Category:Hockey families – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 05:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Hockey families (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` There was no clear consensus to remove this category. There were just as many people saying keep the category as saying get rid of it.--Djsasso 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Just as a comment, you were the only person who argued to keep the category. Misrepresenting the facts in the CfD is not looked upon kindly by me or, I'd assume, most others. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] I don't know what cfd you were looking at but I see 3 people saying keep the main cat. I am not advocating keeping the two others. I am only advocating the main cat be kept. --Djsasso 02:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Failing to count the actual votes before chastising someone for (accurately) counting the votes is not looked kindly upon by me, or, I would hope, most others. RGTraynor 04:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] You're right, I missed the one tacked on 3 indents in and also missed the last one. I've struck my comment and I'll let others read for themselves. I'll just say "point taken" to your snark; I shouldn't say things like that when I'm only skimming. I guess I'm just conditioned by the numerous frivolous DRV complaints I see every day. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Which was exactly why I put this up in the first place. I thought maybe the closing admin also missed those. --Djsasso 16:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - Not a vote, so vote counting isn't at issue. Of the keeps one is on the basis of a previous discussion was no-consensus so... Doesn't work like that consensus can change, surviving one discussion doesn't give a free pass for any future discussion. One of the other keeps initially says delete when challenged says keep the main category (this one) but gives no rationale. The final in favour of the main category only, but not for use in the way it was being used, again no rationale. Not being a vote it looks a reasonable closing to me. --pgk 06:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as closer. As stated in the nom, "the main category is being used as a dumping ground for any hockey player who has a relative who plays hockey, creating the false impression of familial relationships far beyond those that exist". This is a strong argument that was not addressed by any of the "keep" commenters. Perhaps a list article should be created. >Radiant< 08:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: It's actually quite a weak argument. First off, it ascribes a motive never explicitly or implicitly expressed. Secondly, I'm wondering where nom got his information about how close familial relationships between hockey players are, because the degree to which most players are chummy or not with their kinfolk is unknown to most of us hockey researchers. Unlike the nom's entirely subjective POV -- does he characterize every category as a "dumping ground" for those articles which, err, um, match the category? -- it was a terribly unsubjective cat; are these two hockey players related? RGTraynor 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - you appear to have misunderstood the nomination. It had nothing to do with how close related people were. There were something like 100 individuals, most of whom were related to at most one other person in the category, categorized as "family" members. The false impression given (whether explicitly or implicitly) was that individual members of the category were related to each of the other individual members of the category. Compare that to for example Category:Kennedy family in which all of the category members are all directly related to one another through blood or marriage, or the similar Category:Rothschild family. Otto4711 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] I could be wrong but did it not say right at the top that it was for people who had family members involved in professional hockey. Nowhere did it say they were all related so it would take quite the leap to assume people would think they were all related. Especially since there was no single common last name. --Djsasso 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. It's a bit harder as I cannot see the history but I do believe the notion of categorizing people based on the intersection of profession and familial relationship is a trivial intersection and overcategorization. There are exceptions, such as the Kennedy family where it can be shown that the intersection of profession and familial relationship is persistent and non-trivial, but I feel those situations are indeed the exception to the rule and the category is thus not needed. All that aside, I believe there was enough consensus to delete and the closing admin made an appropriate closure. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:Hockey families – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 05:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

There was no clear consensus to remove this category. There were just as many people saying keep the category as saying get rid of it.--Djsasso 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment, you were the only person who argued to keep the category. Misrepresenting the facts in the CfD is not looked upon kindly by me or, I'd assume, most others. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what cfd you were looking at but I see 3 people saying keep the main cat. I am not advocating keeping the two others. I am only advocating the main cat be kept. --Djsasso 02:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Failing to count the actual votes before chastising someone for (accurately) counting the votes is not looked kindly upon by me, or, I would hope, most others. RGTraynor 04:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I missed the one tacked on 3 indents in and also missed the last one. I've struck my comment and I'll let others read for themselves. I'll just say "point taken" to your snark; I shouldn't say things like that when I'm only skimming. I guess I'm just conditioned by the numerous frivolous DRV complaints I see every day. