Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSI List (Mother series)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:24Z
[edit] PSI List (Mother series)
Wikipedia is not a video game guide. "Article" consists solely of lists of powers in a video game, hit points, etc. Nothing to merge, since this information doesn't even belong in the parent article. It just needs to be deleted. Kafziel Talk 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep PSI has relevance to the storyline in each game of the Mother series (and should exist in the article, but does not), relevance which was suggested by another user on my talks page to be added not thirty minutes before this AFD was suggested by A Link to the Past, who already has several open discussions on his talk page pertaining to other articles he has attempted to redirect or delete when a user disagrees with his blanking and/or redirecting. All this, and a bit of meatpuppetry too. That aside, the storyline significance is relevant enough that it warrants a separate article, and it would be redundant to enter the information in each game's respective article.--PeanutCheeseBar 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let me clarify something here: are you saying I'm a meatpuppet of A Link to the Past? --PeanutCheeseBar 14:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Kafziel Talk 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not you. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then who was it that committed meatpuppetry? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - It's a simple battle mechanic that can be placed in a gameplay section. Nemu 18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, also: "The information on this page was taken from the Nintendo official guidebooks.", based on the presentation in the article, I would suspect copyvio. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete thin list with relatively little context. I think it's possible for the information to be included in another article (eg. see Category:Video game magic or Category:Video game weapons), but if it were, it would have to be rewritten as prose rather than a bare list. --Interiot 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Even after I removed the amount of damage done, who can use it, the Japanese name, the effects of the attack, the description of the attack, and the multiple variants of the attack, it's still pretty pointless and nn. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - a rather vague list that if expanded, would transform into a guide. Metrackle 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this belongs on a gaming wiki, not an encyclopedia. Koweja 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, Sounds like it could be somewhat useful in another context, but when presented in this form, it needs to be deleted, and could even be speedily deleted under CSD A1
- Storyline significance has been added to the article, and other improvements have been made as well. My vote remains strong keep --PeanutCheeseBar 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've adequately added the Mother backstory content to the series article, so this list still isn't necessary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- What you added was hardly "adequate"; it covered the discovery of PSI in one game, you didn't even list WHICH game it was, and the intro paragraph that you copied was one of the rewritten entries. It isn't a "pick and choose" event. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I merged everything but list content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, you still didn't merge everything. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- When I merged it my above statement was true. Regardless, the content doesn't belong on a list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's already been determined that you're not the best person to make that decision, as demonstrated by your repeated attempts to get rid of the Frank Grimes page and as Kafziel has shown on his own talks page in reference to your other mergers of Zelda locations. Once or twice, I can assume good faith; repeatedly (and over the objections of others several times), it's vandalism. --PeanutCheeseBar 03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure that any self-respecting Wikipedian would say that because I remove content from Wikipedia on the basis that it doesn't belong, that I am intentionally trying to damage Wikipedia. I'm not the best person to make the decision? Right, I guess because I do an obviously disliked act - merging articles - what I think should get merged doesn't matter. People don't like that I merge articles that they like? My Gosh, I didn't think people like that existed! Also, nice job reading the Zelda dispute - if you had, you would have figured that Kafziel disputed it because I didn't open discussion, not because it was a controversial move. I'm also wondering who committed meatpuppetry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think a self-respecting Wikipedian would say that if you blank pages and make them redirect elsewhere and it's drawn complaints in the past, that you need to open a discussion before doing so again. I took up issue with you because you did not open a discussion (which was my bigger complaint) before doing the merge, and it appears that you hardly EVER (if at all) open up a discussion before doing so. Even then, part of the problem is that when you DO merge, you don't do a very good job of it (and I'm apparently not the first person to take notice of this). You've created a list of articles on your user page that you say will "possibly be merged", yet when I randomly click on a few of them, NONE of them have templates suggesting they be merged. You may do it under the guise of "improving" Wikipedia, but in reality all you've done is created a "hit list" of articles that you'll either blank and redirect or merge without further warning; the only way people will know what articles get hit will be if they look at your page, and that's not nearly enough warning, nor does it open the floor for discussion. Wikipedia is not your own personal sandbox. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- No policy suggests that I need to open discussion. The only thing that is said is "don't merge/redirect if it's controversial". And how do you say I don't do a very good job of it? My merge of the Kanto, Johto, and Hoenn locations had me making hundreds of edits to fix links, redirects, and orphaned images. Next time, Cheese, assume that since I've been here for 2+ years, I know what I'm doing.
- And I once again ask - who committed meatpuppetry? - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Given that you've made quite a few merges/redirects in the recent past that have been viewed as controversial (if they weren't, people likely would not object on your talk page), I'd say you're not following that policy very well. Regardless of whether or not it's a policy, it's still good practice to open a discussion first, and it would likely save you some controversy and conflict if you did open a discussion before making a merge or redirect; if nobody objects or participates after a week, you've got some justification to do so.
