Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 22

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wizardman (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 22 April 2008 (add one i reopened). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:56, 22 April 2008 by Wizardman (talk | contribs) (add one i reopened)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< April 21	April 23 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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 clearly was no consensus in first closure, but further discussion its had around 17 days of discussion and nothing has been brought to light to establish notability. Note also deleted book cover(Image:Ep2VDcover.jpg) as its now an orphaned fair use image Gnan garra 11:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Attack of the Clones: The Visual Dictionary

Note: I closed this AfD originally on April 21 as no consensus. After review I am iffy about my decision, and as a result would like someone else to look at it. I am relisting the debate as well due to this. Wizardman 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:NOT, Misplaced Pages is not a collection of directory or a repository of links. This article happens to be both. Arcayne () 09:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure how WP:NOT applies, since the subject of this article is a specific book (which seems to have appeared on some best-seller lists). That said, there's probably not a lot that could be said about it. A brief mention in an article on the Dorling Kindersley Visual Dictionaries might be appropriate, but we don't have that article at this time. Zagalejo^^^ 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is might be good as a source, but its current presence is a collection of links and all in all, it appears almost like a marketing tool to sell the book. Let people create actual citations and references to the book. Its presence here doesn't appear to be of value, excet as a directory of links and terms. - Arcayne () 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really want to stretch this discussion out, since I'll admit that this subject doesn't have much potential as a stand-alone article. But for the record, I doubt this was meant as a marketing tool. There's nothing obviously "promotional" about it. It looks like a good faith contribution from a Star Wars fan. Zagalejo^^^ 01:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that was me, being a little wacky. It's because I consider articles like this right up there cruft-magnets like the article The Best Movie in Like, Evar!. If someone wants to cite from the ACVD, they can; it just seems pointless to upload an in-universe disctionary to WP, esp. when there's Wookipedia that does that already, right? - Arcayne () 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, fine. As I said, I'm not particularly motivated to try to save this one. Zagalejo^^^ 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any coherent reason for deletion here. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest you re-read the sections above, that imo rather clearly describe the reasons? It isn't an article about the book but instead is composed of wikilinks. - Arcayne () 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep the inclusion on the Library Journal special page about selected Start War books is probably sufficiently notable.DGG (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep, the book was published by a significant publisher as part of a major franchise and it seems that it should be considered notable. That the article isn't much right now isn't really relevant to the discussion. Everyking (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge → Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. This book is insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, but is certainly verifiable and is part of the media storm around the film. I have added a reference to a book review so that the content has at least one reliable source associated with it. Considering the guidelines for book notability, specifically the five criteria, this book satisfies none of those five criteria (I will not reiterate them here to conserve space). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Might I get your take on how to merge the AfD candidate with SW II? It doesn't really bring anything to the table at all, except for a long list of terms. - Arcayne () 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Response: The term list would not be brought in, in my opinion, but the existence of the book, a brief description and citation material would. However, the details of the merge are an editorial matter rather than an AfD discussion point. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment: I appreciate that most of that would be an editorial matter; I was addressing the likelihood that any substantive value could be gleaned from the article that couldn't simply be referenced in an external citation. As such, i thought it worth asking in an AfD. :) - Arcayne () 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete being a book about a topic in the Star Wars franchise does not create any special notability. This article is nothing more than a mere directory listing and a table of contents. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge into Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'll ask the same question I did of someone else: how to merge the AfD candidate with SW II? It doesn't really bring anything to the table at all, except for a long list of terms. - Arcayne () 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is a link depository, not an article. No third party RS, either. TheNobleSith (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Had I voted instead of closed I would've chosen to delete, the reasoning being the lack of reliable sourcing and notability, so here it is. As for the merge suggestion, no offense but I find that to be a terrible idea with absolutely no positives coming out of it. Wizardman 06:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Few of reliable sources about the book, none that I can find demonstrating notability beyond being part of the ATOC merchandising spree. At most, mention the existence of the book in the movie article, or if there is one, in an article on the series of Star Wars Visual Dictionaries produced for the various movies. Oppose merge. -- saberwyn 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ !vote struckthrough by Jerry. Nominator can't make separate !vote.- I am not sure if my vote counts here, as its my nomination. In case it does, here ya go. If it doesn't - these are not the droids you are looking for. - Arcayne () 00:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete no source iundependent of the subject has show its notability, so why even redirect? Ultra! 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge to Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones - seems to be an independent publication, rather than an official tie-in. If it is indeed part of a larger Visual Dictionary series then it should probably go there. For notability it was ranked #26 on "The Bestselling Children's Books of 2002" and appeared on the NYT "Miscellaneous: Hardcover" best-seller list Keep or delete? Quite frankly I'm neutral (perhaps apathetic). --maclean 20:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per Wizardman, might be worth a mention in some list or somewhere, but not as a separate article.Doug Weller (talk) 11:16, 28 April 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 result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sad Legend