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which was exactly why I put this up in the first place. I thought maybe the closing admin also missed those. --Djsasso 16:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Not a vote, so vote counting isn't at issue. Of the keeps one is on the basis of a previous discussion was no-consensus so... Doesn't work like that consensus can change, surviving one discussion doesn't give a free pass for any future discussion. One of the other keeps initially says delete when challenged says keep the main category (this one) but gives no rationale. The final in favour of the main category only, but not for use in the way it was being used, again no rationale. Not being a vote it looks a reasonable closing to me. --pgk 06:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. As stated in the nom, "the main category is being used as a dumping ground for any hockey player who has a relative who plays hockey, creating the false impression of familial relationships far beyond those that exist". This is a strong argument that was not addressed by any of the "keep" commenters. Perhaps a list article should be created. >Radiant< 08:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's actually quite a weak argument. First off, it ascribes a motive never explicitly or implicitly expressed. Secondly, I'm wondering where nom got his information about how close familial relationships between hockey players are, because the degree to which most players are chummy or not with their kinfolk is unknown to most of us hockey researchers. Unlike the nom's entirely subjective POV -- does he characterize every category as a "dumping ground" for those articles which, err, um, match the category? -- it was a terribly unsubjective cat; are these two hockey players related? RGTraynor 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you appear to have misunderstood the nomination. It had nothing to do with how close related people were. There were something like 100 individuals, most of whom were related to at most one other person in the category, categorized as "family" members. The false impression given (whether explicitly or implicitly) was that individual members of the category were related to each of the other individual members of the category. Compare that to for example Category:Kennedy family in which all of the category members are all directly related to one another through blood or marriage, or the similar Category:Rothschild family. Otto4711 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be wrong but did it not say right at the top that it was for people who had family members involved in professional hockey. Nowhere did it say they were all related so it would take quite the leap to assume people would think they were all related. Especially since there was no single common last name. --Djsasso 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It's a bit harder as I cannot see the history but I do believe the notion of categorizing people based on the intersection of profession and familial relationship is a trivial intersection and overcategorization. There are exceptions, such as the Kennedy family where it can be shown that the intersection of profession and familial relationship is persistent and non-trivial, but I feel those situations are indeed the exception to the rule and the category is thus not needed. All that aside, I believe there was enough consensus to delete and the closing admin made an appropriate closure. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of Mario Party 2 minigames – Deletion endorsed by consensus discussion provided below – Teke 05:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Mario Party 2 minigames (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` This article was a perfectly reasonable encyclopedic article. No real consensus was established and no reason was given for ignoring this. AfD is not a vote and this seems to have been treated like one. Henchman 2000 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: If all results for these DRVs are endorse, can I have them on my userspace? Henchman 2000 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse (my) closure. Arguments for keeping were as follows: "It can be encyclopedic", "Why can't the nominator just accept these articles, and how many afds will they have to survive?", "This can be rewritten or merged into the main game article.", "If you keep posting these up for deletion -- at least give it a few days in between deletion notices.", and "This is information directly relevant to the game". Of these, the second and fourth are not valid arguments. The first, third, and fifth can be addressed by a rewrite which also addresses the points set forward in the delete arguments (and two redirect arguments), which centered around WP:NOT and WP:ATT. The latter is particularly concerning in my view, since sourcing issues were raised in the first AfD nomination of 27 February, and, as of my closure of the second AfD, no sources had yet been added. Shimeru 18:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] I was planning to find sources, except I didn't have time, I would've done it had I had enough time before the AfD was closed. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I don't see any reason to dispute the closure. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion as to restoring to userspace, unless you are addressing the issues of then AFD then no, userspace is not a way to avoid the scrutiny of mainspace. --pgk 19:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] I clearly stated in the AfD that I was going to address the issues of the AfDs for ALL the articles, so that they would be accepted again. