't violate copyrights. --Bigtop(tk|cb|em|ea)23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete all copyright violations.RFerreira23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete, unverifiable.Mailer Diablo10:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable writing circleSilkTork12:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Weak Keep. Subject is notable because of its composition: authors who have "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." The current members listed are noted in their wikipedia articles for having achieved such awards as: the New York Times Notable Book of the Year; the Stephen Crane Award for First Fiction; the Cleveland Arts Prize; the James Tiptree, Jr. Award; aHugo Award; the Upper Canada Writer’s Craft Award; and the Grinzane Cavour Prize for debut fiction (as well as nominations for theNebula Award, the Hugo, theStory Prize, thePushcart Prize, and theJourney Prize). A writer's group whose members achieve such notability is notable itself, because the group's purpose is directly related with the members' field of notable achievement.Scorpiondollprincess13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I fear. My primary concern isverifiability -- the only references I can find on the web are Wikipedia mirrors and a brief one-sentence mention on Erin O'Brien's personal homepage, which is in the form of a link to Wikipedia. Regardless of the notability concern, keeping this would require someone to locate and cite some reliable sources that could be used to verify the article's claims.
  With regard to notability, I strongly disagree with Scorpiondollprincess's claim that the group derives automatic notability from the notability of its members. I do not dispute that at least some of its members are notable, but the article does not claim that membership of the group has verifiably contributed to their success, nor that it forms a defined literary circle with an identifiable style or influence, and I'm not sure what other grounds there could be for claiming that it is of any significance whatsoever to non-members.
  Let me reiterate, however, that notability concerns are secondary; if no sources can be found to verify the article, notability becomes moot. —HaelethTalk15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I concede the point onWP:V, Haeleth. You are right and this article does violate verifiability. I still maintain a group composed of persons notable for X and organized around the subject of X is notable. I don't suggest "automatic notability." If a group of notable writers formed an organization to discuss fishing or woodworking, that's not notable. But if notable persons form a group about the subject that made them notable, then their organization is notable as well. Regardless, you are correct -- the article lacks proper citations. I modify my position to aWeak Keep ifverifiable sources can be provided.Scorpiondollprincess19:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Haeleth unless some proper citations can be found. Great comment, by the way.AdamBiswanger116:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteWP:V is a core policy which this article does not satisfy. --Alias Flood17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as perHaeleth's comment. —(chubbstar) ^{—talk |contrib |17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete per Haeleth as necessarily unverifiable (although the group might be added toWP:RA, with a note to the effect that sources concomitant to the article would be desired). I agree, though, with Scorpion that a group that comprises several notable individuals whose notability is at least tangentially related to that notability is necessarily notable (toward which, see, e.g.,WP:BAND, viz., that a band of which otherwise notable musicians are members is notable).Joe03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasmove to WP and delete.Mailer Diablo10:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site does not appearnotable (WP:WEB) outside of a rather limited sub-community. Additionally this article falls well foul ofWP:V and is likely in conflict withWP:NOR. As well, it is very likely that this article meets the requirements forvanity deletion (see thespecific vanity reason on WP's deletion policy) as there are very likely editors who edit on Encyclopedia of Stupid who concurrently edit the Wikipedia article that corresponds to it (in conflict of interest).Hardvice11:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Four wikis with no sources are up at the same time in order for wikipedia to gain a prescedence about this.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopædia_Dramatica_(3rd_nomination)Wikipedia:Parodies/Wickerpedia (MfD discussion)Kamelopedia (AfD discussion)Encyclopedia Of Stupid (AfD discussion). Also please noteUncyclopedia has no sources, as well.Hardvice11:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've seen this mentioned in a few newspaper articles referencing Uncyclopedia, but not knowing where they are, and not seeing the references in the article, I'm voting to scrap it.Captainktainer *Talk11:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncyclopedia has not been nominated for deletion. The article being discussed here isKamelopedia.Uncle G12:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or did you mean that you had seenKamelopedia mentioned in those newspaper articles?Uncle G12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is precisely what I meant. Sorry for the confusion :-(Captainktainer *Talk13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was my misunderstanding.Uncle G14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A series of in-jokes I don't get. No evidence of significance, may be the result of the relentless expunging of weblinks and redlinks fromlist of wikis.Just zisGuy you know?13:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. The German Wikipedia's article provides one reference, namelythis; I don't know whether that would satisfy the verifiability and original research requirements, though? —HaelethTalk15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Does not belong in main namespace. Should be moved toWikipedia:Parodies/Kamelopedia.Dgies17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn parody of WPGassyGuy20:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, doesn't meetWP:WEB unlike the other contentious pit of rattlesnakes up for deletion right now.RFerreira03:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Dgies. I think theWikipedia:Parodies page is an appropriate place to keep stuff like this around, without compromising our core policies. -GTBacchus^(talk)09:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Dgies and GTBacchus.(→Netscott)10:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move.Ashibakatock12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Laugh ? Well, no, actually, I didn't. No objection to a move, but it's not my preferred solution.Angus McLellan(Talk)21:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in a bad mood and it didn't cheer me up.Ste4k04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable AT ALL. I am not sure why someone even bothered to write the article aside from possible vanity. --Bouquet08:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The German Wikipedia has far more stringent rules on notability than the English one, yet they've kept this article (de:Kamelopedia).Angela.13:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move toWikipedia:Parodies/Kamelopedia perDgies. --Zoz(t)15:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.KarenAnn16:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'd be OK with the suggested move as well. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!)00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasmove to WP and delete.Mailer Diablo10:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site does not appearnotable (WP:WEB) outside of a rather limited sub-community. Additionally this article falls well foul ofWP:V and is likely in conflict withWP:NOR. As well, it is very likely that this article meets the requirements forvanity deletion (see thespecific vanity reason on WP's deletion policy) as there are very likely editors who edit on Encyclopedia of Stupid who concurrently edit the Wikipedia article that corresponds to it (in conflict of interest).Hardvice11:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Four wikis with no sources are up at the same time in order for wikipedia to gain a prescedence about this.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopædia_Dramatica_(3rd_nomination)Wikipedia:Parodies/Wickerpedia (MfD discussion)Kamelopedia (AfD discussion)Encyclopedia Of Stupid (AfD discussion). Also please noteUncyclopedia has no sources, as well.Hardvice11:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even though it passes theGoogle test it is a factor of 10 times smaller thanEncyclopedia Dramatica. Furthermore, of the first 30 results the first 6 are from Wikipedia, the subject itself or ED (as well as another two) and the rest are irrelevant or blog (related) sites.MER-C12:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete stupid.Just zisGuy you know?13:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending addition of multiple reliable secondary sources. --Kuzaar^-T-C-16:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Alias Flood17:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Does not belong in main namespace. Should be moved toWikipedia:Parodies/Encyclopedia Of Stupid.Dgies17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as per above.--Kitia21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has majorWP:V problems.GassyGuy20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Coredesattalk. o.o;;23:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Dgies. It's perfectly appropriate to keep unencyclopedic material of interest to Wikipedians in the project namespace. -GTBacchus^(talk)09:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per GTBacchus.(→Netscott)10:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Angus McLellan(Talk)21:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to project namepsace.Themindset21:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  PS - may be deserving of an article in the future.Themindset21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I agree with the statements at top re: hardvice. --Bouquet08:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking at thePage history, specifically the original author of the article, andthis clearly suggests that it is vanity, and the site is non-notable-ROFLcopter^{Talk to ROFLcopter, kthx}11:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move toWikipedia:Parodies/Encyclopedia Of Stupid perDgies. --Zoz(t)15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasno consensus. I am compelled by the argument that these articles should not be grouped together into a single AFD discussion, as they represent significantly varying levels of notability/usefulness/game-guide-ness, and varying levels of quality. It is likely that, if the same contributors were discussing individual articles in this list, many would be deleted while others would be kept. This is NOT a precedent-setting decision and the individual articles involved in this discussion can certainly be nominated in smaller groups or separately right away. The only thing people should take from this is to be careful how you group nominations - it's tempting to say that these are all related because of the game, but they differ too much to get any clear consensus out of the deal. (ESkog)^(Talk)15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note thatthis is not a vote, but rather adiscussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We havepolicies and guidelines to help us decide this, anddeletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (orsocks). You can participate and give your opinion. Pleasesign your posts on this page by adding~~~~ at the end.Happy editing!

Also nominating related articles in theRuneScape Category which fit into the exact same type and style:

• Armour
• Castle Wars
• Chaos Elemental
• Combat
• Community
• Construction
  
• Cooking
• Crafting - Has been redirected to RuneScape skills... unsure if this is proper during AFDHalo15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Dagannoth
• Dungeons
• Economy
• Gods
• Holiday Items
• Kalphite Queen
• King Black Dragon
• Locations
• Magic
• Mini-Games
• Monsters
• Prayer - Redirected to RuneScape Skills... unsure if this is proper during AFDHalo15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Random Events
• Runecrafting
• Skills - Removed from AFD request, as per comments and relook at article. Other articles with relevent non-fancruft should be merged into hereHalo15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smithing - Redirected to RuneScape skills -Halo15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stronghold of Security - Has been redirected to theMini-Games article... unsure if this is proper during AFDHalo15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least this one should be fine. The article was only created 6 hours before its listing here, and should have been merged and redirected on sight.Hyenaste ^(tell)17:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• TzHaar Fight Cave
• Weaponry
• Wilderness

Why? Well...

• These are inherantly fancrufty. Have no relevance outside the game whatsoever, and there's endless amounts of them.
• WP:OR Completely unresearched. There's no references in any of the articles: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought".
• WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" - Game Guides. These are /most definitely/ game guides. No doubt about it.
  • A quote from RuneScape dungeons: "This dungeon plays an important part in the Monkey Madness quest as Zooknook resides at the end of it. The trip through the dungeon passes zombie monkeys, skeletons, and many traps.". These articles are not self-serving, they don't belong here.
• Look at the articles themselves. Some of them are indepth, but are far from encyclopaedic.
• Many of the things are quite simply /not notable/. They don't attempt to establish notability, aside from "Well, it appears in RuneScape".
• RuneScape Armour alone haspreviously been on AFD where the result was no consensus. I think this debate, if nothing else, may present a consensus.
• If it wasn't implied by the above, I "vote"Delete.

-Halo10:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just thought it might be worth mentioning (in the interest of complete transparency) the following RFDs I've just found:

• King Black Dragon's AFD ended with a Merge (which never happened)
• Construction had Keep (mainly merge)
• no consensus forskills,
• Community gotKeep
• Mining was deleted,
• Fishing was deleted,
• Runecrafting was kept,
• No consensus forRunescape Skills,
• RuneScape Gods got keep/no consensus (mainly votes for a merge that never happened)

