Rance – unrelated protected redirect cleared; stub on Japanese CVG series moved in 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rance (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` This should be a pretty straight-forward unprotection. Anyways, the previous, deleted article was about some blogger. However, Rance also is the name of a well-known Japanese series of ~~visual novels~~ RPGs. Has a very long article over at the Japanese Wikipedia. I'm not quite sure if the article Rance should be for this series with a Template:For1, or if it should be made into a disambig page. I would like for opinions on that. SeizureDog 11:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Write it at a user subpage such as User:SeizureDog/Rance and then I'll unprotect and move if it looks like a viable article. I don't read a lick of Japanese, but the article there looks like it has a pair of warning flag templates on top, so I'd prefer to be cautious. I'd recommend cleaning up the what links here list for Rance then using ((tl:For1)) on top unless there is something else appropriate for this name. GRBerry 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ok, will do. And yeah, the Japanese article appears to have some copyright violations going on in its article, but it's certainly not due to its lack of notablility.--SeizureDog 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] K, a nice little stub has been worked up at User:SeizureDog/Rance. I would (and will) include more information, but it's hard to write about 7 games at once.--SeizureDog 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Rance – unrelated protected redirect cleared; stub on Japanese CVG series moved in 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This should be a pretty straight-forward unprotection. Anyways, the previous, deleted article was about some blogger. However, Rance also is the name of a well-known Japanese series of ~~visual novels~~ RPGs. Has a very long article over at the Japanese Wikipedia. I'm not quite sure if the article Rance should be for this series with a Template:For1, or if it should be made into a disambig page. I would like for opinions on that. SeizureDog 11:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Write it at a user subpage such as User:SeizureDog/Rance and then I'll unprotect and move if it looks like a viable article. I don't read a lick of Japanese, but the article there looks like it has a pair of warning flag templates on top, so I'd prefer to be cautious. I'd recommend cleaning up the what links here list for Rance then using ((tl:For1)) on top unless there is something else appropriate for this name. GRBerry 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, will do. And yeah, the Japanese article appears to have some copyright violations going on in its article, but it's certainly not due to its lack of notablility.--SeizureDog 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- K, a nice little stub has been worked up at User:SeizureDog/Rance. I would (and will) include more information, but it's hard to write about 7 games at once.--SeizureDog 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Superosity – Deletion endorsed – 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Superosity (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` This article was deleted by Pilotguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) with the following reason: "Deleting page - reason was: "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity" using NPWatcher" This appears to be based on CSD A7, but I find it difficult to justify, considering Superosity is basically the flagship strip on Keenspot. I have no idea if the content of the article prior to deletion was suitable for the encyclopedia, but I strongly disagree that the subject is not notable. Powers ^T 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation. Google cache says valid A7. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion The article doesn't assert the notability of its subject. If another article can achieve this then there is no reason why it should not be allowed to stand, if recreated. (aeropagitica) 09:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] May I point out that that the proffered deletion reason was that it was not-notable, not that it failed to assert notability. Powers ^T 14:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Article was a valid A7 deletion. Precise wording of the deletion edit summary is not required, that degree of bureaucracy we will never have, I sincerely hope. GRBerry 15:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough. How, then, for future reference, am I to tell the difference between a deletion done under a misinterpretation of A7 and one that merely misstated the principle in play? Powers ^T 01:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion, valid A7. Naconkantari 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Superosity – Deletion endorsed – 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was deleted by Pilotguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) with the following reason: "Deleting page - reason was: "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity" using NPWatcher" This appears to be based on CSD A7, but I find it difficult to justify, considering Superosity is basically the flagship strip on Keenspot. I have no idea if the content of the article prior to deletion was suitable for the encyclopedia, but I strongly disagree that the subject is not notable. Powers ^T 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation. Google cache says valid A7. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The article doesn't assert the notability of its subject. If another article can achieve this then there is no reason why it should not be allowed to stand, if recreated. (aeropagitica) 09:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May I point out that that the proffered deletion reason was that it was not-notable, not that it failed to assert notability. Powers ^T 14:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Article was a valid A7 deletion. Precise wording of the deletion edit summary is not required, that degree of bureaucracy we will never have, I sincerely hope. GRBerry 15:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. How, then, for future reference, am I to tell the difference between a deletion done under a misinterpretation of A7 and one that merely misstated the principle in play? Powers ^T 01:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, valid A7. Naconkantari 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Exmortis – Deletion endorsed – 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Exmortis (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` The article was unfairly targeted as "non-notable fancruft" by Ezeu who has an axe to grind against flash games and are forms of video games. This is a real video game and it has had an impact. The supporters who voted against deletion included the following users and their comments: Don't Delete Might not be world-famous, but the games have developed a cult following.--CyberGhostface 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Do not delete. The rules of citation in Wikipedia exist to ensure the quality and encyclopedia-worthiness of the articles. A well written article about a flash game that has been played by millions of people is clearly encyclopedia-worthy. Documentation of the type desired is not possible, because official references on this game do not exist, but because the game is significant, the spirit rather than the letter of the rules on citation should be followed in this case, and the article should be allowed to remain. Kier07 Do Not Delete. Blogs may not always be the most reliable sources, but Ben Leffler's blog is a primary source. Since Ben Leffler is the creator of the games, any information he gives out will probably be most accurate. This article is well-written, and documents a landmark in internet gaming.--Tusserte 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC) The full version of the article prior to its deletion can be found here: [1] Ladb2000 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted - No new information. Still no independent reliable sources, still fails WP:WEB. Wickethewok 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted, no case made. And we really must figure out something to do to keep mirrors from keeping our deleted pages around forever and making us look like idiots. —Cryptic 06:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I do not have a grind against flash games or other forms of video games, as claimed above. I closed the AfD as "delete" because the article fails to assert notability. All that is asserted is that the game has a cult following, backed barely by a blog reference.