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Articles fail the notability guidelines. As I mentioned, it must be the subject of multiple non-trivial works according to the policies, and the best we could do for these would be game guides, considered trivial. -M^ask 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] These lists were not game guides, they were WP:USEFUL and WR:NOTABLE lists and can be of use to people. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] I didn't say the articles were game guides, although they are. I meant the only reference would be game guides. If this is to stay and meet notability guidelines, you must present a non-trivial source for each minigame. If you have newspaper articles that refer to each minigame you list, I'll recommend overturning. Untill then, WP:NOTABILITY is policy, not an option you can skip if you really, really like something. I suggest fully reading our policies and procedures before contributing further. -M^ask 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse — There is a clear consensus. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 20:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Where? Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Not completely clear, but clear enough for it to be determined. See below. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. A pretty clear consensus is being established between these recent Mario Party discussions. WarpstarRider 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, valid AFD closure, keep arguments were various forms of WP:ILIKEIT. --Core desat 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, they weren't, they were citing policies and guidelines, as were the delete arguments. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of valid debate. No credible reason to challenge it. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ensorse. Consensus may have been less clear but again, closing admin made a judgement call based on the quality of the discussion and I will stand by that reasoning. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] The closing admin is supposed tyo look at the debate and see if they can find a consensus, which shouldn't have been able to happen. The admin is not supposed to make a judgement call, that is not there job in an AfD, they are supposed to fid a consensus, and no consensus should've been able to be found. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Looking to the debate and evaluating consensus takes a judgement call. There isn't a simple algorithm which can be applied to give a result, otherwise we'd just get a bot to do it. --pgk 08:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Consensus is not the same thing as complete unanimity. There can be !votes in opposition. Leebo ^T/C 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Yet again we have the same people raising the same complaints over the same results with the same articles. Please note that This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. No procedural incorrectness in the AfD. The only 'error' is that the admin deleted an article the DRV nominator wanted kept. The Kinslayer 09:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of Mario Party 2 minigames – Deletion endorsed by consensus discussion provided below – Teke 05:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was a perfectly reasonable encyclopedic article. No real consensus was established and no reason was given for ignoring this. AfD is not a vote and this seems to have been treated like one. Henchman 2000 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If all results for these DRVs are endorse, can I have them on my userspace? Henchman 2000 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (my) closure. Arguments for keeping were as follows: "It can be encyclopedic", "Why can't the nominator just accept these articles, and how many afds will they have to survive?", "This can be rewritten or merged into the main game article.", "If you keep posting these up for deletion -- at least give it a few days in between deletion notices.", and "This is information directly relevant to the game". Of these, the second and fourth are not valid arguments. The first, third, and fifth can be addressed by a rewrite which also addresses the points set forward in the delete arguments (and two redirect arguments), which centered around WP:NOT and WP:ATT. The latter is particularly concerning in my view, since sourcing issues were raised in the first AfD nomination of 27 February, and, as of my closure of the second AfD, no sources had yet been added. Shimeru 18:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to find sources, except I didn't have time, I would've done it had I had enough time before the AfD was closed. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I don't see any reason to dispute the closure. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as to restoring to userspace, unless you are addressing the issues of then AFD then no, userspace is not a way to avoid the scrutiny of mainspace. --pgk 19:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly stated in the AfD that I was going to address the issues of the AfDs for ALL the articles, so that they would be accepted again. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Articles fail the notability guidelines. As I mentioned, it must be the subject of multiple non-trivial works according to the policies, and the best we could do for these would be game guides, considered trivial. -M^ask 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These lists were not game guides, they were WP:USEFUL and WR:NOTABLE lists and can be of use to people. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the articles were game guides, although they are. I meant the only reference would be game guides. If this is to stay and meet notability guidelines, you must present a non-trivial source for each minigame. If you have newspaper articles that refer to each minigame you list, I'll recommend overturning. Untill then, WP:NOTABILITY is policy, not an option you can skip if you really, really like something. I suggest fully reading our policies and procedures before contributing further. -M^ask

