User talk:Kappa/6

Welcome

Hi, I'm not here at the moment, but thanks for stopping by. Kappa 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Userbar

Hey Kappa, I was wondering why you keep changing Userbar to redirect to toolbar. They have nothing in common.

Yeah, me too W3bbo 18: 35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe a userbar is another term for a toolbar, but I have no further interest in that page. Kappa 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you around?

Greetings friend - on a wikibreak? Coming back soon? Reply by email, if you prefer. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to echo the words of BD2412, I hope that all is well. Best regards, Hall Monitor 00:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm fine, just avoiding wp at the moment. Kappa 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Wikibreak, I hope, nothing to do with leaving.--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 (Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Discovery of Australia

Greetings, my name is √αzzρεr, an Australian History. After noticing your past support for stopping the deletion of the Portuguese Discovery of Australia article, I have come asking for your support once more in the recreation of the article as per my speedily deleted edit of few days ago.

Feel free to observe and contribute to:

My argument for re-creation at Wikipedia:Deletion review (near bottom of page)
The article's talk page at Talk:Portuguese Discovery of Australia

sincerely, √αzzρεr 06:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites

Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Whether edits are marked minor or not isn't really that important, it's really up to the individual user to determine what's minor. Personally I mark everything that's not a contribution of new content as a minor edit. -O bli (Talk)^? 22:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? How does marking an edit as minor or not even matter in the first place? -O bli (Talk)^? 22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball League (Australia) venues

It will doubtless amaze you to learn that being a "possible candidate for Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight" is not actually a reason to include listcruft in Wikipedia. I know, I was surprised as well... But seriously, by all means remove prod tags if you have a good reason, but for Wiki's sake make it intelligent... Or perhaps the list-related criteria at WP:NOT (official policy) are just there to take up server space. Deizio 01:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long List of Red Links related to Taunton, MA

Any reason you decided to deprod this article? Not that it matters, since your removal of the prod just caused someone to slap a full-on AFD on there. Oh well. I was trying to invite discourse and you've just gone and gotten someone to delete it. p0 24.62.27.66 01:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean List of Taunton, Massachusetts businesses? Well if you'd given a reason for the prod I would probably have given a reason for the deprod, LOL. Kappa 01:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what's awesome? Discussion pages. Those're the sorts of the places where one could go to see why someone might have put up a prod. 24.62.27.66 00:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon world metropolitan areas

*sigh* I knew when I saw this prod'ded I should have changed and improved the deletion criterion.

These areas aren't notable because they don't exist. This article is part of a series of what are essentially fanfic titles, as these areas aren't ever mentioned in the fiction or even referred to as metropolitan areas.

Next time, though, if you de-prod (or prod!) a Pokémon article, could you either send it to AFD or at least let WP:PCP know? This stuff is fanfic junk, and doing either would have made that immediately clear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liverpool F.C. players

Indeed Kappa, no reason whatsoever to remove redlinked notable players. No reason whatsoever to remove appropriate lists, either. So could you point out which players are notable, and have another go at explaining why lists like this, which contravene policy and style considerations, and are entirely redundant to categories as they contain zero context or substantive information, are so ripe for inclusion.

More general point - I know you hate to see the load on the WM servers reduced by so much as a single byte, but your campaign to single-handedly negate the prod system is, at times, a little frustrating. Prod is not speedy delete, the thought occurs that you could actually wait a few days until an editor who has the prodded topic on their watchlist because they actually know something about it notices the prod - quite different, I hope you'll agree, to getting seen by yourself while poring over the list of current prods - and actually improves, adds to or provides justification for a contentious article. Your method of instant de-prodding lessens the chance of improvement (a design feature of prod) to practically ZERO. Inclusionism is fine, and I am personally all for allowing editors the widest freedom in their good-faith interpretation of policies and practices. However, preventing the growth of Wikipedia in the name of inclusionism is quite another, and not something to be proud of. That you don't personally contribute to or in any way improve the vast majority of topics you de-prod or vote to keep is well documented, all I would ask is that you give others a chance? Deizio 17:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Any who has played professional football for Liverpool FC is notable. Prod is not cleanup, we have other tags for that. Kappa 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod Soft tissue therapy?

While a quick look at your contributions suggests you do virtually nothing but deprod articles, I'm wondering if you have any information on Soft tissue therapy the rest of us on its discussion page don't. Such as references. As it stands, I think it is badly in need of them. If you don't have any references, then why deprod it?