Apologies if I missed any. I would /seriously/ discourage anyone from voting "merge", since a merge clearly won't happen considering previous AFD votes. I would also like any admins to consider this AFD properly, and not simply count /votes/, which aren't particularly useful (past AFDs have been "saved" due to "votes" rather than discussion).Halo14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion specifically states that "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." The blanking and redirection of these articles thus appears to be improper, and creates doubt as to whether this AFD filing can serve as an appropriate basis for the deletion of the nominated articles.John25405:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the improper blanking and redirection of these three articles. However, since these articles were blanked and redirected for over 24 hours, it is still highly questionable whether any of the nominated articles could be deleted as a result of this AFD filing.John25405:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally,there was a consensus to keepRunecrafting,Cooking (RuneScape),Crafting (RuneScape),Magic (RuneScape),Prayer (RuneScape) as a result ofan AFD closed July 9, 2006, and there was a consensus to keepConstruction (RuneScape) as a result ofan AFD closed July 7, 2006. Thus, I claim thatHalo's nomination of nearly every article in Category:RuneScape for deletion, included the very articles listed above, so soon after there were decisions to keep these very articles, is an abuse of the AFD process that should not be rewarded. Undoubtedly, if articles were repeatedly re-nominated for deletion within a short period of time, a "consensus" for deletion might eventually be reached during one of the AFD's purely by chance; however, I claim that it is improper to subject articles to "double jeopardy" by re-nominating them for deletion less than two weeks after a consensus was reached to keep them.John25423:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - [[User
• Delete per nom. Also possible copyvio, though I can't verify this. This is stuff that belongs in a manual which traditionally won't get read anyways.Tychocat11:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If there is a copyright violation in every one of these articles then please highlight them. This should have been brought to the attention of the article editors on the article pages, where they can rectify or remove any offend pieces. Runescape does draw a significant amount of first time editors and the regular editors endeavour to maintain the articles and avoid such items. 00:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete All of these pages were split from the mainRuneScape page because that page became too large. Why? Because people introduced too muchnon-encyclopedic information into them.Wikipedia is anencyclopedia. There existsa place in which one can gather as much Runescape knowledge as they would like. This place isnt here! Thisfancrufty, video game guide, doesn't belong on the Wikipedia, but rather a suitable article briefly overviewing the game, and then linking to other repositories of Runescape information is much more suitable. --Porqin12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete rampant fancruft. We can safely leave the nuances of these topics to the Runescape website and forums.Just zisGuy you know?13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per well-written nom. Also, the previous AFDs "keep" reasons were bad if at all existent.Wickethewok13:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge short summaries into original Runescape article, and delete all the listed articles. I have helped write MMORPG-related articles, and this just borders on ridiculous. For example, I play EVE Online, and I've managed to keep the entire set of articles on EVE Online in Wikipedia down tothree. Runescape is no more notable, and doesn't need 30+ articles related to it.Dark Shikari16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should provide an overview of the game and its significance, and point readers to dedicated resources for detailed information. We are not trying to replace the entire internet here. —HaelethTalk16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into original RuneScape article. These articles are non-notable in themselves, but contain a lot of information that shouldn't simply be thrown out. --Gray Porpoise16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You hit the nail on the head,"contain a lot of information", they contain so much information, they have becomegame-guides, andunencyclopedic. --Porqin16:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't put too much back in the main article, as length is one of the factors preventing GA status.CaptainVindaloo^tce16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is why it is suggested that we delete the unnecessary information (articles above) from the Wikipedia. --Porqin17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not arguing with that, quite a bit,but not all of this stuff is unnecessary.RuneScape definitely needs subpages, just not as many as this. See my vote below.CaptainVindaloo^tce17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteStronghold of Security as a waste of time, since it is covered in the main article, and is the most minor of miniquests anyway. Move everything else toPortal:RuneScape subpages so they can be cleaned, improved, merged and replaced as better article subpages. These articles contain important information for the main article, and it would be damaging to delete them, and they would be recreated as a necessity within a short time anyway. The information was originally in the main article, but we were told to move them into subpages as it made the main too long. I agree that all these subpages are just ridiculous, which is why I'd like them merged into, say;RuneScape equipment,RuneScape monsters and combat,RuneScape economy and skills, or something similar, relying on links tothe RuneScape knowledge base for further detail. Other information, such as locations and community can possibly go back in the main article.CaptainVindaloo^tce16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete allWikipedia is not a game guide; none of these articles are encyclopedichoopydink^{Conas tá tú?}17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete allWikipedia is not a game guide--Nick Y.17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and portalise per CaptainVindaloo. ~ctales *blah*18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete all. I have always thought that these articles are utter trash. You hit the nail on the head quite nicely by saying that these articles are unencyclopaedic game guides that belong on a fansite. Not to mention unconsistency - it doesn't make sense to have articles on some RuneScape skills and have the others be completely ignored.Audacious One19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose, invalid nomination, in part because you have not justified grouping 20+ articles for deletion without considering their individual merits.WP:OR does not apply, as this is derivative information that should be considered common knowledge viz game manuals and fan sites. "Not a game guide" is not a strong enough argument to remove the pages as there are over 30 articles in theEverquest series. These pages need to be adopted byWikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games which should help cull much of the cruft that they admittedly contain.Shoehorn20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My justifcation is all the 20+ articles are (in the most part) very similar. Going through each of the 29 articles, pointing out all the bad points and justifying what's wrong would be /incredibly/ time consuming (unless you want me to explain how long it took me to put all the articles onto AFD as it is) and would clog up AFD. That said, feel free to justify any pages where my initial points don't apply. On top of that, you argue that the pages are tantamount to manuals and fansites (which, y'know, could be referenced - both are online with RuneScape), which teach how to play the game, almost proving my point about Game Guides and instruction manual. I don't understand where the justification for strong oppose came from in the above argument. Also, existance of 30 kludgy EverQuest pages is in no way an indicator that this is good practise... although I would point out that the Everquest pages have 23 pages about different expansions, different releases of the game (EQ1, 2, West etc) and related games (such as a PS2 game), most of which were commercial-released to retail, which makes it easy to justify that they need their own page so it's nowhere near in the same league. In practise, there's about 15 pages actually about the game. On top of that, it could be argued that EverQuest was a lot more influential as a game as possibly the first hugely successful subscription-model MMORPG which caused dozens of other games to be created, but I agree, the amount of pages there is also OTT and should be trimmed. I might do that next.Halo23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Laziness is not a virtue. Clogging up AFD is not an issue. This discussion should focus on what should and what should not be included in WP, it is clear to me that one Runescape article would not be sufficient, especially given the history of the articles. I oppose deletion, as I said above, primarily because you are unwilling to examine the articles based on their individual merits/significance.Shoehorn00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd really rather not be called lazy, thanks -WP:NPA. Also, putting all 28 pages on AFD would artifically discourage people from contributing (bringing in a clear "non consensus", or keep, bias), they all have similar reasons for being deleted, and really would clog up AFD with the same reasons again and again when the process has been specifically designed to allow multiple deletions specifically in cases such as this (From WP:AFD, they're designed for -An article about a video game/book and related articles for characters within it.). I have good reasons for grouping these nominations. Putting 28 nominations would also represent 20%+ of a days AFD traffic, which I feel would not be good karma and would, indeed, clog it up. -Halo00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We have the following situation: Nominating 28 individual articles for deletion would likely exhaust the attention of most casual participants, resulting in an unevenly argued consensus about which pages to keep/merge/delete. Probably half of the articles would be deleted, the rest marked for merge or cleanup. If instead you group all 28 articles together, glossing over individual problems/merits, you are going to get an easy consensus to delete all of the articles, as is the case here. So grouping all the articles together is simply a rhetorical tactic to avoid a fair evaluation of the individual articles. I think this is fundamentally unfair to the individual articles in question,many of which have successfully undergone AfD votes on previous occasions, and submit that this is aninvalid nomiation.Shoehorn05:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe this is very much scraping the barrel as to why the articles should stay here, and that you are trying to invoke a "default rule" and I'm really struggling to believe this isn't done in bad faith as to avoid an overwhelming delete vote. Fact is that sending 28 /very similar/ articles to AFD isn't going to result in anything but overwhelming beauracracy and not a full and frank discussion, and I would no doubt be told I shouldn't have grouped the nominations and that THAT discussion wouldn't be binding by someone who wants to keep the articles. If there are any articles which you honestly think what I stated didn't apply, give your opinions, otherwise I stand by my comments completely.Halo15:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't a vote, and we have moved far beyond the point where an "overwhelming delete vote" could be taken as consensus to delete these articles. The discussion is completely polarized, and I am satisfied that this proposal has failed.Shoehorn21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • (de-indenting) FYI, AfD outcomes are not binding on later discussions; a later AfD can reverse or nullify the outcome of a previous AfD.Kimchi.sg13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not suggesting that this AfD should be bound by previous discussions. I am saying that given the varied history of each of the 28 articles, some of which have been marked for merge/cleanup, as well as other articles from this category which have successfully been deleted through a valid AfD process, each of these articles is distinct enough to merit an individual AfD. Some of the subpages are organic extensions of the main article; others are indiscriminate collections of cruft that should be trimmed. Which pages deserve which fate cannot be determined by a grouped AfD. People are jumping on the "delete all" bandwagon because they think they can resolve this situation in one fell swoop, but I doubt any of them have reviewed all 28 pages.Shoehorn19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, per the nom's well-argued points. -A Man InBl♟ck(conspire |past ops)21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki/merge towikia:runescape and delete from WP.—Kaustuv Chaudhuri22:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki/merge all towikia:runescape, which meansdelete per nom. --Bigtop(tk|cb|em|ea)23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nomination. As said above, Wikipedia is not a game guide. The information in these articles are fancruft, there are no references, they're not what belong in an encyclopedia.They're simply not what Wikipedia is.Pop Up Ads00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete runecruft. --Pboyd0401:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, what's the point in improving an article if by next week it could be deleted? This AfD has really put me off improving the articles until this is over. Although the nominator has thrown them all together in one AfD, I do not agree that they should all be dealt with as one article. Most articles don't even have a reason--the nominator has only listed seven reasons for twenty-eight articles. On that note, I wonder if the nominator has even reviewed all of these articles. It appears to me that this list has simply been copied fromTemplate:RuneScape; even an errant <br> tag exists after the construction article in a list otherwise empty of them, and this uses the exact same [[x|y]] wikilink format. Up front I'd like to call amalformed nomination. Aside from that, since my input is encouraged, here's my opinionnot on the RuneScape series, but on each article as its own entity:

• Armour

Merge into a possibleRuneScape equipment article.

• Castle Wars

Keep or at leastMerge intoRuneScape mini-games.

• Chaos Elemental

Merge intoRuneScape monsters

• Combat

Keep

• Community

Ironically, this page was taken out of the mainRuneScape article, but looks like we're going to have tomerge it back in.

• Construction

Merge intoRuneScape skills

• Cooking

Merge intoRuneScape skills

• Crafting

Merge intoRuneScape skills. The reason we moved these articles out was because of size of that page.

• Dagannoth

Merge intoRuneScape monsters

• Dungeons

Merge intoRuneScape locations

• Economy

Possiblemerge into theRuneScape equipment article.

• Gods

No current opinion; I haven't read the article recently.

• Holiday Items

Merge into a possibleRuneScape equipment article.

• Kalphite Queen

Merge intoRuneScape monsters

• King Black Dragon

Merge intoRuneScape monsters

• Locations

Keep, accepting other articles

• Magic

Merge intoRuneScape combat

• Mini-Games

Keep, accepting other articles

• Monsters

Keep, accepting other articles.

• Prayer

Merge intoRuneScape skills

• Random Events

Merge intoRuneScape monsters

• Runecrafting

Merge intoRuneScape skills.

• Skills

Keep, acceptinglots of other articles

• Smithing

Merge intoRuneScape skills

• Stronghold of Security

This article only has had one contributor with less than one-hundred edits. I'm fairly insulted that the nominator is convinced that this article "[fits] into the exact same type and style" as some of the series's more worked-on articles.

• TzHaar Fight Cave

Merge intoRuneScape mini-games

• Weaponry

Merge into that good ol'RuneScape equipment article.

