Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_May

< May 12	May 14 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

• talk • log • watch
Discussion regarding the classification of maps as primary or secondary sources Discussion concerning moving the search box to the top of the sidebar Beginning of discussion on relicensing Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA Discuss whether template coord missing should be on the article or talk page Main Page redesign proposal
Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

Not notable Megapen (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominated it as a speedy delete as a highly POV essay. User also removed the deletion notice unbeknownst to me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment not a speedy. The criteria for speedy are limited to those at WP:CSD . DGG (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete obvious essay, and OR. If an article should be written on this topic, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be one, this would not be usable even as a starting point. DGG (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Easy Essay. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - essay / original work. Frank | talk 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing to Neutral, per rewrite of the article, with a slight bent toward merging to Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. I am concerned that one is a condition and one is a disease related to the condition. For example, a seizure is a thing by itself, but a series of them over time may be epilepsy - and maybe not. Frank | talk 14:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for sharing personal experience stories. Eauhomme (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

With the Rewrite, Change to Merge. Eauhomme (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Just an imperfect start to a notable topic. I have taken the article forward by improving it. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The obvious next step is to merge with Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. I prefer the simpler title. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the article was nominated for deletion within one minute of its creation. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Colonel Warden has cut out the POV essay. Now its just a stub that should be redirected to Laryangopharngeal reflux disease RogueNinja_talk 11:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A redirect is not enough since there is content to be merged - I added material and retained material from the first draft. In any case, deletion is neither required or appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Notable topic, though it doesn't need two articles. Klausness (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Kudos for rewriting this. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Eleassar. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Checking in to change my vote to speedy keep. I'm no doctor and there was no way I'd have attempted a rewrite on a subject such as this. Marvelous save. Back to the break. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Klausness and Colonel Warden. (If you merge the articles, then please don't forget to merge the histories.) But see comments of Frank | talk , above, for an argument not to merge the two articles. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G1, G2, G3, A1, A7 and so on. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned Webbers

Non-notable character from a program which has no proof of existing. Article was deleted under WP:PROD but user recreated. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 23:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete the recent contributions of Dylan93 (talk · contribs) need to be looked at as they are all related to this nonexistent drama. JuJube (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax, so tagged. I have tagged every character in Category:My Normal characters for WP:CSD#G3, as well as the My Normal page itself, as the whole shebang is a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through replace those with PRODs, since they're not really blatant enough for G3. It may be necessary to batch them into a single AfD if the author removes them all. Just a heads up. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete hoax page? per NN CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator - non-admin closure. nneonneo ^talk 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

California v. Byers

~~Also nominating:~~

~~Adderley v. Florida (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - textdump from [1] or similar~~

Withdrawn, concerns addressed. nneonneo ^talk 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Textdump from [2] or similar site. While this isn't a copyvio (since such cases are in the public domain), this is "just another legal case" since it doesn't assert the notability of the case. nneonneo ^talk 23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment both articles need work but since they are U.S. Supreme Court cases they will most likely have significant independent coverage. Adderley v. Florida is appears to be an important decision regarding free speech zones. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, you are correct; Adderley v. Florida looks like it does have importance. That article can probably be saved from the axe; however, I'm still trying to find what makes California v. Byers notable (aside from it being a US supreme court case). nneonneo ^talk 15:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Motion to Strike They might not be copyvios. But they are not articles, either. Text dumps from Findlaw should not go here. Eauhomme (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep all US supreme court cases are notable, and are good bases for articles. Both of these are in any case significant either as precedent or historically. Needs a good deal of work, of course, but thats not reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki both to Wikisource. We should have articles on these cases, but they should be articles and not the original documents. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete source material. It's not formatted and WikiSource can easily obtain the text elsewhere. WillOakland (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not Bailii. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete with no prejudice to future creation as a real article. SCOTUS cases are inherently notable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki Both to Wikisource.-- danntm ^T _C 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Adderley v. Florida but delete California v. Byers per above. Adderley v. Florida is no longer just a text dump and is properly formatted with references. ~ Eóin (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination of Adderley v. Florida: article has been properly sourced and the textdump removed, so the original concerns no longer hold true. nneonneo ^talk 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete the headnotes but keep and re-write the article: I would argue that Supreme Court cases are presumptively notable. This particular case, if I understand correctly, holds that hit and run statutes are constitutional (and, among other things, cites to a case holding that a state law requiring the filing of income tax returns does not violate the right against self-incrimination, and to other cases holding that various police investigative procedures do not violate the right against self-incrimination). However, I'm not sure whether the headnote falls under the same copyright exception as the opinion? Basically the text of the decision of the court itself is in the public domain, but anything, and I mean anything, added by a commercial publisher is copyrighted. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Move to dismiss without prejudice The issue is now moot. I think the best thing to do in the future would be to turn a copied opinion into a stub as a placeholder rather than delete the article all together as long as it is apparent that the article would be otherwise notable if written. Legis Nuntius (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination. Thank you very much for summarizing and clarifying the material. nneonneo ^talk 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability has not been established.Fabrictramp (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sammy Jayne