Also, is it some sort of passion of yours to go around deprod'ing everything? That's your own business, though, i'm simply curious on that one if you care to share... —Daniel Pritchard 04:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding soft tissue therapy, I don't see any evidence of anyone trying to find references and failing, it doesn't look very hard. [1] [2]. I don't deprod everything, please refrain from making malicious allegations like that. Kappa 07:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits, I'm not entirely sure that Daniel Pritchard's concerns are entirely unfounded. Looking at a sampling of your last hundred edits, all but a handful have been inappropriate deprods that could be handled in a less cluttered way, such as merging the information with a larger topic (e.g. H.P. Products into TT scale, Clue VCR Mystery Game into Cluedo, etc.). I'm not trying to attack you, but it only takes a smidgin more work on your part to handle these articles appropriately instead of just wantonly removing the prod tag as you see fit. Please, I'm interested in seeing everything included in the appropriate place here at Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that every little small, contentless article deserves its own page. Most of these have a home, and that's inside a larger, inclusive article about a more general subject. Thank you, -Kuzaar 12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If something has a "potential home inside a larger, inclusive article" I deprod it, it should not have been threatened with deletion. Incidentally I believe the merges you propose above are extremely inconvenient for users and much the second-best solution to separate pages. Kappa 13:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ears must be red from all the talk of you at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. I've suggested there that when deprodding a page that is obviously lacking, the deprodder should consider replacing the {{prod}} tag with {{cleanup}}, {{verify}}, {{importance}}, {{expand}}, etc. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think stub tags are generally all that is needed, if I get on top of the prod situation I'll have more time to find the right ones. Kappa 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you can explain to me how it is inconvenient to have concurrent information on a subject instead of overwikified out into hundreds of pages when the information that all belongs on the page of a topic could be listed there, I'll cease to have issue with your removal of prod tags. For example, I cannot imagine any possible reason that a user would prefer the overstretched subject of the Clue VCR Game on its own seperate page in place of seeing it in a heading or even mentioned in the main Cluedo article. Many of your deprods I agree with, however, I'm interested in seeing your reasoning behind deprodding the dozens of trash articles that do NOT merit their own article on Wikipedia. Kuzaar 13:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point this out: specifically in one of my above examples, namely of H.P. Products and TT scale, why the non-notable creator of a questionably notable hobby standard. In an article where all of the information pertinent to the subject you're reading about (and it is a meager amount of information, by no means so much that it needs to be squashed out onto several pages), all of the subject material on Wikipedia is right there for the reader to read. H.P. Products doesn't need nor merit its own page, not meeting the corporate notability standard, etc. It is a disservice to the reader to hide pertinent information in a secluded corner of the wiki, particularly when the TT scale article itself is so sparse. I appreciate your sentiment of inclusion of information, but when it would be better served in a more comprehensive article, I think that's where it should be. Kuzaar 13:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confusing prod tags with merge tags - these are unrelated issues, prod tags should only be used for content which has no place in wikipedia. I don't think your assessment of H P Product's notability is very well-informed, however if it really isn't very notable, readers are better served by keeping most of the information about it out of the main article so it doesn't bloat the page. Kappa 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize, I've been uncivil with you on this talk page and on some of the AFDs that have taken place on articles you've deprodded. However, I do think that you should at least feel obliged to put a little more efforts into the articles that you deprod. Simply deprodding an article that by all rights should be quietly merged or pass away with no need for consensus is something that takes you three or four seconds to do. However, it is unjust because it foists off work that you yourself could have done to improve the article or its contents onto other editors who have to either improve the article themselves or put it through the AFD process because you choose to contest it without being firmly grounded in the subject, sometimes giving a reason such as "seems notable", etc. I would appreciate it in the future if you were to put forth a little more effort to improving the encyclopedia's articles instead of leaving it cluttered with hundreds of near-contentless articles that would be served better by expanding or merging. Further, I'd like to reiterate that it's not right to make hours of work for other editors by contesting tons of deletions, something you can do in minutes. Thank you. Kuzaar 23:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deprod of white rappers

In response to your deprod, I explained the prod on the talk page. Peace, --Urthogie 08:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for your advice on trying to delete economy car comparison

They are trying to delete: Historical comparison of economy cars 2006 . Do you have some advice on how I should handle this? Thx, Daniel.Cardenas 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote keep, explain how it helps users to better understand the phenomenon of economy cars, and mention that you are the orginal author. Adding some discussion of the features would probably improve its chances of survival, but it may get deleted anyway so I woudln't recommend that. Kappa 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks plenty. :-) Daniel.Cardenas 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deprodding & AfD

Hi Kappa. I wanted to let you know that I have been putting up a raft of pages that you deprodded to AfD for wider discussion. I am simply working through deprods that I feel warrant a wider airing of views and so this should not in any way be construed as some kind of targeted campaign against you. I note that several editors have made rather uncivil remarks with respect to your deprods, for which, by identifying you as the deprodder, I may be somewhat responsible; this was certainly not my intention - please accept my apologies for having elicited such sentiment. Welcome back. Eusebeus 08:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD: H.P. Products

In what way would cutting the info from H.P. Products, putting it into TT scale, and leaving the H.P. Products article as a redirect or empty article prodded to expire quietly violate the GNU Free Documentation license? Kuzaar 13:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a page is merged, then deleted, the original author(s) are no longer credited for their contribution. Kappa 16:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada Proverbs

From your deprod comment I take it you do not object to moving this to Wikiquote. Is this correct, and if so, can you point me to the proper procedure for doing so? In the same fashion, wouldn't it make sense to do the same for Gujurati Sayings as well ? (I'll watch this page for replies) -- Hirudo 17:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would rather keep a few examples here but I don't strenously object to moving them somewhere else and leaving a pointer or redirect. I found some instructions at Category:Move to Wikiquote and they are reasonably GDFL compliant as of the last edit. Kappa 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks I will take a look at that page and find some time do do this. -- Hirudo 23:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books set in New York City

Please don't do anything like this again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that request. Please don't violate WP:POINT. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't violate WP:POINT. Kappa 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, please don't insult our intelligence. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Games featuring London you argued that article should be kept because we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books set in New York City as a precedent. Then you listed the literature list for deletion just because the video game article is "under attack" in your view. You did this purely to try to make a point. Johntex\^talk 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did this to try to preserve the users' ability to learn about how London is depicted in popular fiction. I am disappointed that I appear to have failed them. Kappa 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that you listed one article for deletion in an attempt to prevent another article from being deleted. That would be a violation of WP:POINT. The policy even includes an example not to try to list other articles for deletion in order to try to save one from deletion. Johntex\^talk 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't list hundreds of articles" is not the same as "don't list any articles" Kappa 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And every single possible example can't be listed. Doing it once is less bad than doing it 100 times, but it is still a waste of people's time and a violation of WP:POINT. I am mindful of your incredibly significant contributions to this project, but no-one is above policy. Please don't do this again. Johntex\^talk 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of insulting your intelligence, we have already seen that I didn't violate WP:POINT. Kappa 00:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree - while I empathize with your frustration with harmless and possibly useful articles getting tagged for deletion, it is counterproductive for you to make such a nomination as you made unless you truly believe that List of books set in New York City actually should be deleted. BD2412 T 00:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be clearer. Please don't nominate articles for deletion unless you want them deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding

Is your systematic deprodding of articles an attempt to game the system or a WP:POINT, or both? You wasted some of my time by deprodding Opening light, so I should AfD it now if I am to follow the rules, which would also waste more time of other wikipedians who would vote on deletion for many stupid articles. In summary, your 15 minutes of systematic deprodding will cause hours and hours for other editors to deal with that stuff. (You can reply here if you prefer.)Duja 15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally deprod things because I think users would like to be able to read about them. Kappa 17:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you deprod things about which you are not knowledgeable, you create headaches for other users. If you're going to deprod something about which you are not knowledgeable, please send it to AFD for review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding 24 articles on April 30, 2006 really was overdoing it. Doing all the necessary AfD votes to clean that up is very time consuming. The outlet mall, VF Outlet Village? That was a bit much. And the bridge tactic, Opening light, was marked for deletion by the editor who writes good contract bridge articles. If you actually improved the articles, that would be one thing, but all you're doing is removing "prod" tags. This is getting close to becoming vandalism. Please stop. Thanks. --John Nagle 18:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding VF Outlet Village, deletion was already disputed on the talk page: "This concept was the first of what was to become the 'factory outlet mall,' where multiple brands are sold at one location. The VF Outlet Village is a popular destination for bus trips and is primary source of Reading's former title of "The Outlet Capital of the World." 69.137.26.122 00:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Carrie. Also, as you are aware, wikipedia already has this thing covered in Reading, Pennsylvania. Kappa 08:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, you really shouldn't look at a prod as a genuine attempt to get an article removed. It might stand for proposed deletion, but it also just plain says prod which is really what it is. It's an attempt at prodding those who care about an article in the right direction of generally improving the article, expressing just what in there is noteworthy, that sort of thing. Heck, rather than deprodding, why not post in the discussion area asking why there's a deprod. Or perhaps the person who put up the prod has already posted to the discussion area. I know that in the prods I put up that you deprodded (business in Taunton and Tomb Raider outfits) in both cases I had explained why I was prodding in the discussion area. By rampantly deprodding without making a concerted effort to improve the article, all you're doing is systematically getting what were merely prods turned into afds. Look at your own track record. How many of the articles you've edited are now red links because of your deprodding? If you think people would want to read about the articles you're deprodding, don't deprod them. Help to make them better! 204.69.40.7 13:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the prod tag will get the article deleted whether or not that is your real intention, so I have to ask you not to use prod except in the case of non-controversial deletions. Perhaps there is scope for an alternative system which advertises the fact that improvement is desired without threatening to deprive people of information in order to get that improvement carried out. Kappa 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poppycock. The only person depriving anyone of information is you when you remove a prod tag without improving the article. 204.69.40.7 11:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of {{cleanup}}? Try using that instead of prod when what you want is article improvement. Getting something deleted doesn't improve it. FWIW, Kappa, I don't agree with all your De-prods but I agree with most of them. Mango juice^talk 10:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetShakers Albums listed for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, PlanetShakers Albums, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlanetShakers Albums. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Dan, the CowMan 00:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Hilda's College

Could you please explain why you would want two identical articles St. Hilda's College and St Hilda's (disambiguation) to exist in the Encyclopedia? We would only need one disambiguation. --WikiCats 11:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored Kappa's removal of the prod template. WikiCats, it is not necessary to give a reason when deprodding — though it is good practice — and articles can not be prodded once someone has objected. In this case, it's a bad idea to delete the natural title St. Hilda's College, which is bound to collect incoming links and search hits. Personally, I slightly prefer having both disambig pages, but at the very least St. Hilda's College must be left as a redirect. ×Meegs 12:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I feel I disagree with Kappa on many of his rather controversial deprods, but I agree in this point, though I don't know if it's for the same reason. It's stupid that someone who types in "St. Hilda's College" should be sent to a disambiguation page that lists the elementary school. I'd propose:

St Hilda's (disambiguation) -> Delete. People should learn to type the whole name of the school they're looking for. In fact, I think ridiculous disambig pages like this should properly be titled "List of Things That are Called St. Mary's."

St. Hilda's College -> Disambiguation (this should ONLY be a list of St. Hilda's Colleges).

St Hilda's School -> No change. It's the only St. Hilda's School on WP.

My basic premise here is that you shouldn't be shunted to a disambiguation page that lists things you clearly specified you don't want (here, by specifying college, you're not interested in St Hilda's School. What do you say, Kappa?

--Dan 23:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Kappa, but I would respectfully disagree. People might not necessarily know the full name of a school. For example, in St. John's, NL, a fellow might generally say he went to (e.g.) "St. Pat's" - and while a listener would arguably understand that the school was actually St. Patrick's, they might not know that it was St. Patrick's Hall; St. Patrick's School was a girls' school. Indeed, many schools have such descriptors as academy, college, collegiate, collegiate institute, hall, polytechnic, and many only know a particular school by its namesake: St. Patrick (a "hall" and "school"), St. Bonaventure (a "college"), Prince of Wales (a "collegiate"), or Bishop's (a "college" at Memorial University, and a "college school" for grades 7-12; both are called Bishop's College), etc. The reason people don't type in the full names of what they are looking for is that often they don't know what exactly they are looking for, and they need some help, which is why they go to an encyclopedia.

So keep the overall disambig page for a generic "St. Hilda's" for those who don't know exactly what they are looking for, and the more exacting "St. Hild'as College" and "St. Hilda's School" for those who do. --SigPig 06:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Subs

No such stock. See here [3]. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's a subsidiary of Nathan's.

"Nathan's Famous acquired Miami Subs Grill in 1999 and eventually created a family of brands, "The United Tastes of America." The family now includes Nathan's Famous, Miami Subs Grill, Kenny Rogers Roasters and Arthur Treacher's."