• Wilderness

Merge intoRuneScape locations

Just because I saykeep doesn't mean I think the articles are FA-status, perfect, or even good. They may have a lot of cruft, but to get rid of it, we don't have to delete the whole series; we just have to clean out the cruft. Anyone can do this. After all, if your house is dirty, you clean it up, you don't burn it down.Hyenaste ^(tell)02:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem lies deeper than just cleaning out the cruft. First off, the only reason the articles exist is because of the fancruft. Secondly, the articlesdon't belong onWikipedia to begin with. So cleaning them up doesn'tsolve the problem. A non-Runecraft player in passing, doesn't need to know about every intricate detail of the game. Rather, they can read an overview of the game, with the basics laid out, and then they can follow the links to other information repositories. The house must be demolished, because it wasillegally built to begin with. --Porqin03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; whatever happens,RuneScape needs subpages. This is an absolutely monumental subject, so even putting the briefest of overviews into a single page will have people complaining about the length, and dooming the GA effort to failure. Unfortunately, the current subpages have gotten out of control, being too numerous to keep track of, letting the (inexplicably numerous) vandals and crufters run riot. However, it would save time and make the task of cleanup easier to move these to Portal subpages, where worthwhile information can be extracted and placed into brand new, less numerous and therefore easier to control subpages. The old subpages can then be speedied when they are no longer required.CaptainVindaloo^tce03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Since this AfD is current, are editors barred from merging pages?Hyenaste ^(tell)04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response "You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article." "It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy." --Porqin12:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all per nomination.Mackensen(talk)13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some, condense to fewer - there is more that can be said, even complying with the strictest interpretation ofWP:NOT than will fit in one page. TheWikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games{{Move to gaming wiki}} tag may be more helpful than highly charged block AfDs where many will consider that a few should not be included and others just need attention.Ace of Risk13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -RuneScape_skills is a poor inclusion in this AfD - with a small bit of reworking, it probably represents an appropriate coverage of the features of a large game - there is probably not enough de-cruftified content to justify individual skill articles. Maybe condense some other material to a page on the P2P enhancements, such as mini-games, sticking to WHAT they are. Needs more than one page, but probably less than it has now.Ace of Risk14:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep. The subject is too great to fit into one article. We also worked very hard on them, and fancruft alone isn't a good enough reason for deletion. Since the last time they all went up for deletion, we created a portal (which also went up for deletion with a keep result) to oversee and organize the articles. Some of them, such as the monster articles, could be merged. But if you have to delete them, I challenge you to go and delete every single piece of fancruft on Wikipedia. That includes video game and movie characters, locations, and monsters. And theyare researched. A lot of the information is taken from the Knowledge Base and fansites, as well as the game itself. We could do with more references, and we have a policy about external links. Anyway, I've posted notices on the main article and portal page. If you're planning to delete articles, at least let the maintainers know. Anyway,keep.Dtm14216:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. The subject is too great to fit into one article -- That is because Wikipediais not an indiscriminate collection of information. The information included here should be concise, relevant, and without all the intricacies or fancruft.
  2. We also worked very hard on them, and fancruft alone isn't a good enough reason for deletion -- Working very hard on something doesn't make you exempt from following the spirit of Wikipedia. Fancruft isn't the only applicable policy it violates. As mentioned above, it is in violation of whatWikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a game guide, nor a random collection of information. As stated prior, there already exists aRunescape Wiki that can hold endless amounts of Runescape knowledge, here isn't the place.
  3. I challenge you to go and delete every single piece of fancruft on Wikipedia -- As a community, we are continuously improving Wikipedia article by article. --Porqin17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, Porqin and JzG. Take them to the Runescape wiki.Angus McLellan(Talk)21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, plenty of excellent reasons given already.Recury23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All. I voted to delete last time too, even though I play the game regularly. The information belongs inwikia:runescape orPortal:RuneScape. I agree withPorqin, people have introduced too muchnon-encyclopedic information into them.Wikipedia is anencyclopedia. There existsa place in which one can gather as much Runescape knowledge as they would like. This place isnt here! One article briefly overviewing the game, and then linking to other repositories of Runescape information is much more suitable.--JanesDaddy00:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki if possible, if not, I voteDelete all per Haeleth. Wikipedia is a site that provides a general overview of a specific topic, and points the user in the right direction for more information. --Solberg01:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
• Delete all Wikipedia is not a game guide. I see no purpose of these articles.--Shardakar
• Keep, just because people have put so much work into these article and deleting them would not be cool.Lapinmies09:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't suppose "Wikipedia is NOT cool" is a part of WP:NOT is it?  ;-)Wickethewok12:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nomination. Maybe it's a good thing Wikipedia wasn't around in 1995, or else we'd have to deal with things likeList of tools in Lode Runner: The Legend Returns orKing's Quest V locations.Kimchi.sg13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - InvokeWP:PTEST - deletionists please check your anti-Runescape prejudice at the door.Ace of Risk13:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Pokemon test is the most worthless pseudo-test imo - it is not objective at all, which means its really not a test. Additionally, I don't even know if this stuff passes anyway... 0_oWickethewok14:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, the deletionists have supported their views with policies (read above). Contrarily, the keepers have been among the fancruft, who make statements such as: "because people have put so much work into these article and deleting them would not be cool.", "We also worked very hard on them, and fancruft alone isn't a good enough reason for deletion.". --Porqin14:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The page states that the Pokémon test isn't policy, merely a point of view of a few people. IMO, two wrongs don't make a right. I am also slightly offended about my supposed "prejudace" against this game.Halo15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, firstly a lot of these articles have been created as they are two long for certain pages, thus shouldn't be merged. Secondly, this AFD is a is too muddled, some of the articles are of entirely different nature.Englishrose19:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete (All). Wikipedia isn't an in-game guide for this game.Makoto19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete All. Wilipedia is not a game guide, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. If people want to transwiki this toRunescape Wiki, then by all means go ahead, but this excessive fancruft has no place in anencyclopedia. --Wine GuyTalk19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep We had a single article before, just the RuneScape article. It was one of the longest articles on WP and needed serious shortening. Because there is so much information on RuneScape, the only way to shorten it was to have sub-pages. These sub-pages are all well written, well maintained and frequently checked through to make sure they conform with WP policy. We have been down this road before, a number of times. There is simply too much information to merge, and at least 90% of it is needed, so you cannot simply remove it. It is extremely useful to thousands of people and is factual. The portal serves as a great portal and a go-between on all the different pages. This series is far less game-crufty than some game series I can think of -• The Giant Puffin •22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Looking atthe Dagannoth andthe Magic pages, I can't see where the actual encyclopedic fact applies. In essence, the Dagannoth guide is basically a dry walkthrough of the locations of the Dagannoth themselves, and the Magic guide is the same thing. Fansites and the Knowledge Base do a better job of explaning what those are than the Wiki itself, and that's just a couple out of the 29 or so pages.Makoto00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree. Why should Wikipedia include all this information, when including external links on a few Runescape articles would allow for players to obtain the same and probably better documented information? --Solberg01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]

• Strong keep- During the past few months there has been a "crusade" of sorts to delete anything and everything having to do with RuneScape. Several people have put up arguements about this being an encyclopaedia and not a game guide. Well...you're wrong. Have any of you heard ofWikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games? There are long articles about skills, locations, affiliations, and such dealing with the RPGs Everquest, World of Warcraft, Dungeons and Dragons, etc. Is Runescape any different? At 10:00 PM the game has about 150000 people playing. There are as just as many players i9n WOW and EQ. Should we delete them, too? Not a strong enough arguement? Well according to your mindset, Wikipedia is also not a guide to comicbooks or theological information either. Now viewWikipedia:WikiProject Comics andWikipedia:WikiProject Religion. The truth is that numerous Wikipedians have dedicated their precious time resaerch and write "guides" to these subjects asper Wikiproject guidelines. Forgive me, but when someone just waltzes in and requests a deletion of everything in this series (without even giving a clear explanation why!) I consider it a slap in the face to all those dedicated reseacers and scribes out there. These articles are sanctioned byWikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. If there is a problem with these articles, FIX THEM, DO NOT DELETE THEM FOREVER AND MAKE IT SO THEY CANNOT BE REWRITTEN IN THE FUTURE!!!!-Merlin Storm
  • While this is one of the first reasons someone has proposed to keep the articles, there seems to be a minor flaw.
    Most Notably:
    Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it.
    A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable.
    
    This is directly from theWikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games page, and is exactly what these articles are violating. --Porqin05:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is kind of hard to explain what a game is about without explaining how to play it. However, if you feel that you are capable of doing so, please do it so that these articles need not be deleted. Otherwise, do not insult the writing abilities of other Wikipedians. This is a free encyclopaedia and not everyone has the skill of Hemingway. Also, to further my arguement, I suggest that you examine the deletion vote for construction. You will notice that in the course of a week, another user has used another lame excuse to try to get a large amount of RS articles deleted. We have moved from "I don't think they deserve their own articles" to "I think they have poor writing quality". Heres a tip! If you don't like the writing, and you can edit it, DO IT! I am under the impression that you have some beef against RuneScape,Halo, otherwise you would just fix it, other than destroy it all together.-Merlin Storm
  • Please give all and any evidence of me ever showing "any beef against RuneScape" in any of my edits. I have absolutely no opinion about RuneScape, having never played it. I really don't have any "beef with RuneScape", but I really do "have a beef" with pointless, overly long articles that don't belong here, hence the AFD. RuneScape is possibly the biggest offender, but yes, it also applies to other games - but this doesn't mean that those articles belong here either (I've also explained why the Everquest articles aren't as bad). I also think rather than making it personal, maybe you should respond tothe points in the AFD? You haven't given a good reasosn why these articles should not be deleted (except possibly Skills, which I can accept could be expanded without overcruft).Halo15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have never played RuneScape before, Halo, how do you know that these articles are "fancruffy"? It seems to me that the best person to write an article about a subject is someone knowledgable about the subject (hence "fans"). Which would would you rather read- an article about JFK by a historian or Random Joe? In your logic, a man fom Uganda could get on the computer and argue that the JFK article is only valid to Americans and not to the rest of the world. Which means that someone with no knowledge about the entire subject, can come in and request it to be deleted with some lame excuse thats only half true. How can someone with no knowledge of RuneScape possibly know the value of theKing Black Dragon? This is why I am inclined to think you have a beef against RuneScape. You, someone who has "never played it" before waltzes in saying how these entire articles are pointless and of low quality? I don't buy it. How inher name would you know that these are pointless if you have no knowledge of any thing in the game? I they are "overly long articles" then take advantage of the fact that this is an encyclopaedia that anyone and everyone can edit! But by no means are these articles "pointless". They have just as much point and relevancy as any other game article series. Can we please stop the argueing-this deletion is not valid.-Merlin Storm
  • An encyclopaedia is supposed to explain something to someone who hasn't played the game or doesn't know about a subject - it's not supposed to tell you everything about every topic ever in existance. I don't know about the subject, therefore I am the INTENDED audience to these articles... you've basically confirmed my point in saying that these articles are only relevent to people who play the game therefore they AREfancruft which isn't wanted here. Articles that are only relevant to a small amount of enthusiastic fans (people who play RuneScape) don't belong here. Game, set and match. An article about JFK I'd want written so that if I didn't know who he was, I could find out about it, each point explained to me. I would not want an individual page about JFK's toilet habits though, which is what these pages are akin to. These articles are useless to non-RuneScape players. All these reasons have already been explained, and you've explained no reasons why my nomination is "invalid" according to any policies. Long rants are not going to change the fact that you seem to be blinded by some sort of bias towards the game rather than taking it independently, such as I did, and realised these articles did not belong here. Maybe you should go to the Runescape Wiki, where these articles will be actively encouraged?Halo17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if deletion not void RuneScape is already in the top 5 most edited articles and is already large. It cnanot take merging any information back into it. Also, this whole bundle was up for AFD only a few months ago, so doesn't that make the deletion void?J.J.Sagnella09:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A no consesus vote from a month ago is not a reasoning for a speedy keep, which is what your vote seems to be.Wickethewok15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also like to remind people who are "voting", please give reasons including policy, and a reminder that AFD is not a vote - it's a discussion - and Wikipedia is not a democracy.Halo15:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I beleive he talking about the vote in which it wasfully agreed that Constructioon, Magic, Prayer, Cooking, Crafting, Skills, and Runecrafting have relevancy in Wikipedia. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runecrafting) I beleive that these articles should atleast be spared- the discussion was only about a week ago.-Merlin Storm

• Comment - I would like to point out thatUser:Dtm142 posted inTalk:RuneScape andPortal talk:RuneScape:The RuneScape series has gone up for deletion again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination). I encourage all of you to vote on this. Dtm14216:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC). As such, I would like to remind all that AFD is a discussion, /not/ an election and that it isn't down to "votes". An inaccurate notice in theRuneScape article andPortal:RuneScape has also appeared at the top, stating:[reply]