17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse — There is a clear consensus. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 20:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely clear, but clear enough for it to be determined. See below. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. A pretty clear consensus is being established between these recent Mario Party discussions. WarpstarRider 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AFD closure, keep arguments were various forms of WP:ILIKEIT. --Core desat 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they weren't, they were citing policies and guidelines, as were the delete arguments. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of valid debate. No credible reason to challenge it. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ensorse. Consensus may have been less clear but again, closing admin made a judgement call based on the quality of the discussion and I will stand by that reasoning. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin is supposed tyo look at the debate and see if they can find a consensus, which shouldn't have been able to happen. The admin is not supposed to make a judgement call, that is not there job in an AfD, they are supposed to fid a consensus, and no consensus should've been able to be found. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to the debate and evaluating consensus takes a judgement call. There isn't a simple algorithm which can be applied to give a result, otherwise we'd just get a bot to do it. --pgk 08:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not the same thing as complete unanimity. There can be !votes in opposition. Leebo ^T/C 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Yet again we have the same people raising the same complaints over the same results with the same articles. Please note that This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. No procedural incorrectness in the AfD. The only 'error' is that the admin deleted an article the DRV nominator wanted kept. The Kinslayer 09:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of Mario Party 3 minigames – Deletion endorsed – Daniel Bryant 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Mario Party 3 minigames (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` No real consensus had been established and the AfD hadn't ran its full length. Henchman 2000 (And I am also nominating the others) 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment About the length of time it was open... 5 days is considered "full length". Is there something I'm not seeing? Leebo ^T/C 18:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sad endorse similar to the MPAdvance games DRV below. I disagree with the debate and it's unfortunate that it turned out that way. That said, it was indeed properly closed. I like to think that AfD gets it "right" about 99.9% of the time... but there's always going to be that other 0.1%, and that's what this is. Should have been kept, but consensus just isn't there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Consensus wasn't there to delete it either, unlike in the MPA one. Also, if you feel it shouldn't have been deleted, then why are you voting endorse? Henchman 2000 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] He's saying that consensus was there to delete. He doesn't agree with that consensus, but that doesn't make it an invalid AfD. Leebo ^T/C 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Except there was no such consensus. Henchman 2000 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Then you disagree with him. I'm not arguing his point, only explaining that one can endorse a deletion process while disagreeing with the consensus. It's about process and he felt process was upheld. Leebo ^T/C 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] I see one straight keep vote, one keep or merge, a smattering of merges and an overwhelming flood of deletes. Closing this any other way would have been a perilously bad decision for the closing admin. I don't always agree with consensus here, but I have to acknowledge it when I see it, and that AfD was nearly unanimous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] The AfD for the LMPmgs lasted way longer, and also, I said no real consensus was established, which is true, as some delete arguments were very weak, unlike many arguments for merge and keep. Henchman 2000 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] In your opinion. The Kinslayer 11:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Consensus seems clear, contrary to the nominator's assertions. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] How is the consensus clear? Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse can't see any problem for DRV to review. --pgk 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Most of the users voted delete on the page, with only one keep, and one keep or merge. That's a clear consensus to delete the article. Merging doesn't need to happen: as there was already a consensus to NOT list all the games in the articles (see talk page of Mario Party 8). Going against one consensus due to an AFD, just so a few users "get their way" isn't how editing works. RobJ1981 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Think you'd better tell yourself that, as you clearly ACT as though people must ignore consensus to suit you. A keep or merge can be counted as both and there were lots of merges, oh, and AfD is not a vote, it is a debate. Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Having a go at someone for acting as though people must ignore consensus to suit their opinion of the article in question? Pot calling the kettle black much? The Kinslayer 11:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse — There's a clear consensus. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 20:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Where? Endorse deletion. AfD began on March 28, closed on April 2; it was able to run for the usual five-day debate period. And there's a pretty clear consensus to delete visible there. WarpstarRider 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] See above. Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Why. Nowhere above have you made a single point you haven't spammed in 3 other reviews, 2 of which ended with the deletion being firmly endorse (although I'm sure you'd try to argue a lack of consensus for them also), the third being the next one up from this review. And nowhere above have you even attempted to explain just how exactly an AfD that has run for the standard amount of 5 days entitles you to say 'the AfD hadn't ran its full length.' I'm sure we would all like to know ~~why you lied~~ where you got this mistaken assumption from, especially seeing as it is the ONLY legitimate reason for having this DRV, which, as everyone is fond of poitning out to each other, is for establishing if there was problem with the procedure, and not as 'AfD 2-The Sequel: "I Didn't Like The Outcome! (Coming soon to cinemas worldwide)The Kinslayer 12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, valid AFD closure, the AFD ran the full five days. No other reasons for overturning provided. --Core desat 21:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] The articles were perfectly reasonable encyclopedic content, there's another reason for you. Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of valid debate. No credible reason to challenge it. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Five days is how long AfD takes place (unless a debate is relisted); this was just closed late. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The closure was well within guidelines and there were no glaring issues with the AfD. Consensus was clear in spite of nom's assertion to the contrary. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Yet again we have the same people raising the same complaints over the same results with the same articles. Please note that This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. No procedural incorrectness in the AfD. The only 'error' is that the admin deleted an article the DRV nominator wanted kept. AfD was run for standard length of 5 days, don't know what Henchmans smoking. Consensus was reached, I suspect Henchman actually means 'The consensus I was hoping for' when he uses the word 'consensus'. The Kinslayer 09:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Henchman, can you please explain what you feel makes this encyclopedic content? That might help you out here. The arguements you are making are either not valid (length of AfD debate) or unsupported by comment or citation (assertion that it is encyclopedic content). I would support something about the types of minigames, breaking it down by type of teams (2 vs 2, 1 vs 3, free for all) and the type of game (race, memory, reaction) but I would say that needs to be in the main game article, not in a separate list. Slavlin 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] My argument of it didn't run for its full time isn't valid, I knw, I just got confused with the other AfD running for WAAY too long. People do want to know about these minigames, an encyclopedia is supposed to be somewhere where you can check every last detail about a topic, and these lists allow this to happen with the Mario Party sereis. Henchman 2000 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] I guess your understanding of an Encyclopedia differs from most. No encyclopedia I am aware of claims to cover "every last detail", they are general reference works covering a broad range of topics (though in doing so a more subject specific encyclopedia will of course end up covering that subject in more detail). --pgk 10:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am with pgk here. I have never considered Wikipedia as a resource for every last detail on every subject. It is not really possible to do this. Have you thought of putting information of this detailed nature on www.nintendowiki.net? It is a Wiki devoted to all Nintendo games. I love Oblivion and World of Warcraft, but I leave the in-depth stuff to the Oblivion Wiki and WoWWiki. Slavlin 17:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. There was no procedural problem with the closing of the AFD. However, I believe the request to userfy the articles to User:Henchman 2000 should be granted, if s/he believes (as s/he has stated) that s/he can improve the content to address the concerns raised in the AFD. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE may be brought up if the articles are not improved after a few months, but to deny userfication on that basis in advance seems like a failure to assume good faith. -- Black Falcon 16:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of Mario Party 3 minigames – Deletion endorsed – Daniel Bryant 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

No real consensus had been established and the AfD hadn't ran its full length. Henchman 2000 (And I am also nominating the others) 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About the length of time it was open... 5 days is considered "full length". Is there something I'm not seeing? Leebo ^T/C 18:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sad endorse similar to the MPAdvance games DRV below. I disagree with the debate and it's unfortunate that it turned out that way. That said, it was indeed properly closed. I like to think that AfD gets it "right" about 99.9% of the time... but there's always going to be that other 0.1%, and that's what this is. Should have been kept, but consensus just isn't there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus wasn't there to delete it either, unlike in the MPA one. Also, if you feel it shouldn't have been deleted, then why are you voting endorse? Henchman 2000 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying that consensus was there to delete. He doesn't agree with that consensus, but