I am gonna make a redirect. Thx. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USC v. Texas, 2006

At your suggestion, I will redirect; I was hesitant to do so because I cannot imagine that USC v. Texas, 2006 is a likely search, but I suppose our having an additional redirect can't hurt. Joe 23:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod of Ah Hing (Comic Artist)

It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from Ah Hing (Comic Artist). Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. cholmes75 13:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Seeing as you have a history of unexplained deprods, consider this your first official warning on the matter. --cholmes75 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod tags are not content, and I do not have to provide any reason for removing them. On the other hand, you have no right to replace them. Please consider this an unofficial warning. Kappa 13:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As a third party, I'll chip in that cholmes75's revert and warning were, well, completely without any sort of plausible legitimacy. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "First official warning"? Apparently he hasn't read up the page! Kappa, if you don't stop deprodding, people will (gasp!) continue to tell you to stop deprodding! Which is their right, just as much as deprodding is yours. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness is the key to not being eaten by the Robot Overlord

The Hero of Time has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

1942 AFD

I see you voted in a 1942 mod AFD vote. Well Finnwars is up for AFD again, and you may be interested in the List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD. Bfelite 03:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin and Growth of the English Bible on AfD

For your information, the article Origin and Growth of the English Bible has been nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin and Growth of the English Bible. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa?

It's been time, Kappa, if you'd like an Rfa. Your edits and skills amaze me. If you could, will you kindly accept my offer? :)-- 陈鼎翔贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 13:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, no cutting in line!!! ;-D I've had Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kappa 3 on deck for months now! BD2412 T 14:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, just for the sake of the doubters, I'm congratulating you here for becoming an admin on a different WikiMedia project. Well deserved. BD2412 T 23:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which project? I'm curious...-- 陈鼎翔贡献和 CCD Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um hi, thanks for the kind words but I have an extremely low opinion of WP at the moment so I'm avoiding it as much as possible. I do stuff over at Wiktionary instead. Kappa 02:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

As an AIW member please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity and please take a side.

Cyrus Farivar Reloaded

I'm a relatively new user reopening this issue: The following comments are a reply to Morton devonshire, who questioned my notability tag (and I suspect, removed the tag without either addressing the issue, or knowing the background. Sorry to clog your page quoting my comments in full but I see that Vfd, notability tags and other stuff mysteriously disappear from the Farivar page, and I think it's important for WKP that this issue be decided and the legitimate majority view be carried:

Hi, thanks for your prompt feedback. I don't feel you addressed my reasons for tagging the page, and these reasons are not affected by what happened last year (I have read up a lot of the past discussion, but I'm not at all convinced). On consideration, I feel the Cyrus Farivar page will eventually go as it is clearly:

decidedly not notable - the subject is not notable in himself, andn greenlighting was not a notable hoax

the count of the last deletion vote (Aug '05)came down firmly on the side of 'delete' - how does this come to mean 'keep'?

mainly based on a trivial subject - a non-event, in fact

a page intended as a self-promotional tool, rather than to be informational

refers almost entirely to itself - no importance in the wider world

a bad precedent

The issue of CF 'criticising' WKP is simply begging the question, I wasn't aware that he did so. I note that my notability tag has been removed without any notability being added. I am determined to have a debate about this page on principle, and if notability is not discussed, will take it further. I'm also confident that if I take the discussion wider, I will find reasonable support for my stance.

IMHO the majority of the 'keep' votes are based on weak arguments, and/or a lack of perception of the issues: the hoax, notability etc.

Further, I am aware from my background reading that past raisings of this issue have disappeared. See Mrtourne's comments during the Aug '05 deletion discussion.

I should add that I am also going to push for the related 'Greenlighting hoax' page to be merged to 'hoaxes'. Again, it is extremely trivial, and almost entirely self-referential.

I would draw your attention also to the following comment by user Snowspinner (during Aug '05 deletion discussion).

Quote: Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC) End quote

I note also that the announcement of the result of the Aug '05 deletion vote being a 'keep' was made by the same user Snowspinner. As a new user, I respectfully suggest that he made a bad counting error.

My suggestion is that the page be deleted, and perhaps userfy-ed.

Centrepull 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Something good

I know that we almost never agree, but I simply wanted to say that I'm glad to have you around. - brenneman ^{L} 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of interest

Thought you mind find this MfD of interest. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Craig Schoonmaker (3rd nomination). Ground Zero | t 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deprod of Olympus Twelve

I notice quite a few users have found you deprodding articles for what appears to be... no sound reason. One such article is Olympus Twelve, which appears to be list-cruft and likely original research. I feel your deprodding is a WP:POINT issue. If you wish to actually improve the article, or have a legitimate reason for removing the prod, then do so. If not, then leave it be. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are of no help and you waste my time and the time of others. I will now have to list this article for AfD, and you know what? It will be deleted. Thanks, no really, thanks soo much for helping us to "save" this article of shit. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well after googling it does look kinda unverifiable from reliable sources. I'm less likely to pull off a prod tag if you provide a legit reason and preferably some evidence that you googled or whatever. Kappa 02:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have it backwards. WP:V: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.'', and "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." -- Ned Scott 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And lets not forget assume good faith. I prod things after having looked into the matter, not because I "feel like it".-- Ned Scott 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately even though I assume every prod tag is in good faith I can't assume every prod tagger is as diligent as you are, that's why it would be helpful if you put some kind of evidence in your prod. Kappa 03:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll keep that in mind from now on. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThaMuseMeant

I've restored and tidied it a bit. Both it and Live At The Mineshaft Tavern need work though. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:civil

Kappa, Ned hasn't been uncivil to you. He gave an opinion on the article (to which you have not contributed, and cannot be construed into a personal attack or incivility) and his comments are true: you are the one that, of your own admission, removed the prod tag without any actual look in the matter. Circeus 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Frivolous Nomination"