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. American arrogance can't be the reason for removing British actresses that you have not heard of. IMDB, IAFD both have pages with her bio (that's over 20 titles alone), and if you even bothered to search for her movies you will find quite a few. This is a top actress of Viv Thomas Productions, who you probably also consider non-notable, since he's also English. You can as well log in to his page and delete every single actress from the list of his collaborators. Why not? And then don't forget to order pizza for a day well-spent. Pathetic. People like you make Wikipedia a big joke of a source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody home today (talk • contribs) 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - You should read WP:OWN and WP:NPA before expressing your opinions on these matters. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources to verify notability. IMDB and IAFD only provides evidence that she's been in so and so movies and does not establish notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WayForward Technologies

Contested PROD. Article does not reference any secondary reliable sources to assert notability. Article describes a corporation without referring to secondary sources (external links are copies of information from corp's website). Article was tagged for notability concerns in September 2007, tag was recently removed along with prod without any major change in content.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep the 3rd party sources produced upon doing a google search need to be brought into the article but, there appears to be a lot of them (game related sites so I can't access from work though, hence the weak). Weirdly, I'd say the article on the founder is a better candidate for deletion as I can't find anything significant about him. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point. The only thing I'd ask is if the sources only mention the company in passing, or if they're an in-depth article on it. WP:CORP states that sources cannot cover the subject in passing, which is what most game reviews etc tend to do. It's why a google search in this case cannot be relied upon to assert notability - is it the games that are notable or the company who made them?Gazimoff ^Write_Read 08:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete, the only sources available are directory listings after an exhaustive search. User:Krator (t c) 12:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep as it has real world significance and claim by Jasynnash2 that sources can be found on Google searches. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What leads you to believe sources are among that Google search? I went through twenty pages of filtered results, and found none. What evidence do you have for real world significance, and what backup (in terms of sources) do you have for it? Do you base this opinion upon close examination of the article and its sources, or just a general keep-happy tendency? User:Krator (t c) 16:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

While I don't know if you have a general delete-happy tendency, I know that I for one offer a variety of arguments in these discussion as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:37, 14 May 2008 ::(UTC)

Just to clarify I said there were alot of ghits for "WayForward Technologies" but, that most of the ones I saw were at game sites which are blocked to me from work and I couldn't verify the contents of the ghits. I don't know if that is what User:Krator meant by filtered results or not. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete only because there are no reliable sources cited. If the claims in the article can be backed up (and it is the duty of those seeking the article to be kept to cite them, not mine to show they don't exist), then it'd be an easy keep. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep: there are sources out there, such as this one [3]. Between the one line mentions of WayForward Technologies on lists of developers, there are a few reviews of their games that mention them and mention a detail or two. I hope someone actually follows through on this and does the hard work of citing sources. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Its games may have been reviewed, but I do not see how this corporation is in any way notable, which is not inherited. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep - although not the most famous of developers, it has longevity and has been reviewed itself (even if most hits are for its games). For example, here's one hit. There are others but a subscription is required for most I found at this point. There are other hits too, but they mainly mention the company in the context of it being a game's publisher. Even if that's not a direct review of the company, after you see it enough times - even in that context - it takes on some notability of its own. Having said all that, I'd sure like to see the redlinks removed...I wouldn't want this article being kept to be used a reason for creating another article about a game that is NOT notable... Frank | talk 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep Company is barely notable, but I think it meets the standard, looking at the sources referenced above. Article needs to be improved, not deleted. Plvekamp (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Irish Times. the wub "?!" 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rite and Reason

Non-notable newspaper column (it may be a highly informative column, but that's a difft matter to notability). The only references are a collection of links to the column's archive. --WP:NOT a linkfarm BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