I'm not convinced that putting that notice at the top of the RuneScape page is fair game, particularly as it implies that even the main RuneScape article, which should exist, is being deleted but I'm wary of changing it, particularly because of some of the accusations levelled at me in this AFD debate. I'm also wondering where to find the "if someone asked you to vote" template is.Halo15:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All Top 10 reasons to keep: One: Merging isNot an option, all the bigger articles are too long. Two: RuneScape is the 6th or 5th most edited article on wikipedia, meaning all those smaller articles are big-ticket items despite their size. Three: I don't see many other MMO games getting attacked, these AFDs seem to be of a personal dislike, and not for any professional reasons. Four: All comments are researched and factual, per in-game and the runescape knowledge base. Five: RS has a minor impact on real life, as despite RS rules, people sell RS gold, accounts, "cheats" onEBay Six: Another Real Life part is the fact that most likely, 2m people have played at one point in time. Seven: The game has several historical referances in the form of descriptions. One example is items from Monty Pithon stuff. Eight: I still don't see how this qualifies, as it doesNOT violateWP:NOT or any afd policy. Nine: Really no physical need to get rid of articles. Ten: The RuneScape articles attract many new editors who raise the amount of information on wikipedia.If you have a problem with a comment I made, put itHerewith the subheading of the reason's number, as well as below. Thank you,p00rleno16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. I agree, merging is not an option. Deletion is. There's too many articles, too much information that doesn't belong here that needs to go.
• 2. The amount of edits do not mean anything.
• 3. I'm not "attacking" any games. Very few games have almost 30 articles written about the most intricate details, and they don't belong here.
• 4. Not all comments are researched. Out of all the articles, only 3 or 4 actually have references.
• 5. I don't understand the relevance of the point. I'm not here arguing RuneScape doesn't deserve a page, I'm arguing it doesn't deserve more than two or three pages at most.
• 6. The fact 2 million people have played it is fine. That's whyRuneScape itself deserves an article. Not 28 detailing the intrinsical details about everything involved, things that don't stand alone... then it becomesFancruft and game guides which don't belong here.
• 7. I don't understand the relevance of the point.
• 8. Wikipedia is not a Game Guide. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", there's no references in most of the articles. The articles don't estabilish notability of themselves.
• 9. I understand Wikipedia is not paper. This DOES NOT mean that Wikipedia is "indiscriminate collection of information"
• 10. Completely irrelevent. I am not going to repeat my comments in your talk (keeping discussion all on one page), but I'll happily reply to them here.Halo17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These articles are not original research, as the game itself serves as a valid primary source. Articles on books or movies with few or no references beyond the works themselves are not deleted as "original research" -- a similar standard should be applied here. The massive popularity of this game clearly establishes notability for all of the articles listed. Finally, it hasn't been demonstrated that the deletion of the Runescape articles would improve Wikipedia. A few articles in Wikipedia have been so badly written, so massively biased, or concern such frivolous subjects that their presence is an embarrassment -- for example, seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant music. The Runescape articles, however, clearly don't match this description, and are valuable to readers who want to learn about the details of Runescape. Thus, retaining these articles offers significant advantages, but no significant disadvantages.John25421:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Merlin_Storm said 'It is kind of hard to explain what a game is about without explaining how to play it'.

Er,... 'Runescape is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG)in which players, shown on the screen as customized avatars, can see and interact with each other. Players can set their own goals and objectives, deciding which of the available activities they wish to pursue. They can increase their experience (train) in any of the available skills from runecrafting to construction, complete quests, develop skills, merchant, or just hang out and chat.'There should be a prominent link towikia:runescape orPortal:RuneScape and all thefancruft, which is NOTencyclopedic, and IS a game guide, should be moved there. --JanesDaddy00:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete All per reasons listed above.Wikipedia is not a game guide. G.He00:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -Wikipedia:Fancruft "is an essay... not an actual policy or guideline", and thus does not provide a policy justification for the deletion of these articles. Furthermore, the statement that "Wikipedia is not a game guide" is not actually present in the policy page linked to:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Finally, there is appears to be no satisfactory explanation as to why maintaining the Runescape articles is harming Wikipedia -- or why the existence of the Runescape articles merits the expenditure of significant amounts of time on repeated, and so far unsuccessful, AFD filings.John25400:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:I believe that Number Eight explains why it's being filed under the WP:NOT policies.Makoto01:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -Number Eight states that "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's." The articles, while providing extremely detailed descriptions of the minutia of Runescape, do not, in general, seem to provide "advice... suggestions, or... 'how-to's." The overall focus seems to be on providing information about the game, not on explaining how the game is best played. To the extent that some of these articles do provide some amount of instruction, the proper solution would seem to be to remove the offending passages, not to delete a large number of articles that are mostly consistent with Wikipedia policies.John25402:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Before you post any more misleading comments, please reread the link thatyou posted, and navigate your way to number 8. I will copy exactly what it says the sentence after the one you posted:This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals,video game guides, and recipes. --Porqin05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - My comments are accurate. The policy does not use the term "video game guides" in the context of "Wikipedia is not a video game guide". Instead, "video game guides" is used merely as an example to illustrate the general principle that "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's". The context in which the term "video game guides" is used necessarily affects its meaning. If the policy stated that "Wikipedia is not a video game guide", one might justifying in claiming the following:

(a) These articles treat video games in extensive detail.

(b) Articles which treat video games in extensive detail are video game guides.

(c) Therefore, by (a) and (b) these articles are video game guides, which are prohibited by policy.

However, since the term "video game guides" is used as an example of "instruction manuals", it should be recognized that "video game guides" that are not "instruction manuals" are obviously not being given as examples of "instruction manuals". Therefore, it is reasonable, in this context, to limit the construction of "video game guides", so that the term only describes articles that are, in fact, "instruction manuals". It would follow that if an article is not an "instruction manual", it cannot be a "video game guide." Since "video game guide" is, abstractly, a fairly vague and uncertain term, I have chosen to focus on the policy statement that "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's". I believe that I am correct in my claim that these articles are not largely comprised of "advice... suggestions, or... how-to's". To take "video game guides" out of context, and state that "Wikipedia is not a video game guide" seems to miss the point.John25406:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You completely overanalyzed, and twisted the words to make them read exactly as you want them to. But you seemed to go through some convoluted logic proof, that doesn't accurately take the policy for what it is. It clearly states that "advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's" are forbidden, and the following are not permitted as being a subset of the aforementioned policy (("This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals,video game guides, and recipes.")). This list isn't fully inclusive of every violation of the policy, but the ones listed aredefinitely in violation of the policy. Also, I think it is fairly well established that these articles do go into great detail. However, giving the level of detail, and the meaninglessness to any non Runescape gamer, that it can be concluded that these articles are indeed in the video game guide category. (Thispost is avery good summary of why the articles do not belong here) --Porqin07:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Despite the claim that "An encyclopaedia is supposed to explain something to someone who hasn't played the game or doesn't know about a subject - it's not supposed to tell you everything about every topic ever in existance...", Wikipedia actually contains numerous articles about a number of highly specialized subjects that are only useful to readers who have a significant quantity of background knowledge. For instance, consider our article onMeasure (mathematics). Would this be characterized as "mathcruft" since it is written so as to be incomprehensible to readers without the necessary mathematical background? IsMeasure (mathematics) going to be subjected to repeated AFD filings? Where will the deletion end?John25415:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mathematics is afield of knowledge. Fields have many components. The article about measure simply explains what measure is. This is not "mathcruft" because the field of mathematics encompasses several unique encyclopaedic topics. Runescape is not its own field of knoowledge. If you want a mathematics example, think of it this way:improper integrals merit an explanation. A page discussing a specific improper integral, or, say, "Skills and techniques used to solve improper integrals," or something to that degree, would, in my opinion, be "mathcruft." In a similar sense, Runescape merits its own page, but specific aspects of it do not.GassyGuy17:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I waited to even read this AfD and the associated articles because I wanted to see what everyone had to say, but most of the folks voting for keep are either doing so because they don't believe these articles are game guides (which addresses only one of the points raised in the nomination) or are making arguments that demonstrate the notability of RuneScape, but not the articles actually being discussed. Therefore, I have to conclude that, while RuneScape is certainly notable, all of these skills are not and do not belong in a general encyclopaedia, especially when there is a wiki specifically set up for this kind of content.GassyGuy08:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I looked at many high-quality articles, and I noticed they usually have 5-10 short sections which summarize aspects of the article topic, with full articles covering each aspect in greater detail. We don't want the RuneScape article to become too long, do we? The sub-artixles may be a little crufty, but that can be fixed. And WP:NOR is always used as an excuse to delete useful information. Finally, with the amount of vandalism theRuneScape article receives, I have a slight reason to doubt the good faith of this AFD. --J.L.W.S. The Special One09:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'd like to point out I've been editing for over a year, contributed heavily to theBrand New page (which does meet WP:MUSIC before anyone AFDs), and I have never vandalised anything (no test templates on my talk page). I am certainly NOT a vandal, and I've described my reasoning for this AFD. I honestly don't believe you can have 28 articles about a relatively minor subject and leave them only "a little bit crufty". -Halo10:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I cant see reason to delete these articles as a group some topics may be better served by being merged into more general subtopics. What I do have an issue with is that this is creating precedent to change Wikipolicy that should be discussed in a wider forum. The deletion of these as a group will justify the deletion of other articles, on topic where they appeal to a small band of editors and readersGnangarra12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge similar topics into larger, single articles since many of these articles are well written yet small (or contain much non-notable info). It would be a shame to see so many well-built articles which help people who play this game disappear, so merging things like monsters, enemies, and gods into one thing such as characters. Please note that I haven't ever played this game, so someone more familiar with the information would do a better job at streamlining this idea. I know this game is quite popular with the younger demographic on the internet, and I see that a large amount of these keep/delete votes are correlate with age and familiarity with the topic. Well, just because a person does not know of a topic very well, or because it plays to a younger age group, doesnot mean it is any less important than someting else in the encyclopedia. Things that cater towards older teens and adults such asStargate (another topic I don't know outside of this encyclopedia) seem to have a large amount of information) as well as information likethis fromAndromeda (TV series) usually escape the fancruft pogroms.....which is wonderful! They all should. If wikipedia is the encyclopedia for everyone, built by everyone, why base what is notable canon and non-notable canon off of traditional literary ideals? And to delete a series because ofvandalism? Articles can be semi-protected if it is becomingthat bad. While deletion of certain unneeded portions of information is in order, it is quite ludicrous to delete thousands of edits off of a few wikiessays and complaints about vandalism.The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Articles which help people who play this game?" Like,a game guide, then?GassyGuy16:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know....more like a person who wants to know more about it...after all, how does one write enough about this topic without it inevitably helping people who play it?The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)16:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The RuneScape articles are not "game guides". Consider the passage about glassblowing inCrafting (RuneScape), in comparison to a passage about the same activity from a genuine "game guide":

Wikipedia:

In order to make items byglassblowing, players must have a glassblowing pipe. They must have seaweed to burn into soda ash and sand, which are heated together in a furnace to make molten glass. The molten glass can then be blown in items such as vials, which are predominantly used in the herblore skill, lantern lenses, which are used to facilitate travel in dark caverns such as the slayer dungeon in Lumbridge Swamp, and orbs, which are used by P2P players in crafting battlestaffs.[1]

RuneScape Wiki:

Glass is amembers only part of the crafting skill. You will need

• Aglass-blowing pipe, obtained fromEntrana.
• Buckets of sand. There are sand-pits inYanille, onEntrana, and in theLost City. Just use an empty bucket with a sand-pit to get a bucket of sand. If you complete theHand in the Sand quest you can get about 60 buckets of sand a day delivered to your bank free of charge if you talk to Bert inYanille.
• Soda ash, which is made by burning seaweed on a range or fire. There are numerous seaweed spawns onEntrana, onKaramja, or it can befished using a big net.
• When you have all the ingredients, use a bucket of sand and soda ash in a furnace to create molten glass.
• Use the glass-blowing pipe with the molten glass to blow various items.[2]

