Category talk:Candidates for deletion

Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion. List the Articles with delete tags under the articles, and media with the delete tag under media. Any other talk goes under "Category Talk". To say what you think on an article/media, put a number under either keep or delete where the article/media is listed, and copy this code "#[[User:<insert name here>|<insert name here>]]" (without the quotes) or just ~~~~ (four tildes). Voting will end if the discussion has been inactive for two days and has 3 or more total votes.

Discussion

When you add a topic to this page, please make it a link to the page we are discussing. This makes it a lot easier to find the pages. Thanks!

Also make sure you use the "Category:Candidates for Deletion" and not the speedy delete one so it'll be easier to find and delete topics. Thank you so much for understanding!

~Your Admins

Copy and paste the following code under the "Summaries" header:

==Replace this with the name of the page you want deleted==
Replace this with the reason you want the page deleted ~~~~
===Keep===
#
===Delete===
#
===Comments===
*

Links to categories:

• Candidates for Deletion

Summaries

A list of previous votes can be found here.

Graeme0102

This does not appear to be a proper current article, and it seems un-useful. ~Hype ^{(Message me)} 17:36, October 28, 2016 (UTC)

Delete

1. ~Hype ^{(Message me)}
2. Account does not exist anymore, can't find avatar or likes received. I believe that this is where common sense comes in. NG (talk) 18:55, October 28, 2016 (UTC)
3. benboy755

Keep

1. According to the MoS the article needs to exist. You can help the wiki by adding the proper template and format to it. The Bubble of Impossibility (wall • contribs) 17:38, October 28, 2016 (UTC)
2. Has an archive page. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless^{(Talk to me)} 17:43, October 28, 2016 (UTC)
3. Per above. Monocle Man (wall • contribs) 19:27, October 28, 2016 (UTC)
4. Per above. LegoWebby101 23:08, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
5. This doesn't need to be deleted, it just has problems. And per above. QuantumHedgehog • Message Me • Contributions •

Comments

• @Bubbles: I don't recall seeing anywhere in the MoS that the article must exist. I also didn't see anywhere that you weren't allowed to put up a CFD in certain cases? ~Hype ^{(Message me)}

• • Ahem. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless^{(Talk to me)} 17:43, October 28, 2016 (UTC)
    • Exceptions don't expressly prohibit the ability to put up CfD votes, or at least they haven't in the past. Articles that have met the MoS reqs have still been voted on to delete ~Hype ^{(Message me)}

• actually if you click the "source" link on the template it takes you to a user search page and it has 0 results "No search results found.". pretty certain that would mean "user does not exist" /Dubba Booey (talk) 17:45, October 28, 2016 (UTC)

ModFan1

Account has been deleted, no current information can be found and content on the current article is near identical to the archive. ~Hype ^{(Message me)} 12:56, October 29, 2016 (UTC)

Delete

1. ~Hype ^{(Message me)}
2. NG (talk) 13:04, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
3. benboy755

Keep

1. Has an archive page, just needs to be "converted" to new MB standards. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless^{(Talk to me)} 12:58, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
2. Has archive The Bubble of Impossibility (wall • contribs) 22:56, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
3. *dabs* Monocle Man (wall • contribs) 23:03, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
4. Per above LegoWebby101 23:08, October 29, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• @Ale: that's not entirely possible because the account is literally deleted, there's no way of getting an avatar, post count, or any current information ~Hype ^{(Message me)} 13:00, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • Graeme0102. Good enough. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless^{(Talk to me)} 13:02, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
    • seriously? there is no avatar and the article is not even correct as the user never existed on the new mbs but because policy!!! it cannot be deleted and common sense cannot be used NG (talk) 13:04, October 29, 2016 (UTC)

Myrmidon02

This logic should be reaaaaallly straightforward. According to the article, he lost his account in 2005 which quite literally means that there is no current information available, not to mention that the user doesn't exist anymore. ~Hype ^{(Message me)} 13:09, October 29, 2016 (UTC)

Delete

1. ~Hype ^{(Message me)}
2. but he has an archive hyper!! NG (talk) 13:12, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
3. benboy755

Keep

1. Yes, has an archive. "Common sense" should not be an excuse for the deletion of perfectly acceptable articles. Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless^{(Talk to me)} 13:15, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
2. Per above The Bubble of Impossibility (wall • contribs) 22:56, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
3. *dabs* Monocle Man (wall • contribs) 23:03, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
4. Per above. LegoWebby101 23:07, October 29, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• kindly explain in what wau are these "perfectly acceptable," because to me they look like they're missing large amounts of information that it's not possible to get anymore. ~Hype ^{(Message me)} 13:20, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not missing if it doesn't even exist, Hyper. The only thing we could say is that he'd have no rank and 0 likes. If we added that, it'd be a nearly complete article. Rank, number of likes, number of posts. Only information not present would be the forums he/she posted in, otherwise it could even be defined as "complete". The lack of the aforementioned piece of information means the article would only be "acceptable". Still don't see a reason for deleting these articles... Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless^{(Talk to me)} 13:32, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • That logic bothers me, but how about the small matter of gevs been inactive since 2005,what point is there to even keeping it? ~Hype ^{(Message me)}

• • • To show people users from before the Great Migration, perhaps? He's even got the "Pre-Great Migration" category. We should keep articles on these historical (for the MBs) figures, not delete them because "they're inactive". Alemas2005: Mostly Harmless^{(Talk to me)} 13:47, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
    • Archives exist. We can put the category on the archive. It's not proprietary to the current article. And it's not because "he's inactive," it's because "he's been inactive for so long that he has no information after the 2012 update," which I daresay is what current articles are for. ~Hype ^{(Message me)}

• "perfectly acceptable" literally all of the information is made up as he never had no rank, that avatar, likes received, or badges but ok NG (talk) 13:23, October 29, 2016 (UTC)
• Quick question, why does he have an archive in the first place? kƎd 22:59, October 29, 2016 (UTC)