delete - notability not established. --Damiens.rf 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge into The Irish Times. This could have been done without the AfD. --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep as major column in second-largest Irish daily newspaper. Merge as second choice. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No wonder I quit this site. So an internationally famous and internationally quoted religious column in Ireland's newspaper of record is not notable. Yet this 'encyclopaedia' regards minor American cartoon characters as notable!!! Thank you for reminding me why I, and almost all the contributors who were here when I worked here, have left in frustration. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question The Irish Times is indeed the country's newspaper of record, but that doesn't mean that everything in it requires a standalone article. Are newspaper columns exempt from the usual requirements of WP:NOTE? If not, how about some references to how support this claim of notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Try looking at who writes for it and where it is quoted. Everything in The Irish Times does not require an article. But a famous religious column that draws contributions from international religious and secular figures, does. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    - I have looked at who writes for it, and still don't see what requires a separate article. What's there to say about it other than it attracts some high-profile contributors (cue brief list) and is widely quoted? That would require one or two paragraphs in the The Irish Times article, and possibly a redirect, but that's all. It's six years since you created the Rite and Reason], and in all that time no-one has found anything more to add to it than a few links, so I don;t see much point in hoping that more time will lead to expansion. Merger will do fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge into The Irish Times. It is only a linkfarm at the moment. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Khalida Neferher

Non-notable game character with no reliable, independent sources as references. Graevemoore (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete as gamecruft. Of limited to no interest to those who do not play the game. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete no secondary coverage whatsoever; fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep as notable and verifiable fictional character. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a reason for anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- How is this notable? Show me the independent sources. Simply saying "Well they might exist" is pointless; by that criterion, nothing should ever be deleted (which, I suppose, is something that you want). Graevemoore (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  - What have you turned up on your searches? Something that you can hold in your hands has real world notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    - My searches have turned up nothing. But, apparently, you want me to prove a negative. And a franchised action figure is not independent of the source. By your qualification, I guess the 3/8" carriage bolt sold by BoltDepot.com also should have its own article? Where is the "has an action figure" section of WP:N. Show me the line of WP:N that it meets. You keep making this assertion of notability, but you've provided no evidence to support it. Note that evidence should be provided in some form that actually has relevance to WP:N. Graevemoore (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      - Something that appears in games and in statues is notable. It thus passes our notability polcies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Which part of WP:N is that? As I asked, please make specific reference to the part of WP:N that you believe this meets. Graevemoore (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        I see nothing on that link that suggests this article does not meet the guideline. The article is consistent with our policy on specialize encyclopedias. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Because there is no substantial coverage in reliable, independent media. Let's stop going around in circles. That is the single notability criterion. Please show me how this meets it. Tell me how a source that is reliable and independent has substantially covered this character. Additionally, just because something is consistent with one rule doesn't mean that it's consistent with the rest. Graevemoore (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Is there anyway we can see if The Independent Magazine for Warhammer or similar publications had any articles? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete as sheer gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  - You mean to say "An essay considers WP:ITSCRUFT not to be a valid argument". Since you regularly point out that some pages (like WP:FICT) lack consensus, it's only reasonable to apply the same standards to other content. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    - And other users feel the same as do other essays. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge useful content to List of major Warhammer Fantasy characters. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable fictional character which has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and whose article is entirely plot summary with no real-world context or significance. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. As a WP article this fails according to: notability, verifiability, its orphan status, and its in-universe style. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Not everyone has faith that all articles have independent, reliable sources with substantial coverage. There is no point to making that kind of reply. Graevemoore (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    - There's no reason not to help in the search. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      - I certainly understand that you would like the burden of proof for deletion to be raised so high that it would almost never be achieved. But, yes, lack of belief that such sources exist is absolutely a reason to not expend more than a modest amount of effort on searching for sources. References should be the foremost requirement for the creation of new articles, and there is no reason that an old article should be exempted from that scrutiny. Graevemoore (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Doctorfluffy. Jakew (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

B.O.W.s (Resident Evil)