The passage from the Wikipedia article is merely descriptive of glassblowing, while the passage from the RuneScape Wiki provides detailed advice and suggestions as to how glassblowing is to be accomplished.John25419:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete all', but before deletion, transwiki to RuneScape Wiki. --Bigtop(tk|cb|em|ea)22:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP ALL - VERY STRONGLY STATED - KEEP ALL There are a lot of passionate pleas, accusations, answers, and crap in all that mess above here, but it all comes down to this. If Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then the people who edit are going to write about the things that they (1) love or (2) hate. In the case ofRuneScape, it is usually written about by those who love it and then vandalized by those who hate it. Some have a marginal ability to write; some are mere children who do their best. To go in and wipe out all that work, all that time, and all that effort would devastate some of those people, to the point that many may never return. How can driving off who knows how many editors, good or bad, be good for this endeavor? Yes, I agree, these articles need a lot of work. I have spent a lot of time editing them myself. I spend part of almost every day cleaning up the messes that people inadvertently or purposefully make of them. I am a lover of the game (and just for the record, I am not a child or a teen - I am an adult woman with children of my own, teens who also play the game), and for that reason, I would like to see the articles remain with the chance to finish the cleaning up, merging, and transwiking that need to be done and that has been being done for several months now. One of my goals in editing these articles has been to decrease the amount of game guide information slowly, so that there is no culture shock as the articles are transformed into the best set of informational articles ever written on this, or any other, game. It isn't easy to keep all "instruction" out of an article about a game, but we are getting there. We just need more time to get it right. I hate to assume bad faith, but it seems that someone or a group of someones, has taken a dislike to theRuneScape articles and set out to destroy them or to distract those of us who edit them away from improving them with this series of AFD's. I say to the adminsKEEP all the articles at this time and let us finish the merging that is already planned, and to the deletionists,get a life that doesn't involve the destruction of countless hours of work by many people, especially since these articles aren't hurting you or anyone else and do not violate any Wikipedia policies in anymaterial way.Xela Yrag06:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would refer you toWP:CIVIL, and also, after saying they should be kept because of strong emotional attachments to the articles, tothis article. The work can be preserved in a transwiki to the Runescape wiki or something to that degree. I have already said my piece about how notable/encyclopaedic specific aspects of a notable entity are, so I will leave it there, although I'm not sure what an immaterial policy violation is.GassyGuy09:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD appears as more a dislike of articles that have any association with fancraft. Yet there are larger projects on Wikipedia that being harassed like RuneCraft articles are.He is another wikiproject based on fancraft for comparison. If volume of and presentation of the Runecraft is the problem this project has 10 articles with their own category dedicated purely to web fan pages.Gnangarra05:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

has 26 subcategories and 5 articles

Subcategory of Star Wars has 4 subcategories and these 20 articlesAnchorhead Story of Star WarsBlue HarvestCheniniCultural impact of Star WarsEmpire of DreamsThe Hero with a Thousand FacesThe Hero's JourneyThe Making of Star WarsOriginal trilogy (Star Wars)Philosophy and religion in Star WarsThe Power of MythPrequel trilogy (Star Wars)Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)Star War The Third Gathers: The Backstroke of the WestStar Wars (radio)Star Wars opening crawlStar Wars prequel trilogy references to the original trilogyStar Wars sources and analoguesStar Wars: Where Science Meets ImaginationThemes in Star Wars

sub category of Star Wars , has 2 subcats and these articles 23 articles501st LegionStar Wars canonChewbacca DefenseDocking Bay 516Fan criticism of George LucasFidoNet Star Wars EchoHan shot firstLori JareoJediJedi census phenomenonLife DayList of cultural references to Star WarsOne Man Star Wars Trilogy (play)Star Trek versus Star WarsStar Wars CelebrationStar Wars InsiderStar Wars Technical CommentariesStar Wars fan fictionStar Wars kidStar Wars: Second StrikeSteve SansweetStormtrooper effectTimetales

subcategory of fandom, no subcategories, with these 10 articles501st Legion Southern OutpostJedidefenderStar Wars DatabankStar Wars Technical CommentariesSuper Console WarsSuperShadowThe Unofficial Clone Wars SiteTheForce.NetTimetalesWookieepedia

There is currently a proposal to delete all articles forRuneScape as they are based on fancraft and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. As this extensive project and its articles can also be considered as fancraft I have utilised for comparison only a selection of 4 categories and approxiamately 60 articles from your project to demostrate the scope of what is being proposed.

This discussion is taking place atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination).

None of the articles from your project mentioned in this discussion are proposed for deletion, this notice is only to advise interested parties of these article that these pages have been referred to at AfD.Gnangarra

• Several things to say here. First and foremost: irrelevant. We're not discussing the merits of Star Wars. Second: There has been some Star Wars stuff put to AfD, and more of it has survived than I think should have. However, the argument that the existence of some unencyclopaedic content means we have to allow all unencyclopaedic content is fallacious. However, you are welcome to nominate any Star Wars or other articles which you think merit deletion, and I'm sure you'll get some agreement. I would move that this entire discussion be moved to the talk page of this, as it has no real bearing on the AfD at hand.GassyGuy05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's not irrelevant as the basis for deletion is fancraft articles this is an example of another project substancially larger than RuneScape that would also be a potential AfD target of deletionist based purely on the arguements being presented here.Gnangarra05:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also this applies to a number of other projects and associated articles. I agree this isnt a discussion about the merits of Star Wars, but it is a discussion about the foundation of all projects similar to RuneScape.Gnangarra05:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Some other projects that have a similar fan baseWikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo Wars

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal KombatWikipedia:WikiProject Final FantasyWikipedia:WikiProject Digimon Systems UpdateWikipedia:WikiProject Tycoon Computer GamesWikipedia:WikiProject The Elder ScrollsWikipedia:WikiProject JapanWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and MangaWikipedia:WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh!Wikipedia:WikiProject ZoidsWikipedia:WikiProject Pokemon and there are many more. They offer topics similar to articles of project RuneScape. All of these are entry level topics that introduce wikipedia to a wider audience and increase the number of editors that continue to build this project. Its actually to fallicious and mallicious to continually attack one group of articles while ignoring all similar articles.Gnangarra05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a debate about unrelated WikiProjects. If there are other bad articles out there, they, too, should be examined. But thats unrelated to this AFD. Maybe use the talk page for some of the stuff you're bringing up, as its cluttering up this page.Wickethewok06:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blah, this page is 26 AfD's wrapped into one so it's inherently cluttered.Hyenaste ^(tell)06:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to note that there is a concerted effort at the Star Wars Wikiproject to de-cruftStar Wars-related articles. The project has recently had three articles promoted to featured status. I would also like to point out that severalStar Wars-related articles were recently deleted because of cruft. My suggestion to RuneScape folks is to become intimately familiar withFiction on Wikipedia and especiallyWriting about Fiction.Dmoon106:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose I really don't think it's right to lump all the articles together like this. Giving examples from a select bad few does not justify deleting the whole lot. These articles vary in quality enormously. Some are bad, but some are very good. I've supported deleting individual fancrufy articles in the past, but can't support an overly sweeping move like this, as some of the articles in this set are fine. Taking the example of the "Kalphite Queen page" which isn't even the easiest to defend, and addressing each of your points in turn:

"Have no relevance outside the game whatsoever". If you wanted to find out about roughly what RuneScape is about then info about some of the major original characters (which can be understood without having played the game) is surely relevant. You don't have to be a RuneScape player to be interested in how different games structure their economy, story line, or characters. If you're not interested then how did you even get to the page?

"Completely unresearched. There's no references in any of the articles". Just because there's no references doesn't mean it's unresearched! If you want references add some, it's not a reason to delete the article. Ironically some people in this same AFD are arguing the articles should be deleted because all the info can be found elsewhere anyway. This is the easiest to defend because these articles are really really blantantly not original research, they just need more references.

"These are /most definitely/ game guides". No they aren't - using the "Kalphite Queen" example again. The page in question tells you what the kalphite queen is, why it's notable, but DOESNT give any tactics on how to kill it at all! If it were a game guide it would surely be focussed on the best way to defeat it, not the environment in which it resides.

"A quote from RuneScape dungeons:". Quoting a bad section from an individual article does not justify deleting all 28. It proves nothing with respect to your sweeping AFD.

"Look at the articles themselves". Good idea - why don't you?

"They don't attempt to establish notability". Another sweeping remark with no basis in fact. Yet again using the RuneScape monsters examples, only the 6 strongest monsters in the game have a page. The article clearly establishes that those are the most notable on the basis of being the 6 most powerful and hence the 6 most iconic, and relevant to non players. If a RuneScape film or book were made they would surely be the most likely to feature. If pages were made for every monster in the game ala pokemen then I'd agree, we wouldn't want a "runescape chicken" page, but this section at least clearly establishes which facts are most notable, only writes about those, and does so in an encylopedic style rather than a gameguide style.

And IMO that's not even using the best examples, pages like RuneScape skills, and RuneScape economy are even easier to defend. It seems to me like you are trying to get rid of articles which have previously been voted keep in AFD, by lumping them together with some less good articles. Hence I feel this nomination is invaild.

Runefire06:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is about all fan based articles to select one group then continually AfD their articles with the reasoning its fan craft is creation of new wikipolicy and that once the precedent is set all other article will AfD for exactly the same reason. To hide behind erroronous statements of unknown copyright violations is mallicious and unfounded. What is being discussed here is where fan/web sourced articles are part of this community encyclopedia and all affect article needs to assessed not just one small group.Gnangarra06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Continually requesting the deletion of articles doesnt aid the editors in improving the articles.Gnangarra06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off, the talk about WikiProject as a whole is not what this discussion is about, and this is taking up a ridiculous amount of space on this page. I still say this belongs on a talk page. However, consider this: Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. True, it's not paper, but it's still not an indiscriminate collection of information. So, consider notability. IsRuneScape notable? I would say yes. I imagine most would say yes. That's probably whyRuneScape has not been nominated. The rest of these, however, have no real general interest notability. If a person is looking for information about Runescape in a general encyclopaedia, they should find an article about what the game is. All of this other stuff is outside the realm of this resource and much better suited for the Runescape wiki. I am not saying that one or two subpages are not viable, but, for the most part, these topics do not merit coverage. As for all the rest of this stuff about the philosophy of wikiprojects, the merits of requesting deletion, etc., this really isn't the proper forum.GassyGuy06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree withGassyGuy that this isnt the proper forum to delete a complete project and all its articles(except one), but this is where the subject was raised. That the reason being given for the deletion equally applies to all similar projects and that the scope of whats being decided and the affects of this decision must be part of the consideration.Gnangarra07:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. -brenneman^{L}06:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The company existed, but it's not notableBalfourCentre09:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete216.141.226.19012:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep, I now see the value in this article, but it still is a mess and while I can saykeep per Antares33712, I am afraid that the article will have no valid resources to cite if needed, ths putting it in a perilous position. But based on Antares's comments, I feel the subject is notable enough for conclusion and we can at least conclude that this isn't some hoax.216.141.226.19006:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having no evidence of importance outside ofPlay Dead, which may itself be quesitonable given thatUser:Play Dead seems to be the source...Just zisGuy you know?13:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, given that Play Dead are both in Launch and AllMusic, I'm erring that they and the UK label are notable enough for a disambiguation page.Antares3371216:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it saddens me tbat a record label that was instrumental in the development of '80s hip-hop is receiving so little recognition. While I am not the biuggest fan of hip-hop, Public Enemy, Tone Loc and K.R.S One all got their start at Fresh. Jive Records started out as a hip-hop label as well (they just blew up instead). I have no idea who Play Dead is (was or whatever), but Fresh was ALL about hip-hop. They were based in New York City. But I guess thats the problem. Since they were around before the Internet, there isn't a lot of information left about them. I found a link to an album review [[3]] and also a search in Amazon (under Popular Music) for Fresh Records will find a whos who of East Coast '80s rap, before N.W.A desecrated it with that gangsta shit. Oh well, off my soapbox I goAntares3371214:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAntares33712, please add that information to the article! If what you say is true (that Public Enemy, Tone Loc, KRS One got their start at Fresh), then this is certainly notable. Yes, it's sad that it's not recognised but reading the article as it stands (small record label, now defunct) I would come to the same opinion. --Canley16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I gain nothing from making that up, but defunct indie labels and even acts tend to lose information over time.Antares3371216:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, thats the best I could come up with until I can talk to my friend who knows more about hip-hop than I. I could write something now, but I don't want it to be both unsourcedand wrong :-)Antares3371216:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no notability stated or impliedin the article.Tychocat18:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, per Antares33712, but I am afraid that if kept, sufficient valid sources won't be available to make this article worthwhile66.32.196.19422:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since this is only a disambiguation page, I guess it's fine. However, the actual article pages will need watching. So I sayKeep.65.122.138.19422:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - former record company of several notable artists. Needs to be improved, but doesn't necessarily mean it deserves to be deletedHalo00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although FYI Public Enemy got signed by them, they left for another label before their debut. Also, you should include info on Sleeping Bag Records, another indie label that merged with Fresh (why most 80s output from them say Sleeping Bag/Fresh Records).63.164.145.8518:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment where shall we find the sources to verify this? There are a couple of '80s magazines with some information, but those aren't valid since they are not Internet.216.141.226.19021:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - printed media counts, so if you have resources, please share it will help us flesh this one out. Personally, the page as it stands I feel is fine, but before we undertake the real article we will need sources (and yes, the pickings are scarce :-) )Antares3371214:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please this is the name of two important labels article shows notabilityYuckfoo20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Jive Records... the American record label was notable ... the british was only minimally so.  ALKIVAR™15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Grandmasterka03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason the page should be deleted

