Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakal an-Khâr

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 of the debate was delete all. I excluded a number of sockpuppet keep votes, though it didn't make much of a difference. Mindmatrix 20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sakal an-Khâr, Anarikê, Tanturak and Anbalukkhôr

These two articles were created by the same user who gave us Bellakar, which has been repeated deleted. The articles describe lands created in LotR fanfic, and I believe that's probably all we have to say about that. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, nor an indiscriminate infodump. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. From each article: "It is a fan unfinished work" --Quarl 12:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these should of been speedied. They are non-notable fan works from the same mailing list as the first one and by extention of this been should of been speedy deleted. But now they are going to get their five days of fame and there will probably be some keep votes from the sockpuppets who keep reposting these. QQ 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these actually were marked for speedy but the tags got removed before anyone could act on it. In addition to the non-notable nature of the work there are also verifiability issues since the only source is a restricted mailing list. The fact that the articles keep getting reposted in detail also suggests they are being copied from that restricted list, creating potential copyvio issues. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Proposing to delete these articles entirely violates the wikipedia webhost, which IS a free webhost where we can find many interesting articles. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. If these articles are removed, then we can all assume that Wikipedia is a RESTRICTED encyclopedia, where only few articles are admitted. Alcantar (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You're wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a webhost, and you do not have the right to post whatever you want here. By the way, I've taken the liberty of altering your .sig on the presumption that you weren't intending to impersonate User:Quaque. In future, please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your notes, instead of copying and pasting someone else's .sig — signing properly will help you avoid confusion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Alcantar, "only few articles"?? You must be joking. There are currently 1,528,500 articles, and this figure is unlikely to plateau anytime soon. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:43, Dec. 26, 2005
    • No I am not joking. Who takes the final decision, which text to keep, which text to correct ? A decision of one people (or ten), comparing to those who visit these pages is ILLEGAL, and all the Bellakar stuff should be restaured and not deleted. This debate is nasty. Alcantar (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Decisions on content are usually made based on community consensus. There is nothing 'illegal' about that. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • But you forget the issue of the AFD. You can't have a community consensus, this is the will of few people. So all this debate is nasty and prevent other users to post their contributions. Alcantar (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you are talking about the 'speedy deletion' of Bellakar. That's actually different from 'AFD'. Bellakar was previously discussed, similar to the pages listed here, and deleted by community consensus. There is a procedure for arguing that it should be restored here. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You keep using the word "illegal". I do not think it means what you think it means. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 17:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Careful, could be Mr. Treason. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:28, Dec. 26, 2005