Just be a tad careful using this sort of terminology where AfDs are concerned. A frivolous nomination is really only going to be one in violation of WP:POINT or something else along those lines, and throwing the term around is certainly sailing close to the wind where civility is concerned. Just because Better (song) is verifiable doesn't necessarily mean that it's notable, so you may want to address WP:SONG rather than namecalling. BigHaz 10:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Better is a verifiable GNR song means it can be discussed in wikipedia, so nominating it for deletion, while perhaps well-intentioned, is a pointless waste of time. Kappa 10:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:verifiability applies to facts, not articles, which are governed by various guidelines and community consensus, please do not confuse the two. Circeus 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Arcana

It´s been very hard work for me, actually...I´ve putten those pictures to set a basis, so later not only me but others can improve those articles... When I wrote (tarot card) I reminded that there are play cards...like traditional poker cards. But I´m thinking bout taking you suggestion. I don´t think those links I´m creating should be redirect to minor arcana...I will left a message on discussion page later... If you wanna help me, I will be thankful. User:Don Leon

Hello Again

Hello, Kappa. As I said on my talk page, I have no problem at all changing my vote on Luke Mijares to a keep pending some nontrivial publications regarding his notability. I have attempted to do research on google regarding this fellow but almost exclusively I turn up lyrics lists and copies of the Wikipedia article. The Manila Bulletin article is a fair start, however. Just post what you can find in the AFD, if you could. Thank you, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel Day School

Since you were responsible for removing the proposed deletion tag from the Hillel Day School article, I wanted to bring it to your attention that this has now been nominated for deletion in the usual location. Silensor 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mergeto|List of Finns

Sofixit! (tm) - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School districts from June

Hi. Would you mind having a quick look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Englewood Schoolsfrom late last month? I was not around at the time and just discovered this AfD which was missing from schoolwatch. These district articles were deleted in what appears to be at least a possible out-of-process decision by the closing admin. The discussion seems to me to be a consensus to keep or at the least a lack of consensus to delete (9 keeps, 5 deletes). Since I was not around for the debate, I can't see what some of the comments about content were even referring to. As far as I know, this hasn't been brought up on DRV, but 18 school districts were summarily cut off in spite of no consensus to delete. It might be easier to simply re-create these school districts without going to DRV, but I don't really know what current views of process are on things like this so I don't really want to take an action. I've also left a similar note on Silensor's talk page since I am sure one of the two of you will know what best to do, if anything.--Nicodemus75 01:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see the articles either, but it looks like a very much out-of-process close to me. DRV might be the best option. Kappa 01:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel that would be best, would you mind initiating the DRV process? I haven't been around since the procedure was still "Votes for Undeletion" so I don't really want to initiate the process. Is there going to be a problem that this AfD is almost 4 weeks old?--Nicodemus75 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it's already been reviewed [4] and the closured was endorsed because they were empty of text but full of external links. No reason not to make them back with more text and fewer links. Kappa 13:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaking suit deprod

Since you deprodded this, were you planning to add sources, and explain why this article wasn't just about a series of unrelated bodysuits? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Wikiproject

Hi, Kappa! I've noticed your interest in Estonian articles and AfDs, and I was wondering if you'd like to lend your services to the brand-new Wikiproject Estonia. They would be much appreciated. Srose (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films based on questioning reality deprod

When you deprod an article, please make sure that it isn't a CSD candidate, such as this one (which was a clear-cut CSD A3). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a pretty mind-boggling interpretation of "no content whatsoever". Kappa 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Any article consisting only of links elsewhere" is pretty clear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a list of films with articles, with a criterion explained clearly in the title. It had plenty of valuable content, and it's a pity that someone would wish to remove it using a speedy deletion criterion intended for removing things which don't have any. Kappa 05:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Questioning reality" isn't at all clear, and it was a list of things arranged according to a vaguely-defined theme. Considering that the original A3 (or A4, I forget) referred to articles that were nothing but a list of Wikilinks, I think it was a clear-cut case. I don't see how anyone who wasn't the original author could have expanded that list without completely rewriting (or rather, actually writing, since there was nothing but the list of things) it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't remember A3 or A4 ever referring to lists of internal links. I'm sorry that "questioning reality" doesn't seem clear to you. Kappa 06:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Madhava Chakyar and Mani Damodara Chakyar

Hi, hope you do remember helping me in expanding these articles. Now in the history of these two articles someone has written "(Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 29)"; what does it mean? if it is for deleting the article, i dont see any reason to do that. Please help me to save the article. Thanking you Sreekanthv 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important, they just renamed the category from Category:People of Kerala to Category:People from Kerala Kappa 07:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Showgrounds Retail Park

Hi there! I saw that you de-prodded this article. Can you clarify for me why you think this article should be here? The proposal you cited, WP:LOCAL, states that articles containing little more than "directory information" are very dry and should not be here. What is your opinion on how that applies to this article? From my perspective, this article is only a listing of stores at the mall and other trivial information. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deprodded it becuase I strongly object to the idea that the people of the world should not be able to read anything about it because it's not "notable". WP:LOCAL says "problem articles" should be tagged for improvement or merged, not deleted. From google it doesn't look very easy to improve so I've gone ahead and merged it. Kappa 08:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod

Hi. You deprodded Mesa Marin Speedway. Is this racetrack famous? Can you add any info about it? JBKramer 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been used for NASCAR races [5], so I think it would be better to leave it to racing fans to expand it. Kappa 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have an experiment idea for you - I bet it gets expanded faster if we make it a red link, and thus everyone who goes to those articles knows it needs expansion, than if we leave it as the worthless article it is now. Thoughts? JBKramer 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dispute your contention that it's useless, I think users would rather know where it is and when it was built than nothing at all. As an experiment, we can compare it with maybe Lanier Raceway, currently a red link with even more inbound links. Of course, people watching my talk page might be tempted to intervene, which would kinda distort the results... Kappa 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I noticed the article before you guys could prod it. In fact, I found here while removing double redirects from the incorrectly named article after I did a major expansion on the article. I was working on expanding tracks that are no longer used for a major NASCAR series. The track is actually named the Mesa Marin Raceway. The track was extremely important in the formation of NASCAR's Craftsman Truck Series, as I just expanded in the article. Deleting valid articles such as this is counterproductive to the Wikipedia project, and wastes wikipedians time. To call it useless is quite insulting. It saddens me to see wikipedians with such a cavalier attitude. Royalbroil 04:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Raven_(magic_trick)