that doesn't make it an invalid AfD. Leebo ^T/C 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except there was no such consensus. Henchman 2000 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you disagree with him. I'm not arguing his point, only explaining that one can endorse a deletion process while disagreeing with the consensus. It's about process and he felt process was upheld. Leebo ^T/C 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see one straight keep vote, one keep or merge, a smattering of merges and an overwhelming flood of deletes. Closing this any other way would have been a perilously bad decision for the closing admin. I don't always agree with consensus here, but I have to acknowledge it when I see it, and that AfD was nearly unanimous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD for the LMPmgs lasted way longer, and also, I said no real consensus was established, which is true, as some delete arguments were very weak, unlike many arguments for merge and keep. Henchman 2000 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. The Kinslayer 11:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Consensus seems clear, contrary to the nominator's assertions. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the consensus clear? Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse can't see any problem for DRV to review. --pgk 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Most of the users voted delete on the page, with only one keep, and one keep or merge. That's a clear consensus to delete the article. Merging doesn't need to happen: as there was already a consensus to NOT list all the games in the articles (see talk page of Mario Party 8). Going against one consensus due to an AFD, just so a few users "get their way" isn't how editing works. RobJ1981 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think you'd better tell yourself that, as you clearly ACT as though people must ignore consensus to suit you. A keep or merge can be counted as both and there were lots of merges, oh, and AfD is not a vote, it is a debate. Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a go at someone for acting as though people must ignore consensus to suit their opinion of the article in question? Pot calling the kettle black much? The Kinslayer 11:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse — There's a clear consensus. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 20:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

Endorse deletion. AfD began on March 28, closed on April 2; it was able to run for the usual five-day debate period. And there's a pretty clear consensus to delete visible there. WarpstarRider 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why. Nowhere above have you made a single point you haven't spammed in 3 other reviews, 2 of which ended with the deletion being firmly endorse (although I'm sure you'd try to argue a lack of consensus for them also), the third being the next one up from this review. And nowhere above have you even attempted to explain just how exactly an AfD that has run for the standard amount of 5 days entitles you to say 'the AfD hadn't ran its full length.' I'm sure we would all like to know ~~why you lied~~ where you got this mistaken assumption from, especially seeing as it is the ONLY legitimate reason for having this DRV, which, as everyone is fond of poitning out to each other, is for establishing if there was problem with the procedure, and not as 'AfD 2-The Sequel: "I Didn't Like The Outcome! (Coming soon to cinemas worldwide)The Kinslayer 12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid AFD closure, the AFD ran the full five days. No other reasons for overturning provided. --Core desat 21:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were perfectly reasonable encyclopedic content, there's another reason for you. Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of valid debate. No credible reason to challenge it. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Five days is how long AfD takes place (unless a debate is relisted); this was just closed late. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closure was well within guidelines and there were no glaring issues with the AfD. Consensus was clear in spite of nom's assertion to the contrary. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Yet again we have the same people raising the same complaints over the same results with the same articles. Please note that This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. No procedural incorrectness in the AfD. The only 'error' is that the admin deleted an article the DRV nominator wanted kept. AfD was run for standard length of 5 days, don't know what Henchmans smoking. Consensus was reached, I suspect Henchman actually means 'The consensus I was hoping for' when he uses the word 'consensus'. The Kinslayer 09:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Henchman, can you please explain what you feel makes this encyclopedic content? That might help you out here. The arguements you are making are either not valid (length of AfD debate) or unsupported by comment or citation (assertion that it is encyclopedic content). I would support something about the types of minigames, breaking it down by type of teams (2 vs 2, 1 vs 3, free for all) and the type of game (race, memory, reaction) but I would say that needs to be in the main game article, not in a separate list. Slavlin 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument of it didn't run for its full time isn't valid, I knw, I just got confused with the other AfD running for WAAY too long. People do want to know about these minigames, an encyclopedia is supposed to be somewhere where you can check every last detail about a topic, and these lists allow this to happen with the Mario Party sereis. Henchman 2000 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your understanding of an Encyclopedia differs from most. No encyclopedia I am aware of claims to cover "every last detail", they are general