Note: Anbalukkhôr and Tanturak added as of the time in my .sig. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with a plea for speedy deleting any self-identified fan fiction. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:43, Dec. 26, 2005
• Protect the pages, then slap a big ol' {{deleted}} template over 'em. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete burn, protect, lock, shred and otherwise remove this cruft forever. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What really is cruft ? Not the article itself, but all the nasty comments. And when I hear the comments of some users, I can see they are intolerant.Alcantar (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a duplicate vote (see Alcantar's other 'keep' vote above). Previous repeat vote from this user was edited into a comment. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Keep this please, or discard all the texts of wikipedia. Deletion process is really, really bad and means that wikipedia is not free and submitted to the will of few individuals who are true fanatics of what can be written and what can't be written. All these texts should be kept. Fulzin (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you two actually know what Wikipedia is? It's not a free webhost for anything that takes your fancy, you know. It's an honest-to-goodness attempt at creating an encyclopaedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Then wikipedia is an entire failure. I disagree with you. This is a dictatorial encyclopedia, no less. You decided that wikipedia was not a free webhost, which is an entire mess, and I would speak of wikipedia lies.Fulzin (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Where in the hell did you get that idea? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Crap that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia of general knowledge, like made-up fan fiction that only you know about, simply doesn't belong, and is going to be deleted. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but not a free webhost. Erase the term "free" as there is nothing free and sympathic there. .Pete Fenlon (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a 'free encyclopedia' in the sense that you don't have to pay to look things up... as you would for a paper encyclopedia or other electronic encyclopedias such as Britannica's. It is NOT a 'free webhost' in that you aren't allowed to use it to post any material you would like... only material which one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Now, people have made 'encyclopedias of Middle-earth' and thus you see alot of Middle-earth articles in Wikipedia... but nobody would ever make (or buy) an 'encyclopedia of unfinished fan RPG material set in Middle-earth'. It's just not the kind of thing ANYONE is ever going to need a handy encyclopedic reference guide to. What you should do is post your materials to geocities or some other web-host site. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejucide - this is just confusing. This fanboy is trying to alter LotR mythos by creating his own made up locations. This certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyde (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 December 2005.
  • Speaking on Delete ? You'll then prove that wikipedia is no worth, while LotR mythos can certainly be expanded, and REALLY belongs to an encyclopedia. Fulzin (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I would say the LotR mythos shouldn't be expanded. And even if you are going to make stuff up and expand it yourself, it certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia of general knowledge, but a personal website. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For God's sake, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general knowledge (or at least an attempt at one). Why don't all of you cruft-fans go to Wikicities and add to any of the wikis there, or start a new one, on any topic that suits your fancy. 131.111.8.103 18:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. A few hints: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information, which means that stuff you make up should not be included unless it's pretty widely known and somehow significant. As fuddlemark has pointed out, WP is not a "free web-host", and I would also endorse the comment of Cyde above. I do hope you'll all stay and contribute to the The Lord of the Rings articles and any others you're interested in. Bikeable 18:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A free or not a free webhost is not really the point. The fact here is that there are many intolerant people who can't be OK with other people opinion. Delete is their only arguement, and a not really convincing one .Pete Fenlon (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the two "keep" votes by Pete Fenlon were created in the same edit, which is Mr. Fenlon's first and only edit thusfar. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:16, Dec. 26, 2005
    • Haha, I like how he voted twice in one edit. That, errr, says something about him. And his argument basically boils down to us being intolerant of other people's opinions? What? That's not what this is about. This is about determining whether or not content merits inclusion in Wikipedia. This content patently does not belong as it is entirely original research. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And that really says something on you. Why couldn't Fenlon post a vote and a comment ? I interpreted the second response as a comment, and not as a second vote. Your argument boils down, intolerant may be you are ... Fulzin (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Not only did you "interpret", but you changed Fenlon's second vote to a Comment. Please do not change other people's votes. Bikeable 21:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Fulzin is a new user account and his only edits are to this AfD page. This is getting ridiculous. It's a bunch of votes for deletion and then a bunch of sockpuppets for keeping it. And the sockpuppets think we are blatantly stupid ... modifying their own votes? Please, we know how to use a Page History. I trust that the admin closing this discussion will see through all of this nonsense. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment All this discussion is entirely non sense, while there is no real argument against these texts. Sockpuppets for deletion, and others for keeping it. This only proves that wikipedia is not a free encyclopedia, and this can't be trusted for that precise reason. This is dictatorial, and many intolerant views... These intolerant opinions entirely discredit the idea of an free encyclopedia.Alcantar (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What a terrible mischaracterization. "Sockpuppets for deletion"? LMAO. Look at my edit history, I am no sockpuppet. You, on the other hand, only have edits on this page and the pages for deletion in question. And you obviously do not know what an encyclopedia is, nor do you understand what the usage of the word "free" means in this context. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I can assure you that YOU are a sockpuppet. Your attitude, and your non respect towards others who don't agree with you proves that you are a sockpuppet. And yes, I have no more interest on wikipedia, because of the hostile reception to these few articles that does no harm to the encyclopedia, but improves it. This enriches the encyclopedia, but blatantly you can't see it. Thank you Cyde Weys and some other "sockpuppets delete" (and I was not the one who brought that insult here !Alcantar (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have no idea what a sock puppet is. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete delete all per nom - FrancisTyers 22:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete delete all, pre nom. -- Vary | Talk 23:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete all. Be careful not to tread on the newbies toes - there was a time when none of us knew what Wikipedia was, so the fact that they don't know is only natural. To those who have saifd keep, a question: would you expect to find these articles in Encyclopedia Britannica? If the answer is no, then ask yourself why you'd expect to find them in any other encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia stuff is in question, and new pages added CAN BE ERASED WITHOUT ANY WARNING, and every content on a page can BE MODIFIED WITHOUT SENDING A MESSAGE TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. Alcantar (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's what Wikipedia is. Yes, anyone can edit any article put here... that's the whole idea. If you want to host a page that only you can change... Wikipedia is not the place for it. Again, I urge you to simply find a web-host such as Geocities for your project. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 09:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment ... and every user or administrator, can put an AFD on some pages he considers for a speedy deletion, and delete the pages (CENSURE). Alcantar (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyone can nominate any page for AFD, sure. But as you'll see from a quick glance at the AFD archives, they'll soon get told off if they nominate pages which are encyclopaedic, with the pages so nominated being speedily kept. And a large number of the borderline cases which are nominated survive the AFD process. That's what consensus is all about. And there are very strict rules as to which pages can be speedy deleted, as a glance at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion will show. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete most fan fictions are not notable, and these articles do state that it is a "work in progress." Tripod will be welcome to have those pages, but Wikipedia is not the place to host uncompleted fan-fics. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 02:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, per nom --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete with fire. FFINN.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into a article that's something like [Locations in Lord of the Rings]. I believe there is some good content in there but needs to be cleaned up and other locations added. SandBoxer 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't understand. These aren't real locations in the LotR mythos. They're all made up by a small number of fans from a Yahoo! discussion group. This information is patently non-encyclopedic and including it on a page of actual LotR locations created by J.R.R. Tolkien would be doing a disservice to the quality of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien. Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar tenn' Ambar-metta. Sorry, just had to establish my LOTR-credibility there for a second. Now, this is the sort of thing that will not do. Fan fiction is subject to severe requirements of notability before it can reach encyclopedic value, and I do not thing any fanfic, anywhere has ever succeeded in it. This is how it should be. Ergo, Delete. --Agamemnon2 08:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, per nom. — mark ✎ 11:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is an obvious delete. And isn't it an amazing coincidence that all of the "keep" votes on here are written with the same terrible English grammar? ;) Kafziel 14:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all related pages nn fanfic — meatpuppets need to go, too. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment remove some parts of my earlier comments.Alcantar (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • sorry, no can do. Signed comments to wikispace pages and talk pages aren't removed, since that can seriously distort the sense of a user's comments. Do you really want other people deciding what is to be kept and what is to be removed of the things you said here? Grutness...wha? 00:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It appears from the history that Alcantar meants "removed some parts", which indeed they did, ever-so-slightly toning down the wikipedia-bashing. Bikeable 02:00, 28 December 2005 (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.