The amount of verifiable information in this entry is so small that it does not merit its own page. The entirety of the verifiable information is encapsulated within the single Harvard Gazette link given at the bottom, which should be instead placed on thefun czar page.Speedyeric03:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, failsWP:BIO. I'd say trashfun czar as well.Full disclosure: I went to Yale. --Kinu^t/_c03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom andWP:BIO. A university employee at this level is non-notable. --Metropolitan9004:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I agree with Kinu thatfun czar should go, too. --Gogo Dodo04:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, and yes,fun czar as well. I'll put that up for AfD. --Captain Disdain05:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, failsWP:BIO. --Coredesattalk. o.o;;08:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. University administrators are not notable.Mr Stephen11:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as perWP:BIO.Scorpiondollprincess13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Alias Flood17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above.SynergeticMaggot18:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my own nominationSpeedyeric20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why can't be speedy crap like this? DELETE AND QUICKLY!!!!!Antares3371218:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasno consensus. Personally, I am more swayed by the delete opinions than the keeps; there are many award categories out there for schools to win, and the little notability it has would be better served in the school district article. However, by a simple count, the delete and keep counts are almost the same, and there are some valid points on the keep side. Having watched the "school debate", I feel that schools may be at the front line of incrementalist reform on Wikipedia... If said articles can be well-maintained and verifiable, I say, go for it. (That is a very big if, though.) This should be revisited in the future as the status of the school changes (which it probably will.)Grandmasterka03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn middle school; no claim of notability; article reads as an advertisementCarlossuarez4603:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The information is accurate, and is useful enough to be kept. I, in fact encourage other schools to do the same, if there is no one who wants to create a page on something, that doesn't mean that if someone else does want to create an article on a similar subject, they shouldn't be allowed.—Precedingunsigned comment added bySoyluismofo (talk •contribs)02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominator.Carlossuarez4603:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All schools carry inherent notability --Librarianofages03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. First of all, there isabsolutely no policy that says that schools are inherently notable. Saying it repeatedly does not make it any more true than me saying I'm a millionaire until the bank decides to credit my account accordingly. Until there is any such policy on the issue, each school article ought to be judged on its own merits. I for one have chosen to consider theWP:BEEFSTEW test (which is alsonot binding). On application of that test, it's borderline, but I'll give this article the benefit of the doubt.Agent 8603:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper nom.Baseball,Baby!^{balls•strikes}03:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm a firm supporter of High School notability, but I have to draw the line at middle school. Let'sMerge it into an article on the school district, if there is one.AdamBiswanger103:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think we really need an article about a middle school that not that notable. Never heard of it before the AfDAeon^{Insane Ward}04:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just another school. --GWO
• Delete,WP:SCHOOL is a failed guideline and the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer notability on its subjects. Also, middle schools don't cut it unless they have some remarkable achievement. Merging into a school district article would be acceptable, as well. --Coredesattalk. o.o;;08:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all schools, high, middle, or low. (Liberatore,2006).11:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources cited other than the school's own website, suggesting that this school isn't very important. Mentions in books, in a biography of a famous person indicating that the school's philosophy played an important role in his development, mention in other than regional press for other than athletics, would be examples of things that would convince me otherwise.Dpbsmith(talk)12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orMerge with a school district article. I agree with AdamBiswanger1: High Schools might be notable, but middle schools are inherently a great deal less notable.Scorpiondollprincess13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Agent 86Computerjoe's talk15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect toSchool District of Clayton. I already merged a brief summary onto that page. —RJH (talk)15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy Delete, article provides no discernable notability amongst middle schools in theUnited States. —pd_THOR^|=/\= |16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just another unremarkable school doing a wonderful job at educating kids in exactly the same way as every other school in the world. We don't have articles on every human or every house, important as those are to their families or occupants; it's unclear why schools should get special treatment. —HaelethTalk16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just another school, no doubt doing an excellent job, but with no claims to encyclopaedic notability. --Alias Flood17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per many of the reasons listed above, mainly that most public schools are simply not notable in and of themselves. --cholmes75^{(chit chat)}17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to the school district article per above. ~ctales *blah*18:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perWikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. No valid reason for deletion supplied by nominator.Silensor20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This school is repeatedly mentioned in the bookClass Warfare: Besieged Schools, Bewildered Parents, Betrayed Kids and the Attack on Excellence (ISBN 1594030448) by J. Martin Rochester.Silensor20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This is more notable than most of the schools which make it to AfD, and this article supplies a decent framework of information.GassyGuy20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge intoClayton School District. Err... since that article doesn't exist, I guess that's more of a "move." --BaronLarf21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both Agent86 and GassyGuy, several minor claims to notability are made.RFerreira23:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the information is now adequately housed atSchool District of Clayton.GassyGuy00:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While most middle and high schools are non-notable in my mind, this school is notable since it has won several awards for its academics. --Royalbroil03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with royalbroil, the awards make it very worth keeping.  ALKIVAR™12:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep on the awards basis, if that's not consensus then pleaseredirect it toSchool District of Clayton so readers can find the entry there.BryanG^(talk)23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A decent little article.Golfcam02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomJaranda^{wat's sup}06:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Haeleth has it on the nose. I wouldn't mind if this were merged intoClayton School District, I guess, but I'd rather see the whole mess smerged intoClayton, Missouri. Nobody who doesn't live in the area this school serves will ever know or ever care about this school specifically, and a number of people who have lived in areas it serves (Hello!) won't care either. -A Man InBl♟ck(conspire |past ops)06:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect toSchool District of Clayton. I don't see what's important or exceptionally special about this school to warrent the need to have an article about this middle school. The 'awards' it has are mearly extremely common ones that most schools have, and the statistics are abit skewed by forcing 500+ students for their 'top 10'. The wiki is not a ballast of every last tidbit about every school in the country. Did anything major happen here? Who wants to read about any random middle school? Does it have a special history? No. Man in black also has a good point about how noone will notice this outside of the community it serves. It probably serves nothing more than to booster ego of parents of kids at said school. Delete.Kevin_b_er06:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this school has demonstrated notabilityYuckfoo06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This school is obviously notable. --Myles Long13:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notability established by way of awards. As an aside, I wish my school were a blue ribbon school. --Signed and Sealed,JJJJust (TC)17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orredirect to district; do not keep separately. Middle schools do not have default notability, and this one does not have anything particular about it. We would be better served by a policy/guidelines that was accepted, than trying to do these individually, however. --nae'blis_(talk)22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the article which makes multiple and verifiable claims of notability.Yamaguchi先生22:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly noteworthy.--Nicodemus7502:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in light of added notableIgorot history.zafiroblue05 |Talk02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good article. --JJay16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Quite a bit of St. Louis's outlying area is built on sites used in the 1904 World's Fair, seeing as the fair and outlying associated exhibitions were arranged around a city that has grown in the last 100 years. At what point do we stop according notability-by-association for reusing ground used in the 1904 World's Fair? Should I write articles for gas stations built on that land? Personal homes? Vacant lots? -A Man InBl♟ck(conspire |past ops)17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The World's Fair was located in justForest Park, which is now a large urban park - larger than Central Park, for example, but much smaller than manyothers. Sonot "quite a bit of St. Louis's outlying area" is built on World's Fair sites. In addition, the exhibit shown on the land that was later used for this school was the most popular, controversial, and notable exhibit in the World's Fair: a fair within a Fair, asthis article notes. So it's not just any gas station...zafiroblue05 |Talk21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - just like with high schools, lack of notability should have nothing to do with it. With high schools lack of notability is not and never has been a reason for deleting. If you start with middle schools, the Wikipedian's who want all high schools deleted will start winning.Capit17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete for now. The one claim to her notabilityis cited at herIAFD entry. There are a handful more delete opinions than keeps. It does not meetWP:PORN BIO, but in a few months that will be made official, and she'll have more notability (more movies,) and this discussion will prove to be rather academic. (I'll undelete the basic info for you then if you remind me.)Grandmasterka03:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Of course, there are hundreds of non-notable articles in the porn actor category. Not all of them, I gather, but most. I think those should probably be AFD'd as well. --BradBeattie14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Bigtop(tk|cb|em|ea)00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hasn't even won a "cum award".205.157.110.1100:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well, it definetly failsWP:PORN BIO but thats only aproposed guideline or policy. None of itsverified per say either. But I dont think that having been in 90 videos would be notable in at least the porn industry so I say it failsWP:BIO.SynergeticMaggot00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Incorrect, I would say that it does meetWP:PORN BIO ~ true, not in 100 films, but it says "in or around" which to my mind 90 is "around" 100. In any case by the amount of films that these people turn out she will be iron-clad signed and sealed notable per this proposed "standard" within 6 months! --Librarianofages02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where is the evidence that she has done 90 videos? The external links indicate 50. Not that this is sufficient for inclusionBwithh

• • Commment: Please dont say "incorrect", this isn't a game show, trivia, or quiz. The article only meets the first criteria underWP:PORN_BIO#Criteria, which is C1, and fails the rest (C2 - C8). There is no assertion ofnotability and none of the information has beenverified. Also, we cant wait around for this person to make more films perwhat Wikipedia is not: A crystal ballSynergeticMaggot04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep PerWP:PORN BIO & my above comment --Librarianofages02:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perWP:PORN BIO even though it is still in the proposal phases.Yamaguchi先生02:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't see how this is usefull to the community or even notable of an Encylopedia.Aeon^{Insane Ward}04:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Might just sneak PORN_BIO, but I don't care for the 100 film criteria. As noted above, that can be just 6 months work in the industry. --GWO
  • I think you misunderstoodLibrarianofages's comment. Librarianofages was trying to say that NL would almost certainly make 10 more films (90+10=100) in 6 months, not 100 films in 6 months. 100 films in 6 months would be quite high even by porn standards.AnonEMouse^(squeak)13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete. Unless anyone else can come up with any other information, the article should just be deleted. She only has 90 films and, even if we were to be generous with the 100 film criteria fromWP:PORN BIO, she has no other claims to notability. --Joe Beaudoin Jr.^{Think out loud —WP:PORN BIO?}07:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perSynergeticMaggot.Voice of Treason07:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't really cut it perWP:PORN BIO andWP:BIO. --Coredesattalk. o.o;;08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete thein around wording ofWP:PORN BIO isweasel words and should be changed.Eluchil40412:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whether or not it squeaks by PORN BIO is irrelevant, as it isn't policy or even a true guideline yet, and the 100-films point is one of the most controversial parts anyway. Certainly fails the established WP:BIO by a mile.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind12:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete generic porn "actress".Just zisGuy you know?13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per aboveComputerjoe's talk15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep close enough to 100 films so i think WP:PORN BIO applies.  ALKIVAR™20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SynergeticMaggot.GassyGuy20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This actress (a term I use loosely) has partaken in 90+ adult films, notable in my book. Will the person who said this feat is easily accomplished in 6 months please stand up? Sources on that would be appreciated.RFerreira22:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was probably a misunderstanding of an earlier comment.AnonEMouse^(squeak)13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alkivar and RFerreira. --Myles Long19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ninety films is an impressive number, at least to meAntares3371218:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.WP:PORN is a proposal. This discussion points out the problems with trying to use a specific number for a notability decision. This is close enought to the proposed criteria to meet it. Also consider that this article could be deleted today and in 9 months it would qualify since she is now at 100.Vegaswikian05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Alkivar. --Merovingian (T,C,@)05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete FailsWP:PORN BIO. Where's the evidence for 90 films? Anyway, this would fall short of the "around 100" requirement and is not sufficently encyclopedically notable if it was 100. (PORN BIO is a proposed guideline not an established one). Don't see any assertion of notability or fame beyond the little info in the article.Bwithh05:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Question Can anyone come up with verification that this porn star has done around 100 movies or even 90 movies. This seems to be impressing a number of keep voters for some inexplicable reason, but it has not been verified as far as I can seeBwithh05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just clicked on the IADB link and it quickly stated90 Titles. The IMDB has 43 titles. Many people on this 'pedia have just one or two items in the IMDB and are more marginally qualified. I re-assert myKEEP216.141.226.19016:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, that's a lot of movies. We have many people on here of more marginal importance.KEEP216.141.226.19014:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result waskeep.Mailer Diablo10:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ithink this band failsWP:MUSIC - Their website claims they have released 12 albums, but there isnowt at amazon and thesame result at discogsDavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP}00:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete probably self produced albums. No other mainstream reference.205.157.110.1100:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Theirwebsite makes some bold comments that meetWP:MUSIC, of course, I can't verify if it's true or a simple joke.Yanksox01:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are quite a number of reviews for albums, but I couln't be bothered counting how many, doesn't appear to be a hoax. --Librarianofages02:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep MeetsWP:MUSIC "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." --Librarianofages02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Librarian.Baseball,Baby!^{balls•strikes}03:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.Hardee6704:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I'm not being awkward (honest!!!) but from where does the quotation "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." come from ???DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP}04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from wp:music under "other" --Librarianofages04:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Eeeek!! sorry missed that oneDavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP}04:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's only for performers outside of mass media traditions. It doesn't apply here.