You deprodded The_Raven_(magic_trick), so I've gone and listed it on AFD. Please explain your reasons for wanting keeping the article at the discussion here. Thanks. -Darksun 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello how are you doing? I noticed you are a senior editor on here interested in articles and take a jaundiced eye to hysterical deletionists that abound on here. Anyway, they are trying to sabotage my article Throat Gaggers which is my first and its getting me very despondent. Can you help me out?Courtney Akins 17:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Shaick AfD

AfD Nomination: Omar Shaick

An article that you have been involved in editing, Omar Shaick, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Shaick. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardigan Mountain School

The google cache was a promo peice and likely a copyvio - it looked like a paid PR writer was writing it. The latter (bare bones) version is the one in place now - hopefully that isn't too bad -- Tawker 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC songs

I'm curious as to why you've deprodded the AC/DC songs. I can't see what makes an album track notable in it's own right. An article consisting of 'Track X is the fifth song on Album Y' and duplicated information from the album article strikes me as totally redundant. exolon 22:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether something is "notable in their own right", if I think wikipedia readers should be able to read about a topic, I deprod it (assuming the article would be at least minimally useful to them). A stub with a nice infobox is far more convenient than a redirect, but I have no great objection to album tracks being merged. However at least one of them (C.O.D.) has information that isn't in the album article, and I strongly object to that being lost entirely. Kappa 00:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people of Oakville, Ontario

Hi: I just wanted to let you know that I've submitted List of notable people of Oakville, Ontario to AFD to gain a wider concensus on whether the article should be kept or deleted. As you deprodded, it would be helpful for you to provide you perspective in the discussion. Regards. -- Whpq 11:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'Hopital de l'Hôtel Dieu

AfD Nomination: L'Hopital de l'Hôtel Dieu

An article that you have been involved in editing, L'Hopital de l'Hôtel Dieu, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Hopital de l'Hôtel Dieu. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Ben & Jason

See my comment on Talk:Ben & Jason. - CobaltBlueTony 18:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Empires: Dawn of the Modern World Gameplay

Hey I'd like to thank you for helping out so much in this AFD, but there's a good chance it could be deleted. If that's the case, I think I'll just move it to Strategy wiki and make it an external reference. If by some miralce it does stay, I won't move it, but I don't think this article will be here much longer. Transwiking it won't be hard. I already have the raw text saved on my computer. These articles will never see any peace as long as there are people looking for easy controversy, "good" matieral for adminship, or people who think video games don't belong here on wikipedia. I'm going to defend the my article until the end, and thank you for what you've done.--Clyde Miller 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus! --Clyde Miller 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! That actually restores some of my waning faith in wikipedia. Kappa 21:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it isn't under pressure, should we keep it here on wikipedia, have it transwikied, or move to strategy wiki? I'm thinking I'll just keep it here unless another AFD for it comes up. Then it might be good to move it to save the content. What do you think? I'm more than slightly worried another AFD will come up since it's a no consensus. --Clyde Miller 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was a close call and it might be AFD'd again... it needs work to make it more accessible to people who aren't familiar with the game. (I've rearranged it so someone who comes to it "cold" will hopefully see the big picture first). I think having a seperate forked version at Strategy Wiki might be best, that version would be free to actually be a game guide and go into stats, tactics etc. Kappa 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I get the chance, I'll take care of it. I might take out much of the parts attacked for being game guideish, and put that part in strategy wiki. I already have an account on starategy wiki too. --Clyde Miller 22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved buildings and classified projects, and I may try to rewrite or transfer the rest. The page on strategy wiki is here, if you care. Oh interesting note, I found out that Starcraft, the only RTS game to make featured or good status, had it's gameplay article in an AFD. It was also a no consensus. --Clyde Miller 15:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your list IS valuable

The list (ROH) you created is/was up for deletion. I want you to know there is a place for it: http://wikitistics.com . No one will be able to nominate it for deletion because it fits one simple rule: it's a statistic, list, or figure. Good luck with your endeavors! Joe 18:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mimio

Hi Kappa.

I would love to know what merit you find in the article on the 'mimio' interative whiteboard, apart from as an advert for this particular manufacturer.

CS46 19:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimio. Kappa 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that was before there was a more general Interactive Whiteboard entry. Do you really think we should have an entry for each manufacturer? CS46 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think a moderately popular manufacturer of office equipment is even more notable than a charting single or a random pokemon. One of the voters says "device is somewhat common in office environments. There have been a range of these devices dating back at least through the mid-90s of which the Xi is only the latest. " Enough to remove it from the realm of indiscriminate information. Kappa 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you say, and I agree with your comparisons. I think the answer lies in resurrecting details of other manufacturers of similar (and no less novel) devices. I'll address that separately. Cheers. CS46 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male (and Female) Chauvinism

Hello. I nominated the two pages for deletion for being completely POV and not being able to improve : everything they say is covered by the "mysandry" or "antifeminist" pages. Narval 08:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put prod tag back please. Kappa 08:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree with merging it with Mysogyny. Else I consider the page is to be deleted. It has little value. Narval 08:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a dislike of women is different from a belief that men are superior, but if you want to try to merge them I won't try to stop you. Kappa 10:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben & Jason

I added Ben Parker to the Ben Parker disambig page. There was, I think, other articles related to this that probably need to be restored, as I may have speedied them. - CobaltBlueTony 14:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spex (magazine)

I've added the article to the Portal:Germany new articles to be expanded on section. - CobaltBlueTony 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod of Witchelny