reference works covering a broad range of topics (though in doing so a more subject specific encyclopedia will of course end up covering that subject in more detail). --pgk 10:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am with pgk here. I have never considered Wikipedia as a resource for every last detail on every subject. It is not really possible to do this. Have you thought of putting information of this detailed nature on www.nintendowiki.net? It is a Wiki devoted to all Nintendo games. I love Oblivion and World of Warcraft, but I leave the in-depth stuff to the Oblivion Wiki and WoWWiki. Slavlin 17:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. There was no procedural problem with the closing of the AFD. However, I believe the request to userfy the articles to User:Henchman 2000 should be granted, if s/he believes (as s/he has stated) that s/he can improve the content to address the concerns raised in the AFD. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE may be brought up if the articles are not improved after a few months, but to deny userfication on that basis in advance seems like a failure to assume good faith. -- Black Falcon 16:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Yoga Booty Ballet – Deletion endorsed – Daniel Bryant 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yoga Booty Ballet (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` The Yoga Booty Ballet entry has been unduly deleted from Wikipedia. Moreover, a Talk Page has been created about the the Yoga Booty Ballet entry but it still was not spared from speedy deletion. The creator wish to reiterate that the article is not a blatant advertising for Yoga Booty Ballet. Lenayism 06:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, reads like an advertisement to me. --Core desat 13:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. I think this was clearly placed on Wikipedia to promote the product, but I'm not convinced the article was "unsalvageable spam." However, it was clearly an unsalvageable attempt at promoting a product through Wikipedia. Mango juice^talk 14:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, might as well have been in a blue tin with a key on top. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion spammy article full of extraordinary claims (e.g. an average 10-20 lb loss in 2 weeks) without a single reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. It's not salted, so if you'd like to create a legitimate page (with multiple third-party citations), please do so. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Yoga Booty Ballet – Deletion endorsed – Daniel Bryant 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Yoga Booty Ballet entry has been unduly deleted from Wikipedia. Moreover, a Talk Page has been created about the the Yoga Booty Ballet entry but it still was not spared from speedy deletion. The creator wish to reiterate that the article is not a blatant advertising for Yoga Booty Ballet. Lenayism 06:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, reads like an advertisement to me. --Core desat 13:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I think this was clearly placed on Wikipedia to promote the product, but I'm not convinced the article was "unsalvageable spam." However, it was clearly an unsalvageable attempt at promoting a product through Wikipedia. Mango juice^talk 14:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, might as well have been in a blue tin with a key on top. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion spammy article full of extraordinary claims (e.g. an average 10-20 lb loss in 2 weeks) without a single reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It's not salted, so if you'd like to create a legitimate page (with multiple third-party citations), please do so. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody – Deletion endorsed – Daniel Bryant 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody (edit \| [[Talk:Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Admin misperception of intentions after editor misrepresented purpose of WP:ER I requested on myself and my behavior towards said editor Anynobody 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 'CLARIFICATION I would like to emphasize that the point of the WP:ER I requested was to gain comments on how I have behaved toward Justanother, whether or not his behavior is good or bad I'm interested in outside opinions on how I handled it. I do not want this as a back door RfC, that would be inappropriate and an abuse of both WP:DR and WP:ER. I am in the process of setting up an RfC on him whether or not this WP:ER gets undeleted, why would I need this as a "back-door" when I still plan on going in through the front? I don't mean for that to sound sarcastic, but the logic does sound pretty absurd for a back door RfC. Justanother feels that any time I mention his name I am attacking him. I frankly think he is wrong, and have tried to be as fair and civil as possible with him. He has managed to evade the attempts at WP:DR I've made for some time, so now I want to know if I'm doing something wrong. I apologize for having to bold that statement, but it seems like many people are accepting his notion that I am gaming the system somehow. On another board or through a WP:RFC I'll address my beliefs about him. WP:ER is about me and is not a RfC on another user. Anynobody 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse undeletion - This editor review should be allowed to run its course, and good faith should be given to the editor. Smee 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply] And your opinion wouldn't have anything to do with your disagreement with User:Justanother concerning some of his subpages? --pgk 06:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, it does not. Anynobody should be given a good faith opportunity for other editors to comment, without the page being summarily deleted. Smee 10:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply] As nothed another user did comment