Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alyeska/Battlefield 2 Ranks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Arguably this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but arguably Alyeska is not the only user with some articles in userspace; I don't consider four to be an excessive amount. (Radiant) 08:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alyeska/Battlefield 2 Ranks

Recreation of a deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of ranks in Battlefield 2, by user who labels it some others: The following pages are those that have been wrongly deleted from Wikipedia and that I have saved in my user space. Feel free to edit these pages and improve upon them, but you are not allowed to remove any of my opinions from them. These are my user pages that I am working on as a personal project to restore and improve upon from before they were deleted. Since the arguments for deletion centered not on quality but suitability, that's not going to happen. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See also:

--Calton | Talk 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Some of y'all seem to be suggesting that these pages should be keep so that Alyeska can improve them. The tone I got from the AFD I cite wasn't that it just needed a buff and polish to make it acceptable, but that it was inherently -- by its nature and subject -- unsuitable for inclusion at all, period/full stop. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Halo 2, started yesterday about yet another attempt to revive that particular game-guide list. Precedence, generally, is that these sorts of lists aren't acceptable, period/full stop, and all the perfumes of Araby ain't gonna make 'em Wikipedia articles. If he wants them that badly, let him put them on his own webhost. --Calton | Talk 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment And yet pages on Star Trek ships seen on screen for all of 5 minutes are allowed? Who draws the line? What qualifies a ship from Trek to have a page when wildly more popular Halo (which has 2 games and 2 more under production, 4 novels, and a possible movie) related pages get deleted? That line seems awfuly arbitrary.Alyeska 23:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
...wildly more popular Halo'... Without commenting on Trek-cruft in generally, merely to note your grasp on reality: Star Trek has spawned 5 television series, 1 animated series, 10 movies, and hundreds of novels; it has been the basis for god-knows-how-many ancillary texts, fan guides, fan films, computer games, board games, RPGs, tech manuals, comic books, and a metric buttload of fanfiction; it has spawned numerous catch-phrases, memes, and even inspiration for technological advances (the first Space Shuttle was even NAMED 'Enterprise): on what planet does this make Halo "wildly more popular"? And more to the point, even on the Bizarro World where this would be true, so what? Especially considering that you were all for keeping an article regarding a Star Trek ship that never even appeared on screen [1], what's with the apparent change of heart? --Calton | Talk 00:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Trek might be large, but parts of it can be very small. And you should take note in the significantly decreasing popularity of each movie and series. FYI, Trek inspired no technological advances. Most of Trek technology is a load of non-sense. Trek invented the term Treknobabble. Halo is vastly more popular right now then any of the recent incarnations of Trek. Furthermore, do your research. That article you linked to isn't about a ship, its about a battlegroup. I made no change of heart. The point is to expose a double standard that is operating on Wikipedia. Alyeska 00:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
All the hand-flapping and back-pedaling doesn't change anything I said one iota: you said Halo was "wildly more popular" than Star Trek, a statement so obviously at odds with reality that I have to question your grasp of it.
The point is to expose a double standard that is operating on Wikipedia. What "double standard" would that be? That article went down like the Hindenburg. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And yet you haven't posted a shred of evidence to prove me wrong. You want me to be wrong, but you haven't posted anything to prove me wrong. Ask someone on the street who Captain Archer of Trek is. Ask someone on the street who Master Chief of Halo is. You will get better responses on Picard and Kirk or Klingons, but that is because of market saturation. Look up the sales figures of the most recent Trek film, compare that to the sales figures of Halo 2. Alyeska 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And yet you haven't posted a shred of evidence to prove me wrong.. We have now crossed the border from "wrong" into "outright fabrication" -- not even done well, since I wrote (see if this sounds familiar) ...Star Trek has spawned 5 television series, 1 animated series, 10 movies, and hundreds of novels; it has been the basis for god-knows-how-many ancillary texts, fan guides, fan films, computer games, board games, RPGs, tech manuals, comic books, and a metric buttload of fanfiction; it has spawned numerous catch-phrases, memes, and even inspiration for technological advances (the first Space Shuttle was even NAMED Enterprise). And banging on about cherry-picked irrelevancies doesn't help you either.
You will get better responses on Picard and Kirk or Klingons, but that is because of market saturation. Thank you for proving my point for me.