I know we tend to disagree on these kinds of things, but before you re-deprod that article again I'd like to point you to this talk message by the article's author. The bulk of the article was created in one edit, the second edit slightly changed some wording, and then the last two edits were adding Digimon links at the bottom. Bandai has not defined this place any more than a brief mentioning on the cards for those 4 Digimon, who's articles all mention Witchelny. This article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept in an AfD. Deprod it if you must, but I don't see what good that will do. -- Ned Scott 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is supposedly the home of 4 digimon, it will only be recreated if it isn't kept or merged somewhere. Kappa 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely inappropriate, whether or not someone will try to recreate it should not mean we accept things that violate core policies. Why do you think you are helping by mass removing prods on things you know nothing about, or for reasons that are.. absurd, such as this? It's clear as hell that this article needs to be deleted and a discussion for deletion is unnecessary, which is why we have prod in the first place. You are totally violating WP:POINT, and if I have to I'll bring this to arbitration. -- Ned Scott 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, OK which core policy is it supposed to be violating? Kappa 00:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It clearly violates all three of those policies, and doesn't follow the strong recommendations of guidelines such as WP:WAF and WP:FICTION. I should not have to tell an experienced user such as your self about these basic things. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the fact this place is mentioned on 4 digimon cards is unverifiable original research? You told me that yourself. Also since it's a term that a Digimon fan would hope to look up in an Digimon encylopedia, it's hardly indiscriminate to mention it somewhere. Kappa 00:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't doubt that people are likely to search for quotes or recipes on Wikipedia, but we don't allow them. Being original research or unverifiable has nothing to do with being true or not, it has to do with having cited sources on the articles. Witchelny and the 4 Digimon articles that link to it do not cite a source for this information, and I can only assume that this is a card description (I have never seen these cards). "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The rest of the article, describing Witchelny, if it's apart of the "Digital World" or not, is all original research, and the author of the article even admits this in that talk page message I linked to. This article is a steaming pile of shit, and you seem to not have any real motive whatsoever for defending it other than your apparent hatred of the prod process. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an encylopedia, wikipedia is here to explain things, including fictional things, so someone trying to look up witchelny is doing the right thing, unlike someone looking for recipes or quotes. If the assertion that Witchelny is the home of these digimon is in fact unverifiable, that becomes a legitimate reason for deletion, however no-one had made that assertion until your previous post. I believe these cards are reasonably widely available. The rest of the article can be removed with the "edit this page" button. You appear to be losing the ability to assume good faith, and also to follow the discussion - I have already made clear my motive for defending a Digimon fan's ability to look up this topic. Kappa 12:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not include everything and anything. This is why people can't write articles about themselves, this is why trivia is strongly discouraged. A user using the search feature of Wikipedia will find any article that mentions Witchelny even if an article doesn't exist with that exact name, which is how the search is supposed to work. WP:FICT says that article splitting of this nature shouldn't be done. It makes it harder to find information when it's split in 10 different ways, and it makes it harder to maintain information for editors. As far as me assuming bad faith, that's just absurd. I'm extremely familiar with these articles and Digimon, they're all on my watch list. WP:V states Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. and The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. The responsibility is not on me to find sources to keep information that clutters Wikipedia, making legitimate information harder to find because readers have to sort though all the pointless trivia.

Being useful or being true does not mean it should be apart of Wikipedia. This is stated in policy at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is also reenforced in WP:WAF and WP:FICT, while not policy are clearly backed up by a strong consensus. In addition, deletions of this nature are also discussed at the Digimon WikiProject, where there has been little to no opposition to deleting extreme Digimon cruft. Wikipedia's content inclusion is formed by policy and consensus, and consensus is not in favor of this article. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, your apparent failure to assume good faith is revealed by this accusation: "you seem to not have any real motive whatsoever for defending it other than your apparent hatred of the prod process". As you say, "It makes it harder to find information when it's split in 10 different ways". That's why information about Witchelny should be kept or merged into one place. I can't find the words "Being useful or being true does not mean it should be apart of Wikipedia" in policy anywhere, perhaps you can point me to it, since I think it should be more like "do not in themselves mean". Anyway I don't think there is a rule against including information that helps users to understand their topic of choice, since that is what encyclopedias are for. I don't believe there's any real consensus about merging this article, although there probably is one against keeping it as a separate topic. Anyway a consensus based on such inadequate reasoning as you have provided so far needs to be challenged. Kappa 09:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to challenge it then do so on WT:DIGI. What I don't understand is the last time we has a conflict you only said that you deprodded it because my prod reasons weren't very clear, and it's hard to assume that every user uses prod correctly. I can understand that, and I said I would be more clearer next time, and I was. I also made it clear that the information that was salvageable from the article already existed in the other articles, and thus the article history for Witchelny is not needed, as it did not contribute to those articles (rather, it is the other way around). Assume good faith doesn't apply when you have adequate reason to come to another conclusion, and your past actions speak for themselves. -- Ned Scott 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I we had a conflict was over an article that had a good reason to be deleted, but I didn't realize that at the time because it wasn't in the tag. This time IMO there is no good reason not to merge or keep the salvageable part of the article, as I have explained already. Kappa 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason not to merge, all the information already exists (less speculation which would be removed if the article exists or not) on the 4 character articles that it links to. From what I can tell, the author simply used those 4 articles as his source of info. Witchelny did not contribute to any other article's content, it's hardly a common Digimon word or place, and nothing about the prod or AfD will remove legitimate content from Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we have discussed already, "It makes it harder to find information when it's split in 10 different ways" so what little information there is about Witchelny should be kept or merged into one place. Kappa 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witchelny wouldn't be an appropriate place / title for the merge of those four articles, although I would welcome just about any merge of Digimon articles. Maybe something like Wizard-type Digimon, as the Digimon themselves are far more notable and likely to be search terms than Witchelny. Keeping the article because it might be a dumping ground for other articles is not a good reason to keep it. If we are to merge information then we should do so in a logical way, not simply for the sake of keeping this little article. Not only that, but there is far more likely to be a better logical method of merging that would include more than the four articles that are related to Witchelny, so the name really wouldn't be appropriate. If the name was good then we could use it later on when a merge is proposed, as there is no danger from the article being recreated (especially since the information will still exist on those other articles). -- Ned Scott 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And even if this isn't what you had in mind with merging, it still stands to reason that such info shouldn't go on such an article as this. Digimon card game or maybe creating a Places in Digimon would be far more appropriate, and then include more information about Digimon places or something. Again, this is a situation where the article history of Witchelny would not be needed as all that information comes from the four character articles. Bad title, bad article, bad place to merge either character info or location info, content comes from other articles. Did I mention that we have no further content whatsoever to be written about this topic? -- Ned Scott 04:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that Digital World was looking a little empty, and thought perhaps it could be merged with that. Anyway as you say there are various merges possible, any of which would mean that the scant information was all available in one place and users typing "witchelny" into the search box would not be invited to re-create the article (assuming a redirect was left in place, as is normal after a merge). Kappa 04:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding Weezer songs