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Fails to show how it meets the WP:MUSIC notability standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Notability has not been established. No reputable sources available. Paradoxsociety (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. One review in a genera-specific magazine and one directory-style profile don't seem to me to be nearly enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC inclusion criteria. OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nekros Kidemonas

Seems to be fan fiction or a hoax. TheMile (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete, no Google hits, almost certainly a hoax. Speedy? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete, almost sounds like a D&D concept, but not enough context to tell. In any case the text is nearly indecipherable. // Chris 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Hard to tell if this is something made up one day, a hoax of some sort, some type of original research, or what, but it is definitely unsourced, unverifiable, and makes no claim of notability for whatever it is. ~There was more to this AfD discussion, but the text was unreadable.~ OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete Appears to be a hoax or an unsourced bit from some work of fiction or fanfiction. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above.--Rosiestep (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tales Of Worlds

This is an apparently non-notable RPG that, according to the article, was literally made up one day. Erechtheus (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. There must be thousands of games made using RPG Maker. There are probably a few that have become popular enough to deserve their own articles, but this isn't one of them. So Awesome (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia isn't myspace. Someone another 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. notability unestablished. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete non notable. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - could not find anything to demonstrate notability.Gazimoff _Read 07:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Unreferenced, unverifiable, and doesn't even pretend to be notable. OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable and not verifiable. Sephiroth BCR 01:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete as WP:MADEUP and WP:NFT; early closure per WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 04:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tips-basketball

No refs. Seems made up in one day. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Violates WP:NFT. Erechtheus (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete per NFT, I don't suppose there's any criteria to speedy it under? So Awesome (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. —Scott5114 ↗ 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No references, no verifiability, no notability. Appears to be something made up one day. OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - So tagged as db-content as there is none, it is WP:OR and WP:MADEUP --Pmedema (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Plotbunny

Fanfic community neologism, without any supporting cites to verifiable reliable sources: author admits as much on talk page. Fails to meet notability criteria. The Anome (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: As a term, its use is not limited to fanfiction -- I've seen it used in general writing forums and heard published authors use it in conversation. I suspect, though, that not enough reliable sources can be found to make this pass WP:NEOLOGISM. I'll give it a try over the next couple days, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete: No references provided, seems made up. Dwilso 05:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete yes this is a real term. No it is not encyclopedic. JuJube (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No references are provided to verify that this neologism is notable. Possible OR. OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Really, the term belongs on Urban Dictionary, if anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete wikt:plot bunny already does the job, without the additional OR. – sgeureka 08:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Album Network RAWK 7

Not really sure about this one, WP:MUSIC does not make it clear about whether that notability policy pertains to compilation albums or not. A few possibly notable bands are on the album, but the fact a good chunk of the bands represented, almost all the track titles, as well as the album's distrubtor are redlinked and there is no independent coverage, references, assertion of notability (or sources for that matter) and the author's assertion that this was created "From my record collection" makes me think this is we could apply WP:MUSIC and call it NN. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No assertion of notability for the album from nn label. A one sentence article with a track list. Delete B.Wind (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete Some notable acts, but a few too many red links and no real reviews to speak of. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't meet the notability standard of WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I would say that a compilation album, no matter how major the artists, is not, in itself, notable unless it meets WP:N and/or WP:MUSIC in its own right and this album doesn't seem to do so. OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)