• Keep perLibrarianofages.Voice of Treason07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Librarianofages' comments.Scorpiondollprincess13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Where do you see any of these sub-culture publications/reviews? I'd like to see some reliable sources used in the article. As it is right now the article looks like original research.Wickethewok13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - in my grumpier moments (like, now) i look at articles like this and almost conclude the writerwanted to get the article deleted. It's written in such a fashion as to obscure what facts there are, much less provide citations and sources for those facts. I started with the same questions of this being a hoax or not. The group does exist, but you have to search through theUniversity of Virginia's website to find it, and apparently the 12 albumsexist but were produced privately, and they aren't for sale on Amazon (wow, what a concept). This isn't helped by the fact the CARA website didn't make it easy for me to finally findaward-winners from 2005, but I eventually verified that bit. I take away three lessons here: One, editors should be aware that Google and Amazon are not the final arbiters of notability, which should be judged in context of all notability requirements; Two, writers should at least read an encyclopedia before trying to write one, and; three, I'm far too grumpy to care if this article sinks or swims, and shall therefore not vote at all.Tychocat18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seriously, every university has an a capella group that goes around singingThe Nylons tunes and whatnot. They are always popular because they are crooners. They usually record and sell albums (which is something that anyone can do, having a publishing/distributing deal is the real business), and they are usually hired to sing all over the place. But, why is that notable? They don't usually write their own songs, even - their albums are all cover tunes. --Aguerriero (talk)03:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep against nom per LibrarianofagesAntares3371218:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Mailer Diablo10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only7 ghits for this Rock Opera with the artists name -WP:NN rock operaDavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP}01:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Good catch.205.157.110.1101:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There isn't much that makes it worthwhile.SpookyPig02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Michael03:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Alias Flood03:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'll wait for the movie.Baseball,Baby!^{balls•strikes}04:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.SynergeticMaggot04:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Voice of Treason07:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. --Coredesattalk. o.o;;08:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Mailer Diablo10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not sufficiently assert the importance of this particular branch of theYoung Fine Gael. SeeWP:ORGSarekOfVulcan01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a student society. They are rarely notable.Dlyons493Talk01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Michael03:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Baseball,Baby!^{balls•strikes}04:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, individual chapters of student organizations are not notable. --Coredesattalk. o.o;;08:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable university organisationhoopydink^{Conas tá tú?}17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.SynergeticMaggot18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into aStudent Union societies at University College Cork article. Deleting factual content is not justifiable.zoney ♣talk23:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure it is: it's done all the time on AfD.--SarekOfVulcan23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually - merge withYoung Fine Gael - it can be put in a new section along with the content fromUniversity College Dublin YFG.zoney ♣talk08:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge toYoung Fine Gael perzoney andWP:ORG. --Wine GuyTalk20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result waswithdrawn by nominator.Kevin09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article saysonly that: This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 35. I think this might be a copyvio if that is the case. Listcruft and all the links in the article are red.SynergeticMaggot 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nom. I was unaware of other the rest of these articles at the time, but still feel its unencyclopedic.SynergeticMaggot 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)*Delete per my nom andWikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.SynergeticMaggot01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per nom withdrawn.SynergeticMaggot06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SynergeticMaggot.Fabricationary01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do you realize there are over 80 more of these?[4] Articles exist for most of volumes 5 (1801) through 91 (1975). A number of them have a few cases that aren't redlinked. Looks like the authorMZMcBride (talk ·contribs) has authored a huge number of Supreme Court case articles, and filling in details on many of these. I have left a note on the editor's talk page to notify him/her of this AFD.Fan-196702:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still, the user shouldn't be creating lists full of redlinks. He should be creating the pages, then adding the lists. If this page does get deleted, it can always be recreated at a later date whenever the named pages get created.Fabricationary02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I always hate it when people use theWikipedia is not paper argument, but I think it applies here. Most of the problems with lists don't apply here. Many lists are POV, or inherently not complete or comprehensive. Doesn't apply here. I don't know why half a dozen of the volumes are missing, but that seems easily remediable. I don't see a problem with keeping these lists, even if the process of blueing the links is only 10% done in ten years.Fan-196702:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this project is, in fact, encylopedic in a very real sense, and these may be quite useful, even if only one or two notable cases in each volume ever get blue-linked. Looks like these are a framework.Fan-196702:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the volume number is the reporter volume reference number; since the actual lists are obviously products of public institutions I'm not sure why there is a copyvio inference. The list would appear to be a working list that is actively being worked to fill; I'm sure many of the entries are more than notable.Kuru^talk02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. There is no copyright violation here and the content is encyclopedic. The volume refers to thepublic domain, U.S.-government publishedUnited States Reports, the officialcase reporter of theSupreme Court of the United States. Far from "indiscriminate," listing the cases decided by the highest court in the United States is clearly an encyclopedic venture, and organizing them by the manner in which they were published is one of many sensible ways to do this. I've already used these lists as an aid in writing articles.Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases is organized and active to address how to better improve and maintain these lists, including changing the titles.Postdlf03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it may also help standardize case naming conventions.Rklawton03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That is a minor issue. I happened to find an entry in one of these articles (volume 60, for 1857) with a blue link toUnited States v. Stewart. Stewart is a common name, and the article linked to is for 2005. But, I'll let the fine people on this Wikiproject address issues like that.Fan-196703:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And using "what links here" along with these lists will help us identify those repeated case names, long before all of them have articles.Postdlf04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep please show me the copyvio. If there is none, it is an encyclopedic entry and, even if filled with red links, serves as a to do list for Wikipedia contributors.CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Postdlf. There is no copyvio as this is a work of the US government and is thus not covered by copyright (the Court has several of the newer volumes, though not this particular volume, freely accessible on their website, for goodness sake). Given that the reporters, indicated by the volume numbers, are essentially chronologically ordered, this is basically a "portion of a chronological list of SCOTUS cases." Far from an indiscriminate collection of information. ·j·e·r·s·y·k·otalk ·03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No. When I nominated it, I was not aware that there were 50-80 articles more just like it (which should be deleted also). Why there needs to be a list of Supreme Sourt cases is beyond my scope. They should be turned into a category at best. The entire article is filled withno information other than a list of court cases which 1, arent even notable, and 2, arent even articles. I fail to see how this is encyclopedic, or how it helps Wikipedia. I wont be withdrawing my nom. Plus, I never said it was a copyvio, but that it might be. It reads like it was copied directly from a source.SynergeticMaggot04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly makes a U.S. Supreme Court case not notable, and how did you manage to determine that for all of the cases in this list?Postdlf05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I've never liked these lists full of redlinks when we already havethese lists full of bluelinks, but I'm persuaded by Postdlf's arguments about use as a research tool and for identifying repeated case names. The relevant wikiproject's coverage of cases heavily trends toward recent cases; if there were a list like this for volume 541 (from two years ago), it'd be full of bluelinks. Eventually we may extend our coverage to cover important older cases, but we haven't yet. I also think the nominator is misapplying WP:NOT. It says "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:" and then goes on to list eleven specifics. Claiming an article that isn't one of those eleven specifics is an indiscriminate collection of information does not make it so.--ChaserT04:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not misapplying it. I didnt point to a statement in the header "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", I quoted the statement and pointed to the policy page. Because this is a clear statement none the less.SynergeticMaggot04:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a clear statement, but the policy specifically applies in eleven limited areas. This article is none of those eleven. Which specific section of WP:NOT are you asserting this is in violation of?--ChaserT 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC) I think the confusion is that I was quoting from the preamble for the header you mentioned. There are eleven specific types of indiscriminate collections of information. This isn't one of them.--ChaserT04:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Personally, I think this is terrific, and it seems to me the easier thing to do is to make the list first and then work on the individual cases. Not everyone who wants this kind of information can affordLexisNexis orWestlaw. While WP obviously can't compete with those services (and shouldn't), this information is useful to those who need it. If a list of SCOTUS cases isn't encyclopedic, neither are the lists for the anime characters, or the professional wrestlers, or the video games, or movies that start with the letter 'B', and on and on. It can't be written overnight, either. There are some editors who can thoughtfully analyze these cases and many more who can't, but at least it's a start. Just my two cents. -Baseball,Baby!^{balls•strikes}04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is why lists > categories for material that isn't created yet, butshould be. --Dhartung |Talk07:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. --H·G (^words/_works)08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep Not indiscriminate, the only delete vote was per nom, and the nom has now been withdrawn, so effectively noone now wants to delete this. --ais523 08:41, 19 July 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasDelete.User:Zscout370^{(Return Fire)}02:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FailsWP:BIO. Chief claim on her in the body of the article is being executive director of the Center for Adoption Policy Studies—which does not have an article. [ETA: Article was enhanced to mention four books she authored. Three are on university presses. None of them have an Amazon sales rank higher than 1.2 million. 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)] Article was prodded previously, put to clean up, but the article kept coming up with non-notable biographical information. —C.Fred (talk)01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Gogo Dodo04:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above -Gobeirne07:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, failsWP:BIO. --Coredesattalk. o.o;;08:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for having no references - thereby failingWP:VKevin09:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - failingWP:V andWP:BIO.KarenAnn12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete failsWP:BIO and, seemingly, unable to satisfyWP:V --Alias Flood18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.SynergeticMaggot19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.SynergeticMaggot19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Another editor has restored some deleted information from the article about four books Kunz has authored. I didn't see anything on the amazon.com blurbs to indicate awards won by the books or significant press coverage of the books. I have noted this in my nomination under the ETA (Edited To Add) block, but I make no change to my recommendation of deletion at this time. —C.Fred (talk)21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result wasKeep. FollowingWP:BE BOLD, I'm closing this as akeep because the subject of the article unambiguously meets notability criteria as the author of significant books from major publishers and because the article was effectively vandalized to remove all mention of a well-known controversy over tenure at Yale in which she was a central figure. I've devandalized the article. Google "Diane Kunz Yale" and find a few dozen articles about the controversy. You can also check any reliable book review index to see she meets that notability criterion, even though the nom says otherwise, unless you think "multiple" means more than two dozen.VivianDarkbloom00:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-opened the debate as it was clearly closed in violation ofdeletion policy. I didn't want to censorVivianDarkbloom's comments, so I have moved them here.Kevin00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete all articles.Mailer Diablo10:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a multiple nomination for a bunch of furry webcomic characters from the WebcomicNewshounds. The articles nominated are:

• Alistair Katt
• Ferris the Rat
• Kevin J. Dog
• Lorna Dilbrook
• Renata Fayre
• Rochelle O'Shea
• Sam Shepherd (Newshounds)
• Wolfram Blitzen