I belive this article should be deleted, as it does not meet Wikipedia's Nobility standards (WP:N). The article contains neither much real-world information (WP:WAF), nor actual references to verify its claims (WP:Cite WP:OR. WP:A). ShadowJester07 ►Talk 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: A lot of it does seem to be fairly redundant as there is also a list of Resident Evil creatures article. Geoff B (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not Resident Evil Wikia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge to list of Resident Evil creatures. We only need one location for this information. -- saberwyn 00:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WAF. Nothing to merge. The only relevent parts of this article for an encyclopedia are the empty "Production and design" sections. Marasmusine (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no merge as the prose would do better if rewritten. User:Krator (t c) 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Maramusine. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep or merge and rediect with deletion. Notable aspect of video games, films, novels, and toys. Nothing to delete. Wikipedia is a compendium of material covered in other wikis. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia articles aren't game guides or purely fictional. This article seems like both. Graevemoore (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete as List of Resident Evil creatures already covers the same topic. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - per redundancy with List of Resident Evil creatures. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Conisdering the article is not a "how to", it does not fail any anti-game guide policies. Moreover, if there is a similar article that it can be redirected to, then we redirect without deletion in order to keep contribution histories public. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeping contribution history public is only an issue if content is merged. Taemyr (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is also helpful when determining potential admins, i.e. being able to see as much of their edit history as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of reviewers at WP:RFA are administrators and quite capable of seeing deleted edits. This is a bit silly, but I'll leave it at that. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot aren't as well and I for one would like to know what editors worked on. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "keep" rationale. And practically all candidates at WP:RFA can be evaluated on the edits you can see. If you can't find anything in their regular contributions that suggest that they wouldn't make a good administrator, then they are probably a pretty good candidate. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete Fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. Not in the "how to" sense, but in the sense that it would be the kind of detail on the Resident Evil series that would only be found in a gameguide. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic overviews, not a complete catalog of the entire game plot. Randomran (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a copendium of human knowledge. The subject of this article appear in not just games, but also films, toys, and novels. Thus, it cannot fail gameguide as the subject transcends video games. This article is an encyclopedic overview in the Wikipedic sense and there is nothing to be gained by deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  - "There's nothing to be gained by deleting it" should be avoided in deletion discussions. See WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM. If an article is non-notable (even if it is related to an otherwise notable topic), it doesn't belong on wikipedia even if there is "nothing gained" by deleting it. Good luck, Randomran (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    - The article in question, however, is indeed notable and belongs on Wikipedia as it is consistent per the First pillar with specialized encyclopedias on toys, video games, fictional characters, etc. Verifiable information concerning subjects that appear in a notable franchise and in multiple media are notable and merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Keeping this material adds to the value in Wikipedia. Deleting it only insults those who worked on it and sends a contradictory message to editors, readers, and donors. AfD may not be a vote, but the reality is that in addition to those arguing to keep here, hundreds if not thousands of good faith editors and readers who have been working on and reading this article for nearly two years believe this article is suitable for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally&&&-ho! 18:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      - Explain how the article "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". You are claiming it is notable; I am saying: show me the proof. Graevemoore (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Do a google search and see how many sources turn up, but don't just limit your search to the internet. Published articles like Jeremy Parish, “WTFiction!? Deciphering silly stories: No. 2: Resident Evil,” Electronic Gaming Monthly 224 (January 2008) is all about how these weapons are strange. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Yeah, there's a lot. But none that provide substantial, reliable coverage about these B.O.W.s. And this isn't an AfD for Resident Evil; clearly the franchise is notable. It's about a certain kind of enemy in the game, and I simply don't believe that there exists substantial, reliable coverage about them in particular. Why don't you show me a link or an article that has both (significant coverage and reliability), and I'll change my vote. Graevemoore (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Look at reviews on the toys for example. Also, this is a discussion, not a vote. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        And user reviews count as reliable sources? Again, please point me to a link that is reliable, independent, and contains substantial coverage, and I'll change my ~~vote~~opinion. Graevemoore (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        The magazine referenced above is independent and reliable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        But not substantial. That's a general plot piece. Graevemoore (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      - I recognize the tiny minority opinion of "those arguing to keep". But we shouldn't care how much work has been put into a non-notable article. See WP:EFFORT. It sounds to me like you have a problem with deletion in general. That's a discussion that should take place at a policy level, not in individual AFD discussions. Have fun, Randomran (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        The actual majority of editors believe the article should be kept. A handful of deletes that are really "I don't like it" in nature here does not reflect the real consensus. We should care how much work has gone into this notable article. I believe plenty articles should be deleted as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, but this article should not be. In the larger sense, I think a good argument is made at User:Pwnage8#Deletionism vs. Inclusionism. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        It's not a vote. If the "actual majority of editors" believe the article is notable, then at least one of them should be able to step forward and prove it. Otherwise, let this one go. If it's not notable then it's cruft. Enjoy, Randomran (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        It would be irresponsible of me to not defend an article concerning a topic that I know to be notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        How would you measure the responsibility of someone who defends an article with repetition rather than reliable and independent research? Rhetorically, Randomran (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        While using repetition to attempt to get an article deleted rather than partaking in reliable and independent research is unconstructive, defending the article is considerate to those good faith editors working to improve the article, but who do not have my patience for dealing with AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete redundant, unnecessary gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  - You should read the essays you cite. From WP:ITSCRUFT, Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft. Until you provide us with independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage of B.O.W's, my view, and the view of every other editor that have commented here, except you, is that this is article clearly falls under WP:NOT#IINFO. Taemyr (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    - I and others find the word itself unconstructive. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - unreferenced. --EEMIV (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  - No editor who wants to comment on an AfD is obliged to fix the article in any fashion. For all you know, the editor doesn't know anything about the topic or isn't interested in the topic, but knows our policies and guidelines enough to realize that there are violations of them. Harassing people in this matter is a gross violation of WP:AGF. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    - The AfD guidelines encourage editors t

Contents