- You said you merged 'everything', although you merged the content for ONE game. I checked the other pages after you said you did, and it was quite obvious that you didn't; I'd hardly say that's a quality merge job. I don't care how long you've been here, that's still no excuse to blank and redirect things as you wish, and given my objections and the objections of others on your talk page, it seems I am not the only person who takes issue with this practice of yours. So, I will ask one last time that you cease this practice until you can either learn to "play nice" and hold a discussion (or at least put a merge template on the page for a while) before you decide to make any drastic changes, and maybe finish what you start before you decide to go and blow away other articles without giving it a second thought; after all, if you've been around for two years, I have no grounds on which to ask why you created an article stub and left it alone for six months (though I'm sure you'll get around to it eventually). --PeanutCheeseBar 14:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, they weren't. Very few articles DON'T have controversy over them. However, I'm not going to say "because someone wrote this article and definitely will be unhappy to see it go, I won't merge without discussion". Good practice, huh? Well, it's POLICY to be bold. I was bold in my actions. I did not merge ANYTHING that had controversy to it. I'm not going to ASSUME that people will react that way - and very few of my merges have been of articles with controversy over them being merged. At no point does Wikipedia say that you should assume that an article's merge is controversial.
- Nice job selectively reading there. You read where I said that I merged everything, but not where I said "at the time that I merged it, I HAD merged everything"? And, yes, there is - I repeat, it is policy to be bold. I don't have to ask peoples' permission every time I merge or redirect. And so what of List of Mother locations? I created it because Magicant could not stand alone as its own article. If I had AfD'd it instead, it'd be deleted, redirected, or merged into one of the EarthBound/Mother articles. I have no intention of improving List of Mother locations - not just because I still think that it's not that important, but also because I never got very far in Mother.
- And AGAIN - who committed meatpuppetry? - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you wish to continue this discussion, it will not be on the AfD page; try your talk page instead, as that's what it's there for. Of course, I don't need to tell you that... --PeanutCheeseBar 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if there's a reason why you won't answer me when I ask you who violated policy by committing meatpuppetry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- This conflict has been resolved amicably. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if there's a reason why you won't answer me when I ask you who violated policy by committing meatpuppetry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you wish to continue this discussion, it will not be on the AfD page; try your talk page instead, as that's what it's there for. Of course, I don't need to tell you that... --PeanutCheeseBar 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think a self-respecting Wikipedian would say that if you blank pages and make them redirect elsewhere and it's drawn complaints in the past, that you need to open a discussion before doing so again. I took up issue with you because you did not open a discussion (which was my bigger complaint) before doing the merge, and it appears that you hardly EVER (if at all) open up a discussion before doing so. Even then, part of the problem is that when you DO merge, you don't do a very good job of it (and I'm apparently not the first person to take notice of this). You've created a list of articles on your user page that you say will "possibly be merged", yet when I randomly click on a few of them, NONE of them have templates suggesting they be merged. You may do it under the guise of "improving" Wikipedia, but in reality all you've done is created a "hit list" of articles that you'll either blank and redirect or merge without further warning; the only way people will know what articles get hit will be if they look at your page, and that's not nearly enough warning, nor does it open the floor for discussion. Wikipedia is not your own personal sandbox. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure that any self-respecting Wikipedian would say that because I remove content from Wikipedia on the basis that it doesn't belong, that I am intentionally trying to damage Wikipedia. I'm not the best person to make the decision? Right, I guess because I do an obviously disliked act - merging articles - what I think should get merged doesn't matter. People don't like that I merge articles that they like? My Gosh, I didn't think people like that existed! Also, nice job reading the Zelda dispute - if you had, you would have figured that Kafziel disputed it because I didn't open discussion, not because it was a controversial move. I'm also wondering who committed meatpuppetry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's already been determined that you're not the best person to make that decision, as demonstrated by your repeated attempts to get rid of the Frank Grimes page and as Kafziel has shown on his own talks page in reference to your other mergers of Zelda locations. Once or twice, I can assume good faith; repeatedly (and over the objections of others several times), it's vandalism. --PeanutCheeseBar 03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- When I merged it my above statement was true. Regardless, the content doesn't belong on a list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, you still didn't merge everything. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I merged everything but list content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- What you added was hardly "adequate"; it covered the discovery of PSI in one game, you didn't even list WHICH game it was, and the intro paragraph that you copied was one of the rewritten entries. It isn't a "pick and choose" event. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've adequately added the Mother backstory content to the series article, so this list still isn't necessary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's a game guide. While this information is factual and absolutely true about the Mother series, that doesn't make it a valid inclusion on Wikipedia. This is game guide material which will not be relevant to anyone who has not played the game. Even if it were couched in phrases meant to try to broaden the audience it is directed at, it's excessive detail on a subject which doesn't require it. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Not encyclopedic, entirely in-universe, nothing meeting WP:ATT. Wickethewok 06:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:36, 16 March 2007 (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.