I'm giving up arguing this, given that you've reached the point of making my arguments for me. Are you even reading your own arguments before posting them? --Calton | Talk 23:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice red herring. The Shuttle Enterprise was potentialy named after the Original Series Enterprise (There is also the fact that the name Enterprise has a proud history on ships and air vehicles). I am talking about ships that have shown up in subsiquent series which had far less popularity. Alyeska 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Red herrings? Jesus, talk about psychological projection -- everything you've typed has been nothing BUT red herrings: you said Halo was "wildly more popular" than Star Trek: not Star Trek: Enterprise, not Star Trek: The Comic Book, not Star Trek: The Plumbing Manual; STAR TREK, period/full stop/EOL. And as for your handwaving about the Space Shuttle, take a look at this picture: Image:Space shuttle enterprise star trek.jpg. Anyone seem familiar?
Okay, I really am done, given that this has degenerated from you being wrong and ignoring inconvenient facts to you simply Making Shit Up. Playing Whack-a-Mole with the obsessed is NOT my idea of a good time. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom, except it should be noted that User:Alyeska/Weapons of Halo doesn't really have any content at all and should be excluded. I also tagged some 25 images with {{subst:orfud}}. (changed to keep, see below) MER-C 05:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the "See also" list is more a reference than a group nomination -- I didn't look at them -- intended to establish context. Whether they're considered together or separately, I leave up to the discussion. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep Sod the hell off. These are my private pages that I am working on you prick. Each and every one was given to me by an admin. Alyeska 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep How about you give Aly the chance to get these pages in line with WP:WEB and other policies instead of calling an all-out jihad against this information!?!? This is clearly a violation of good faith and I will see it ended!  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I suggest you moderate your tone. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Calton, stay the hell off my private page. You are neither welcome nor wanted. This nomination is a farce and ignores the fact that I already have admin approval. I will continue to revert your unwanted edits and if you continue I will report you for vandalism. Alyeska 06:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You may not control who does and does not post on your Talk page. If you report Calton for vandalism for making perfectly legitimate comments on your Talk page, I will block you for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well this nomination makes Wiki policy a joke. I was told by multiple people in the last AFD I was involved in that private user pages are a means of safeguarding a page and allowing for it to be worked on and improved so that it can potentially be petitioned for undeletion. Going about deleting peoples private pages goes against this very principle. And of course the fact that each and every one of these pages was created by an admin also points out that Wiki administration is allowing these pages. Finaly, going about trying to get someones private page is rather arrogant. Its one thing to try and get a page deleted because you think it doesn't meet Wiki standards. Its another to go about trying to get peoples private work and projects deleted because you don't like it. Its the height of arrogance. The "I'm right and your wrong" attitude that goes to the extreme. Alyeska 06:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now per above. The pages are only a month old. If they aren't touched in a month's time then they could possibly be MfD material. MER-C 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons already enumerated by Alyeska. MarineTanker 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Query - What is being nom'd exactly? All of them? Just BF2 ranks? StarDestroyer.net is over a year old, but some of the others are more recent. Wickethewok 07:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it's not uncommon for deleted articles to be userfied. I doubt they'll become article worthy, but he's free to make the attempt. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per there being no legitimate reason to delete. Rogue 9 07:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep userfication is a widely used and near-universally accepted way of retaining unencyclopedic content in a way that gives it the possibility of becoming encyclopedic in the future. Unless someone can give me some valid reason why userfication should suddenly be banned, I see no reason to delete this. Cynical 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete this and the other article replicas on Alyeska's user space. This is a mischievous way to dodge the deletion process and would open a bad, bad precedent. If this becomes a fashion, we'll soon be userfying all the articles on AfD just because someone is willing to keep them. Opens the path for recreation. This is not an attack against Alyeska, he's free to save these articles to his computer if he finds them useful, but keeping them this way is just wrong and against WP:POINT.--Húsönd 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I thought we were writing an Encyclopedia? In that regards, keeping articles on user space to try to improve them is central to the very reason of our existence. Sure, you may say he has no intent of improving them and trying to get them added, but I don't think that's a call that should have to be made for every single user. In the interest of allowing everyone the right, I say keep them in this case. --Falcorian (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --164.107.92.120 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stardestroyer.net has been in his userspace for over a year (those arguing to "give Aly the chance" and claiming the pages are only a month old haven't done their research) without any indication that the article will ever pass a deletion review; it's clearly had long enough. The other three pages are intrinsically unencyclopaedic and have no chance of becoming encyclopaedia articles. Wikipedia is not a free web host. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To all participants: Ahem (!) --Iamunknown 18:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Assuming that admins moved deleted articles to the user space, and assuming that the user intends to actually edit them and attempt to change them. The main reasons the articles were shot down, if I'm not mistaken, was notability. Now some, like the ranks pages, should probably go. But the rest could either be worked on and merged into the main articles, or fixed up and made articles in their own right. I am a strong Deletionist, but I draw the line at conducting witch-hunts on people's user pages. I also have a problem with Calton's creepy fixation on user pages, but that's just me. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 18:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you Ms. Harpy.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Your statement isn't so much a personal attack as it is bone-stupid. "Creepy"? "Fixation"? Which of my 15,000+ edits do you believe reflect this, Dr. Freud? --Calton | Talk 00:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the older stuff per wikipedia is not a free webhost and recent arbcom decisions -"user subpages may be used to hold "a work in progress, until it is ready to be released". This does not allow users to use the user namespace to store pages that would be deleted from the main encyclopedia or tendentious forks of articles therein" --pgk 19:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolutely. Wikipedia does not exist to host stuff that editors wish hadn't been (perfectly properly) deleted. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But that's just it; I know at least one (stardestroyer.net) was not properly deleted, because it had just undergone AfD three weeks before with a result of Keep. There should be more time than that between AfDs; the article was apparently the subject of a witch hunt on the part of people banned from the site's forum. Rogue 9 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Then take it to deletion review, we can all declare out favourite deleted content to not have been done properly, it isn't an excuse to keep it in our user space, if you can demonstrate it wasn't deleted preoperly, deletion review will be trivial. --pgk 07:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, recreation of deleted content. User space is not for keeping deleted material. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Note Speedy deletion criterium G4 does not apply to content recreated in the user space.--Húsönd 03:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User page says you may not have non-encyclopedic material on your User page. Since an AfD has decided that this is non-encyclopedic material, it is inappropriate on a User page or subpage. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not contesting that. Just that it does not qualify for speedy.--Húsönd 03:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: I'm confused. Is this discussion about whether to keep or delete Alyeska's Battlefield 2 subpage, or is it about whether to keep or delete Alyeska's five subpages (1 2 3 4 5) listed here? --Iamunknown 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: The four subpages under the "see also" link are confusing. I realize that Wickethewok asked the same question earlier in the discussion, but I don't see an answer. Am I missing something? I am missing something. Calton said earlier that "Whether they're [all five subpages] considered together or separately, I leave up to the discussion." I cannot cite any policies or the actual Afd, but I remember one Afd that was closed due to the confusion surrounding a multitude of articles being nominated for deletion. Users voted for one (the main one), several, all, or none. Does closure based on violation of policy apply to this? (Does such a policy even exist?) --Iamunknown 03:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Possible delete all if the nominator was trying to do that (since I agree either way). These articles are pure fancruft, and the website is a non-notable website. TJ Spyke 06:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Congrats on being entirely incorrect. The article up for MFD is not a website. And please show me the Wiki policy that states user pages can't be fan based. Your vote is backed by entirely invalid opinion. Alyeska 06:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Stardestroyer.net IS a website. I was saying that if that's included in the nomination as well, then I vote delete for that too. TJ Spyke 20:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The information does not qualify as notable by wikipedia guidelines in any event, as was the basis for the earlier deletion. Wikipedia is not a place where individuals can attempt to game the system by recreating pages in userspace that have already been found to qualify for deletion, as per User:Pgk above. Badbilltucker 20:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Alyeska.--KrossTalk 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, borderline WP:CSD#U3 speedy, almost a fair use gallery. If kept, remove all the images. Kusma (討論) 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The images are already tagged for deletion. Thats a non-issue. I have the links in the article itself because I want the links to remain regardless of the existance of the images. Alyeska 23:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since the rank insignia (save the first one) are just armyfied versions of their real USMC counterparts, you could probably just use the ones from the Marine officer and enlisted rank insignia pages to get the same point across. MarineTanker 03:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not completely irrelevant content. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 01:55, 20 November 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/s/Wikipedia%7EMiscellany_for_deletion_User%7EAlyeska_Battlefield_2_Ranks_9314.html"