I've bundled those three into the AfD currently running on My Evaline, since I'm not convinced that the fact the songs are by a notable band makes them notable in themselves. BigHaz 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should simply forget about saving My Evaline. I should focus on saving "surf wax" and the rest of the actual blue album and not the deluxe edition extra songs.User:Blinkchillie90

deprod, deprod, deprod

Please explain why you deproded:

Santa Rita Elementary School

Almond Elementary School

Egan Junior High School

City Place (Winnipeg) (<--I took special care to insert this material into the article on Winnipeg so it doesn't need its own article!)

Thanks! Pan Dan 01:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep for the schools. Regarding the shopping complex, if you inserted this material into the article on Winnipeg it needs to be retained for compliance with the GFDL, see WP:MERGE (you can redirect if you like). Kappa 01:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I forgot Mayberry Mall--why did you deprod that? Pan Dan 01:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayberry Mall Kappa 02:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in The Chronicles of Narnia

Is there a reason that this article should be redirected instead of deleted? Nothing links to it. LloydSommerer 04:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been merged, see WP:MERGE.
"What links here" only functions within wikipedia, not for the entire internet.
It makes the decision reversible.

Kappa 04:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rammstein

Tell me why you depprod'd every one of the songs on Sehnsucht. Thanks

Bearingbreaker92 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always deprod verifiable songs by notable bands. Since they can always be merged, or just redirected somewhere, there is no need for deletion. Kappa 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is

Hello I'm the founder of Project:Shark. It is different because mine was official first. Therefore it shouldn't be deleted but now thanks to people like you all my work has now gone to waste. Hope someone comes and clean the mess up you people have made. Not referring to you alone. Lenny 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was only asking...I wasn't sure if you knew there was another project. I know it's not much fun when your work goes to waste. Kappa 22:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrymosa

Why bother keeping Lacrymosa? I understand the nature of merging, but the article dosn't hold any information to merge. The last thing we need is another useless song article - Wikipedia has enough of those as it is. The Son Of Nothing 19:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an article doesn't have any information to merge, it can be redirected, as you seem to have done. Kappa 22:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NI Primary schools

Very, very many thanks for expanding some of these "under threat of deletion" articles. It is very much appreciated. The argument continues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abercorn Primary School and I have appealed for help to Wikipeople in Hong Kong and Australia who have a lot of such articles and constitute a precedent (an argument currently being ignored). Many thanks again. Ardfern 18:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for korea-band-stub!!!

SKS2K6 05:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Hanley, novelist

Yes, as it is right now, I suppose a merge is necessary. Why on Earth somebody would add to an article proposed deleted as a duplicate when there is a link to the duplicate, I'll never know. What can you do, though? Erechtheus 06:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broom (clean)

Hi. Before you deprod things like Broom (clean) please do some research and please assume that the prod tag was put up by someone that did his. You are wasting everyone's time by sending this to AfD. If you truly had evidence that this was worthy of an article then please at least go defend it on AfD. If you have no argument then please do not deprod. When you deprod things at the rate of 2 a minute as you did yesterday for instance you are clearly not doing research and your negligence is an imposition on the other editors who are spending time to clean up Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prod tag said "Not notable" which implies the prodder felt no research was necessary. If the article is supposed to be unverifiable or an exaggeration, that should be confirmed by AFD. Kappa 23:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs on songs

I've noticed your name turning up on a couple of song AfDs recently, talking about deletion as a "betrayal of fans" and things like that. The songs are never nominated for deletion to "betray fans" or anything like that. It's always a case of whether or not a given song is in fact notable. I'll be the first to admit that there are some album tracks by some of my favourite artists which I'd love to see an article on here, but just because a song is a real fan favourite doesn't necessarily mean it's notable in a wider sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Betrayal is the result if its deleted. Someone who listens to a song and wants to know what it's about or how it was inspired doesn't care if its "notable" or not. Kappa 15:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yenta Claus

I am trying to figure out what is wrong and was wondering if labeling the AfD as biographical by an editor was the right place for a holiday folk hero?--Cuddles 03:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well "what is wrong" seems to be that there isn't enough verifiable evidence out there to prove that it's an established, or even an emerging, cultural phenomenon. I know not everything is on google, but unfortunately wikipedia has to demand evidence (although it's inconsistent, I know). I know you worked hard to provide it and it's a pity if the article still gets deleted. My feeling is that this is a real but currently unverifiable thing, hopefully more evidence will appear with time. If you could find it in a couple more books, that would probably be enough, or it might get more net coverage during the holiday season.

There are other places that will accept your article, perhaps wikinfo or other alternatives to wp. I'm sorry you have had such an unpleasant experience here. Also it's clearly not a biography so I've recategorized it to "society" where it fits a little better. Kappa 04:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Even if it's deleted, with the current evidence you might be able to mention Yenta in another article like Hanukkah Harry. Kappa 04:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]