that it was inappropriate for ER. --pgk 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me for an explanation of the deletion. Thank you. --Justanother 04:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Also be sure to see how he discussed this on my talk page: User talk:Anynobody#AN/I again. Anynobody 04:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion the review had one comment noting that it wasn't really an appropriate ER. If you want an editor review, just create a new one. If you want an RFC go there and create it. --pgk 06:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment There was an RFC filed which was subsequently deleted due to certification issues. The two certifiers apparently being User:Anynobody, User:Smee --pgk 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment It should also be noted that since that time other editors including User:Orsini and others have contributed additional evidence to a future RFC with regards to abrasive actions of User:Justanother that are a constant disruption to the project. Smee 11:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply] Endorse deletion per pgk; although this was in the proper WP:ER format, this was really a page in which Anynobody was questioning the behavior of another user. There are other venues for that kind of thing, an WP:ER is not appropriate. If Anynobody wants a review of his/her own behavior, he/she can always create a new WP:ER, but this one was not appropriate. Mango juice^talk 13:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per pgk and Mango. This was an RFC masquerading as an ER. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Was discussed before deletion and there was strong support for nuking it, if Anynobody wants to start an RfC then WP:RFC is over yonder. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per above endorsers. I had a comment to the same effect on the purported ER prior to its deletion. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody – Deletion endorsed – Daniel Bryant 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Admin misperception of intentions after editor misrepresented purpose of WP:ER I requested on myself and my behavior towards said editor Anynobody 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 'CLARIFICATION I would like to emphasize that the point of the WP:ER I requested was to gain comments on how I have behaved toward Justanother, whether or not his behavior is good or bad I'm interested in outside opinions on how I handled it. I do not want this as a back door RfC, that would be inappropriate and an abuse of both WP:DR and WP:ER. I am in the process of setting up an RfC on him whether or not this WP:ER gets undeleted, why would I need this as a "back-door" when I still plan on going in through the front? I don't mean for that to sound sarcastic, but the logic does sound pretty absurd for a back door RfC. Justanother feels that any time I mention his name I am attacking him. I frankly think he is wrong, and have tried to be as fair and civil as possible with him. He has managed to evade the attempts at WP:DR I've made for some time, so now I want to know if I'm doing something wrong. I apologize for having to bold that statement, but it seems like many people are accepting his notion that I am gaming the system somehow. On another board or through a WP:RFC I'll address my beliefs about him. WP:ER is about me and is not a RfC on another user. Anynobody 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse undeletion - This editor review should be allowed to run its course, and good faith should be given to the editor. Smee 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And your opinion wouldn't have anything to do with your disagreement with User:Justanother concerning some of his subpages? --pgk 06:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. Anynobody should be given a good faith opportunity for other editors to comment, without the page being summarily deleted. Smee 10:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As nothed another user did comment that it was inappropriate for ER. --pgk 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me for an explanation of the deletion. Thank you. --Justanother 04:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also be sure to see how he discussed this on my talk page: User talk:Anynobody#AN/I again. Anynobody 04:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion the review had one comment noting that it wasn't really an appropriate ER. If you want an editor review, just create a new one. If you want an RFC go there and create it. --pgk 06:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was an RFC filed which was subsequently deleted due to certification issues. The two certifiers apparently being User:Anynobody, User:Smee --pgk 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It should also be noted that since that time other editors including User:Orsini and others have contributed additional evidence to a future RFC with regards to abrasive actions of User:Justanother that are a constant disruption to the project. Smee 11:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse deletion per pgk; although this was in the proper WP:ER format, this was really a page in which Anynobody was questioning the behavior of another user. There are other venues for that kind of thing, an WP:ER is not appropriate. If Anynobody wants a review of his/her own behavior, he/she can always create a new WP:ER, but this one was not appropriate. Mango juice^talk 13:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per pgk and Mango. This was an RFC masquerading as an ER. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Was discussed before deletion and there was strong support for nuking it, if Anynobody wants to start an RfC then WP:RFC is over yonder. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above endorsers. I had a comment to the same effect on the purported ER prior to its deletion. Newyorkbrad 02:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.