--Ezeu 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion as per notability concerns; blogs are not considered reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 09:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion No new independent and reliable sources to establish notability for web based content. New version is an exact duplicate of that deleted by AFD, omitting only the ((For1)) at the top and the external links at the bottom. GRBerry 15:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The spirit of citing sources is to be able to verify that something is true, not just that it's encyclopedia worthy. If I make up enough on a subject, it can easily be encyclopedia-worthy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore the article I just would like to make a point. Whether or not the article is restored really isn't much of an issue anymore since overwhelmingly the sentiment seems to be against restoring it. I have seen articles deleted because they are nonsense and or fake, etc. What I am perplexed by is the fact that Exmortis is neither nonsense, nor is it made-up, but it is real thing (in this case a real series of flash games). If video games can be considered wikipedia articles why then must this game because it uses blogs as sources be designated as non-notable/unreliable? If Exmortis didn't exist I would support the deletion -- but the game exists, it clearly has a cult following, it pushes the boundaries of the flash game genre -- but it is still non-notable fancruft? The case could equally be made that other articles on wikipedia (that deal with video games as well as other topics) are also non-notable? And yet such articles are not deleted because they may have a vast array of so-called "reliable" sources that happen not to be blogs. I do not really see the merits of this policy. It is rather self-destructive. I don't like that fact that people question the validity of this game. It exists, it has a cult-following, so why can't wikipedia have an article on it? This situation simply does not make any sense to me. Ladb2000 A blog can lie. There is absolutely no oversight ensuring blogs are factually correct. Thus, we have absolutely no reason to believe what they say is true. It may be that there is a cult following, but there is no evidence of it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's all abou verifiability. I exist too, but that doesn't mean anyone should write a Wikipedia article about me. - Mgm\|^(talk) 09:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, no independant third-party reliable sources given to meet Wikipedia;'s official policy of verifabilty. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Documentation of the type desired is not possible, because official references on this game do not exist kills any chance of this article existing, as far as I am concerned. User:Zoe\|(talk) 23:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Flash games are all but inherently non-notable. JuJube 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Exmortis – Deletion endorsed – 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was unfairly targeted as "non-notable fancruft" by Ezeu who has an axe to grind against flash games and are forms of video games. This is a real video game and it has had an impact. The supporters who voted against deletion included the following users and their comments:

Don't Delete Might not be world-famous, but the games have developed a cult following.--CyberGhostface 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete. The rules of citation in Wikipedia exist to ensure the quality and encyclopedia-worthiness of the articles. A well written article about a flash game that has been played by millions of people is clearly encyclopedia-worthy. Documentation of the type desired is not possible, because official references on this game do not exist, but because the game is significant, the spirit rather than the letter of the rules on citation should be followed in this case, and the article should be allowed to remain. Kier07
Do Not Delete. Blogs may not always be the most reliable sources, but Ben Leffler's blog is a primary source. Since Ben Leffler is the creator of the games, any information he gives out will probably be most accurate. This article is well-written, and documents a landmark in internet gaming.--Tusserte 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The full version of the article prior to its deletion can be found here: [1] Ladb2000 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - No new information. Still no independent reliable sources, still fails WP:WEB. Wickethewok 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, no case made. And we really must figure out something to do to keep mirrors from keeping our deleted pages around forever and making us look like idiots. —Cryptic 06:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not have a grind against flash games or other forms of video games, as claimed above. I closed the AfD as "delete" because the article fails to assert notability. All that is asserted is that the game has a cult following, backed barely by a blog reference.--Ezeu 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as per notability concerns; blogs are not considered reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 09:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No new independent and reliable sources to establish notability for web based content. New version is an exact duplicate of that deleted by AFD, omitting only the ((For1)) at the top and the external links at the bottom. GRBerry 15:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The spirit of citing sources is to be able to verify that something is true, not just that it's encyclopedia worthy. If I make up enough on a subject, it can easily be encyclopedia-worthy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the article I just would like to make a point. Whether or not the article is restored really isn't much of an issue anymore since overwhelmingly the sentiment seems to be against restoring it. I have seen articles deleted because they are nonsense and or fake, etc. What I am perplexed by is the fact that Exmortis is neither nonsense, nor is it made-up, but it is real thing (in this case a real series of flash games). If video games can be considered wikipedia articles why then must this game because it uses blogs as sources be designated as non-notable/unreliable? If Exmortis didn't exist I would support the deletion -- but the game exists, it clearly has a cult following, it pushes the boundaries of the flash game genre -- but it is still non-notable fancruft? The case could equally be made that other articles on wikipedia (that deal with video games as well as other topics) are also non-notable? And yet such articles are not deleted because they may have a vast array of so-called "reliable" sources that happen not to be blogs. I do not really see the merits of this policy. It is rather self-destructive. I don't like that fact that people question the validity of this game. It exists, it has a cult-following, so why can't wikipedia have an article on it? This situation simply does not make any sense to me. Ladb2000
- A blog can lie. There is absolutely no oversight ensuring blogs are factually correct. Thus, we have absolutely no reason to believe what they say is true. It may be that there is a cult following, but there is no evidence of it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all abou verifiability. I exist too, but that doesn't mean anyone should write a Wikipedia article about me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, no independant third-party reliable sources given to meet Wikipedia;'s official policy of verifabilty. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Documentation of the type desired is not possible, because official references on this game do not exist kills any chance of this article existing, as far as I am concerned. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Flash games are all but inherently non-notable. JuJube 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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