Newshounds is a long running webcomic hosted onKeenspot. I am not discussing its notability or encyclopedic value at this point, but that of their characters. Whereas I'm sure factual nuggets such as how Kevin J Dog met his bitch at a Rowan Atkinson autograph session, I absolutely fail to see how it is encyclopedic. How many professional sources have written about the characters of Newgrounds? What kind of influences have they had over other works? I'm sure actual journalists working in the real world have written extensively aboutAsterix, and the nature ofHobbes (Calvin and Hobbes). What they haven't done is comment on how Wolfram Blitzen was worried about not having a shoetree for his shoes. This is a textbook example of fancruft, appeals to only those entrenched in the series already. I am NOT proposing a merge, as I believe thatNewshounds#Characters covers the characters in suitable depth already. -Hahnchen01:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all agree that the main page covers the characters sufficiently, but if someone who knows the comic better feels any info needs to be merged in, I'd be ok with that too, as long as it's notall kept. -Goldom‽‽‽⁂01:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All per above, character don't have individual notability outside of comic and comic's article suffices for their bios.Yanksox01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom.Danny Lilithborne02:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, or as a remote second choice redirect all toNewshounds instead. --Metropolitan9004:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom.SynergeticMaggot04:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepISD07:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Normally, you're supposed to leave a reason to keep; especially if the vote is not going your way.Danny Lilithborne07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply AsNewshounds is one of the longest running webcomics, their characters are some of the most in depth. Thus, I believe that there is enough information about them to justify their own articles. It also makes it easier to extract information from each character rather than searching through the main entry.ISD08:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, especially since they're well covered in the article.Voice of Treason07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Just because a webcomic is long-running doesn't mean its characters are worthy of articles in an encyclopedia. The main article works just fine. --Coredesattalk. o.o;;08:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, harmless, but reduce fancruft and balance the articles. -Gilgamesh10:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think any current webcomic is at a level where we need an article on every character.Andrew Lenahan -Starblind12:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Unreasonably fine granularity. If the descriptions inNewshounds aren't considered detailed enough, there's plenty of room to add detail there. Spot-checking several of these articles shows no sources for the specific details given. They give the appearance of being a display of personal knowledge, included on the editor's own authority, rather than being based on cited, verifiable published sources (as required by theverifiability policy).Dpbsmith(talk)12:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Open and shut case per reasonings given above.Wickethewok13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since these characters are a subset of a webcomic (which is less notable than a comic) and is in any case a furry webcomic (which is a minor subgenre). No evidence of significant external coverage (is thisWP:OR from fans?).Just zisGuy you know?13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all perWP:FICT. —HaelethTalk16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well reasoned nom, this does not satisfy eitherWP:V orWP:RS --Alias Flood18:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, but no problem with some of the info being used to expand the bios in the main article.GassyGuy21:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed onWikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell^(t/c)15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Individual articles for webcomic characters just scatter the content, making it all difficult to maintain and keep internally consistent. While this may be okay for the characters of popular television shows and syndicated print comics, even the most popular webcomics don't have enough eyes to do that job well. –Abe Dashiell^(t/c)15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all perAlias Flood. --Dragonfiend03:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with multiple headshots as per nomBwithh06:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, failing that,Merge.Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠00:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Mailer Diablo10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? This article appears to be abandoned. --Xrblsnggt01:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems largely unverifiable. 180 Ghits few of which seem to be for the one in this article. I don't see his name on the website in the article but it's so annoying I admit to not having tried very hard.Dlyons493Talk01:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Japan-related deletions.--TheFarix (Talk)02:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence that this person passesWP:BIOKevin10:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above plus failsWP:V - no references.KarenAnn12:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verified; I have tried and failed to find references in either English or Japanese. —HaelethTalk16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unable to satisfy the core policy ofWP:V --Alias Flood18:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomKnowing Is Half The Battle19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Mailer Diablo10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borderlinespam. We had a place like this near us that stayed open for about a year. I don't know that it warranted an encyclopedia article. Discuss... --Xrblsnggt01:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless this claimed notariety can be proven... -Goldom‽‽‽⁂01:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly non-notable.Dlyons493Talk01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's a pool hall. Not much else, it seems.Kuru^talk03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Alias Flood03:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local establishment, no notability. —C.Fred (talk)03:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As aBemani enthusiast, I can say that this arcade is somewhat notable to the Bemani community, but it isn't really notable outside of it. FailsWP:CORP. --Coredesattalk. o.o;;08:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence that they passWP:CORP, and noreliable sourcesKevin10:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete disagree with the nominator, though. The border of Spam does not like smack dab in the middle of spam, where this resides.WilyD13:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above.SynergeticMaggot19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• INCREDIBLY reluctant delete I have only been there twice, but Ilove The Break. My ex-girlfriend (who is currently one of my best friends) is hugely into Bemani, and she took me there, and it was glorious. Unfortunately, as much as I adore this wonderful establishment, The Break is simply not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. --Kicking22222:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Mailer Diablo10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only15 ghits] Fails onWP:NNDavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP}01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notableKevin10:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom.Rob(Talk)10:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not seem to meetWP:SOFTWARE. --Wine GuyTalk20:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Wine Guy.Paddles ^T_C13:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasno consensus, defaulting to keep.Can't sleep, clown will eat me08:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shareware 2-d shooter game around since 2005. No evidence of notability.Xrblsnggt01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to thelist of CVG deletions.gakon502:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The developers are notable (the guys from Tribes), which makes this notable by association.Ace of Sevens02:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Notability by association is novel, but not part ofWP:NOT. Keeping to the issue, a Google check of "Zap!"+game gets a lot of hits, but most of these appear unrelated to the game itself - sound effects, use of the word as a verb, and other games with similar names. I sifted through a couple dozen pages, and found no multiple non-trivial third-party articles to base notability on. Mind you, if such could be found, I'm open to changing my nomination, but the article itself neither states nor implies notability.Tychocat09:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - GarageGames comes out with many of these to demonstrate their development tools. They really aren't any more notable than an average flash game.Wickethewok13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just another flash game without any notability. --Alias Flood19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think its a flash game - I think it uses their Torque engine. I was merely pointing out that it issimilar to an average internet flash game.Wickethewok19:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Flash games generally are not appropriate for an encylclopedia (unless of course they were groundbreaking in some way). If it has some degree of notability, perhaps a reference in the Flash or Tribes article might be suitable.Knowing Is Half The Battle19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tychocat, Alias, and Knowing, and inasmuch as a more limitedGoogle search than that essayed by Tycho returns only425 results, with the caveat that I'm not wholly opposed to our conferring notability by association, but only where such association is neither tenuous nor negligible.Joe03:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Zap it, zap it good.RFerreira03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't feel strongly either way on this particular article, but I must say how it warms the cockles of my heart that two of the delete voters didn't even bother to skim to the Infobox at the top right of the article. Cheers! --SevereTireDamage06:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is exactly how most articles branded "gamecruft" are being deleted; by people who aren't even looking at articles. (butdelete anyway) I'm switching over toKeeping per Ace. Considering how many obscure stub article games exsist on this site, we might as well keep this one. Espeically since it's beyond stub status (and more could be written about it). I'm also pretty sure that the game won at least one or two indie development awards. --gakon513:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. Looks like it did actually win some indie awards.[5][6] That's enough to get me to vote. --SevereTireDamage08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ace.Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP Zap! is a published game being sold for money by GG on their website. It's not just some flash game. It is a published game for sale and in effort to be as complete an encylopedia as possible, I feel like it shoudl definitely stay.Ayavaron06:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons above. --SevereTireDamage08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this is a award winning game not a flash gameYuckfoo20:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a game developed by a notable group, GarageGames. In fact, it is a commercial product, selling for $20 at the GarageGames website.Mipchunk00:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasmerge toHorror Show. Song is already mentioned there; very little from this article is appropriate to put there. No consensus on deleting or keeping the redirect, so we default to keeping it.Mangojuice^talk15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NN song off an album - never released as a singleDavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP}01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The song's mention withinHorror Show should be sufficient. I doubt if it needs expansion even within that article --Alias Flood02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect toHorror Show. Decent content for that page but hardly needs its own page.—The precedingunsigned comment was added byDgies (talk •contribs) .
• Delete, no merge, I don't believeIm-Ho-Tep (song) would be realistic for a redirect in this case.Voice of Treason07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge intoHorror Show. Probably the other linked songs need to be merged in as well, unless one has individual notability.GassyGuy21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge intoHorror Show. There's some useful material here, but a) the article doesn't establish notability for the song outside the album, and b) theHorrow Show article is rather short.Extraordinary Machine22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above andWP:NOR. --Peephole13:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Mailer Diablo10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Vanity. -Nv8200ptalk01:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Article doesn't make any sense. If it started in 2006, how can it have history earlier than tha? --Gogo Dodo04:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. (vanity).Rob(Talk)10:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete non-notable and obviously a vanity pagehoopydink^{Conas tá tú?}17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity/unnotable (possible A7) --Alias Flood19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasspeedy delete perCSD A7 (done byGwernol)—Kaustuv Chaudhuri22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to qualify forGeogre's Law. Non-notable website founder trying to coattail on his brother. Autobiography.User:Zoe|^(talk)02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominatingSeth kaplan as well--identical article. --Scientizzle 06:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Now deleted. --RHaworth07:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity, I beleive.Joe I02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definately Vanity.11kowrom02:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Certainly a vanity piece.Unlikelyheroine02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. FailsWP:BIO --Alias Flood03:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete failsWP:BIOMichael03:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, failsWP:BIO. --Kinu^t/_c03:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... in fact, I'd sayCSD A7 it, if possible; I've tagged it but I'll leave that assessment to someone else. --Kinu^t/_c13:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.SynergeticMaggot04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Scientizzle05:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SeeSeth Kaplan, too. Created by same user, already proded. Should be included in this AfD, IMO. --Scientizzle06:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, failsWP:VAIN andWP:BIO. --Coredesattalk. o.o;;08:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - failsWP:VAIN,WP:BIO,WP:V andWP:WEB. Links go to personal pages and non-notable web sites.KarenAnn12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete. Note that CSD G4 only applies if similar content is added; an article could certainly exist at this title if the concerns about original research and verifiability are addressed. (ESkog)^(Talk)02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research.NawlinWiki18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & Wikify duh! --Librarianofages02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please keep your comments civil.Kuru^talk03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, as this is adiscussion, not a vote, you are expected to explain why you believe the article does not violate thefundamental policy which the nominator believes it violates. "Duh", while expressive, is not exactly informative. —HaelethTalk16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, entire article seems to be some odd mish-mashed commentary centered around a spam link (wawallletters).Kuru^talk03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a mixture of neologism and original research. --Alias Flood03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,WP:OR essay that doesn't read like aWP:ENC topic, the surreptitious placement of the website link adds a notch toWP:SPAM in my book. --Kinu^t/_c04:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above reasons. To placate anyone who wants things kept, theremight be something that could be added to information on some of the buildings mentioned (the Latin stuff, f'rinstance), although I'd be surprised if it's not there already.BigHaz05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete asWP:OR plusWP:V. Links embedded in article go to

• a photo of a rabbit plaque
• a commercial site selling wall letters for home decorating such as nurseries, etc.
• a long article onThe Pantheon-- Rome -126 AD
• an article entitledCouple to Marry At Plantation Where Groom’s African Ancestors Once Labored.KarenAnn13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete asWP:OR andWP:V. KarenAnn is right: the links provided are weak and somewhat non sequitor. This article could (and perhaps should) be recreated, as this does seem to be a genuine phenomenae. But as currently written, this smells too much of unverified original research. Delete, unless someone feels ambitious enough to do a complete rewrite and cite some better sources.Scorpiondollprincess13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't look like a genuine phenomenon to me; rather, as the links in the article itself demonstrate, people havealways decorated walls with plaques and inscriptions, ever since the invention of writing. I'm pretty sure we'll have many an article on the subject already, and this one doesn't seem to add anything. —HaelethTalk16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepYou all make excellent points and as the writer of this article I will revisit it and make the recommended changes because I beleive it is very valuable information. I have a degree in art with a concentration in design and the use of typography in our daily lives is extremely interesting to me. I feel it is worth writing about on. Please come back in give your votes again in a few days and see if it is not more to your likingtlobTalk16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Still looks horribly likeWP:OR to me, only now it's completely unsourced.Paddles ^T_C13:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per aboveWP:OR andWP:V.Massmato15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasredirect toThe Trouble with Trillions.Kevin10:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure about this one. Is something appearing once onThe Simpsons Notable? I don't think so, but i just want to make sure...11kowrom02:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge tothe simpsons --Librarianofages02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's been on for 17 years. If I had a dollar for every quotable reference from the show, I would be wearinggold-plated diapers (which I am not). --Xrblsnggt02:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A little to fancrufty, even for me. The bill also has no significance outside of that episode and it has had no notable cultural impact. If we allowed this to be kept, that would set a precedent allowing thousands and thousands of other pages about minute details of a television show. Also, the merge would be rather deleterious because one simply wondering if thereis such a thing as a trillion dollar bill would be led to an article on the simpsons and left rather confused.AdamBiswanger102:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this insignificant plot device in a single episode The Simpsons. And if they were going to do a screen capture, why not one of the bill? --Joelmills03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect toThe Trouble with Trillions, the episode it's found in. All the relevant information is already there. There's disagreement between the two pages about which President's face was on the bill, but I foundthis page on the internet confirming what's in the article on the episode that I'm proposing we redirect to.--ChaserT03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect toThe Trouble with Trillions per Chaser. There's simply no reason to have a distinct article on a single gag.Kuru^talk03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect toThe Trouble with Trillions, which even has a picture of the bill itself!CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect toThe Trouble with Trillions. --Coredesattalk. o.o;;08:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]