| Revision as of 07:51, 6 July 2008 editJohnnyMrNinja (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,291 edits →House of Acorn: Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:35, 6 July 2008 edit undoA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| :::::They are sufficiently notable for Misplaced Pages. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC) | :::::They are sufficiently notable for Misplaced Pages. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' I have no desire to attempt to argue the disruptive nonsense that ] keeps putting forth. From badgering people and continuously referencing misleading WP links that in no way validate the argument, to misrepresenting editor's comments, to saying that ] is not a valid reason to delete an article. I cannot see how these arguments can be made in good faith. ] makes a strong showing here. Good luck, logic. ''']''' 07:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' I have no desire to attempt to argue the disruptive nonsense that ] keeps putting forth. From badgering people and continuously referencing misleading WP links that in no way validate the argument, to misrepresenting editor's comments, to saying that ] is not a valid reason to delete an article. I cannot see how these arguments can be made in good faith. ] makes a strong showing here. Good luck, logic. ''']''' 07:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **Yes, I really wish you would argue constructively in this discussion and not badger people who disagree or refer misleading to invalid arguments; I would like to assume good faith and hope that you are not gaming the system by focusing on editors rather than the content under disucssion. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 11:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:35, 6 July 2008
House of Acorn
- House of Acorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is as such an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Sonic the Hedgehog comic books and cartoons. It is therefore duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Misplaced Pages:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Misplaced Pages is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Le Grand.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Combination articles like this for minor characters are appropriate. This should become the standard practice at wp for all notable fiction. what counts in the world as notable fiction may be unfortunate, but that's the RW for you.DGG (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This article meets the stalled compromise at WP:FICT and the discussion continues at WP:NOTE. Please join us there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG.Hobit (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Contrary to Le Gradne, I saw zero real world assertion of notability in that article. It's three pages of fancrufty plot summary and listy character coolness bios. Burn it. ThuranX (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSCRUFT are illegitimate reasons for deletion. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- But Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) is. Responding to minor portions of an comment and disregarding the bulk of it is illegitimate as well. Please don't try to be deliberately misleading. JohnnyMrNinja 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually it isn't. It says, "The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." And a look at its talk page suggests that it is most likely to fail, which is why citing it as policy is either deliberately misleading or just not actually reading it. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- However, JohnnyMrNinja's clain of it being plot summary is a perfectly legitimate reason to delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Red Phoenix 13:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct that Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) is not an active guideline but a proposed one, I was referencing it because it is more forgiving towards these sorts of AfDs than Misplaced Pages:Notability (which is an active guideline), so I'm not sure how that helps your case. I don't care which one (it could be Misplaced Pages:Notability (criminal acts)), if notability can be confirmed it should be kept, if not, deleted. JohnnyMrNinja 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is also heavily disputed and undergoing massive disagreement overhow to revise (or even replace) it. Because notability seems obvious it should be kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct that Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) is not an active guideline but a proposed one, I was referencing it because it is more forgiving towards these sorts of AfDs than Misplaced Pages:Notability (which is an active guideline), so I'm not sure how that helps your case. I don't care which one (it could be Misplaced Pages:Notability (criminal acts)), if notability can be confirmed it should be kept, if not, deleted. JohnnyMrNinja 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- However, JohnnyMrNinja's clain of it being plot summary is a perfectly legitimate reason to delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Red Phoenix 13:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually it isn't. It says, "The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." And a look at its talk page suggests that it is most likely to fail, which is why citing it as policy is either deliberately misleading or just not actually reading it. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- But Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) is. Responding to minor portions of an comment and disregarding the bulk of it is illegitimate as well. Please don't try to be deliberately misleading. JohnnyMrNinja 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSCRUFT are illegitimate reasons for deletion. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Transwiki this to http://sonic.wikia.org if it is not already there, then delete it from Misplaced Pages. There are no sources present, this article constitutes trivial information as a non-notable part of the series, and it violates WP:NOT#PLOT in that the most of the article is excessive plot summary. It doesn't matter if it can be called cruft or not, this is what the article is made of and I believe it should be deleted on these grounds. Red Phoenix 03:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The real service that this article provides is as a well-organized and coherent portal to other articles and thus is valuable in that context. Best, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- So just because it links to other articles and provides a little context that completely fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT, etc means it should be kept? No offense, Le Grand Roi, but I see that as being absurd. Red Phoenix 05:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Deleting it would be absurd as it does more good than not. It unquestionably passes notability (you can't get much more notable in the video game world than Sonic with the exception of say Mario), the characters can easily be verified in the many Sonic publications, and something that is organizational as a list or portal is not restricted by the disputed plot guidelines. --Happy editing! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then why is it not verified on the article? Pardon my language, if you find this comment offensive, but "put up or shut up". Now, I didn't say I wouldn't reverse my decision if you can fix it by the end of the AFD period. And unquestionably passes notability? First-party sources cannot be used to establish notability per WP:SELFPUB. Also, I seriously doubt this is a "list or portal" or has any function similar to it. Who looks up "House of Acorn" expecting to link to a bunch of Sonic articles? Only someone seriously acquainted with the comics. I don't think that's definitive enough to make this similar to "a list or portal". Red Phoenix 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Like a table of contents, you get the verification when you go to the chapters. If you doubt it's function, then why not ask those who worked on it to come to this discussion to see what use they get out of it? People seriously acquainted probably count in the thousands or millions, which makes this article a valuable research tool for them. I am far more interested in that thousands of readers look at the article on a monthly basis and plenty of our editors also see value in devoting their spare time to working on it over the span of years than just a few thinking it should suddenly be deleted now during a mere five day discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then why is it not verified on the article? Pardon my language, if you find this comment offensive, but "put up or shut up". Now, I didn't say I wouldn't reverse my decision if you can fix it by the end of the AFD period. And unquestionably passes notability? First-party sources cannot be used to establish notability per WP:SELFPUB. Also, I seriously doubt this is a "list or portal" or has any function similar to it. Who looks up "House of Acorn" expecting to link to a bunch of Sonic articles? Only someone seriously acquainted with the comics. I don't think that's definitive enough to make this similar to "a list or portal". Red Phoenix 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Deleting it would be absurd as it does more good than not. It unquestionably passes notability (you can't get much more notable in the video game world than Sonic with the exception of say Mario), the characters can easily be verified in the many Sonic publications, and something that is organizational as a list or portal is not restricted by the disputed plot guidelines. --Happy editing! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- So just because it links to other articles and provides a little context that completely fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT, etc means it should be kept? No offense, Le Grand Roi, but I see that as being absurd. Red Phoenix 05:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The real service that this article provides is as a well-organized and coherent portal to other articles and thus is valuable in that context. Best, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Transwiki to House of Acorn - I agree that the format is acceptable, but the subject is not. I have not been able to find "Real World" (not Mobius) notability of the house itself, or any of the members. If any sources are provided that confirm such notability, I'll vote keep. JohnnyMrNinja 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to get sufficient sources from a search, but as I said above, the article works great as a coherent means of navigation to other articles as well. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Coverage from fansites (considering the first three links are Misplaced Pages/Wikia, as well as the rest of sites that I saw) does not make this notable, per WP:VG/S. Le Grand Roi, perhaps you should really look into what you turn up with a search first before claiming you've found reliable sources that show coverage by third parties. Red Phoenix 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sources don't "seem" to be. They are or they aren't. Searching for anything will result in hits, that means nothing. As for navigation, whichever articles aren't deleted (if any) can go in a category. JohnnyMrNinja 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The results show clear Misplaced Pages:Potential, not just current state. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- That is plain silly. Searching for something in Google means absolutely rubbish. The search I put in above was for "cupcake hat moon". Should I start that article now? You have made little to no sense throughout this discussion. JohnnyMrNinja 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Apples and oranges. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- That is plain silly. Searching for something in Google means absolutely rubbish. The search I put in above was for "cupcake hat moon". Should I start that article now? You have made little to no sense throughout this discussion. JohnnyMrNinja 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The results show clear Misplaced Pages:Potential, not just current state. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sources don't "seem" to be. They are or they aren't. Searching for anything will result in hits, that means nothing. As for navigation, whichever articles aren't deleted (if any) can go in a category. JohnnyMrNinja 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Coverage from fansites (considering the first three links are Misplaced Pages/Wikia, as well as the rest of sites that I saw) does not make this notable, per WP:VG/S. Le Grand Roi, perhaps you should really look into what you turn up with a search first before claiming you've found reliable sources that show coverage by third parties. Red Phoenix 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to get sufficient sources from a search, but as I said above, the article works great as a coherent means of navigation to other articles as well. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Unreferenced drek. This would be unacceptably bad on a project that had readers' guides for longrunning comic series, but the fact that this is a bad example of something Misplaced Pages doesn't even do should mean that there's no reason whatsoever that we need it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently these and people think we do need it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Chewbacca is a wookiee indeed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently these and people think we do need it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Transwiki per JohnnyMrNinja. Salavat (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- People who come across the name should be able to find some information in Misplaced Pages The specialized fan wikis are appropriate for the fans, but someone who does not know what this is associated with will not know to look there, but should still be able to find information--and here is the place. The fan wiki can take the further details. The cure for poorly written articles is to spend some time on improving them, not spend tim on deleting them. DGG (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with content, at least not for me. No part of it is Notable. Sonic is Notable, Princess Sally might be, but her extended family is not. JohnnyMrNinja 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- They are sufficiently notable for Misplaced Pages. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with content, at least not for me. No part of it is Notable. Sonic is Notable, Princess Sally might be, but her extended family is not. JohnnyMrNinja 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- People who come across the name should be able to find some information in Misplaced Pages The specialized fan wikis are appropriate for the fans, but someone who does not know what this is associated with will not know to look there, but should still be able to find information--and here is the place. The fan wiki can take the further details. The cure for poorly written articles is to spend some time on improving them, not spend tim on deleting them. DGG (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have no desire to attempt to argue the disruptive nonsense that User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles keeps putting forth. From badgering people and continuously referencing misleading WP links that in no way validate the argument, to misrepresenting editor's comments, to saying that WP:Notability is not a valid reason to delete an article. I cannot see how these arguments can be made in good faith. Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system makes a strong showing here. Good luck, logic. JohnnyMrNinja 07:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I really wish you would argue constructively in this discussion and not badger people who disagree or refer misleading to invalid arguments; I would like to assume good faith and hope that you are not gaming the system by focusing on editors rather than the content under disucssion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 11:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)