UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/2011 06

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Template:Moderationnav

This page is for the request of page deletions within the Urban Dead wiki. Due to concerns about loss of data, the ability to delete pages is restricted to system operators. As such, regular users will need to request a deletion from the system operators. For consistency and accountability, system operators also adhere to the guidelines listed here.

Guidelines for Deletion Requests

All Deletion Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered:

  • A link to the page in question. Preferably bolded for visibility. Note that Category and Image links need a colon at the front to turn them into links (ie [[:Category:Category]] and [[:Image:Image.jpg]]).
  • A reason for deletion. This should be short and to the point.
  • A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding ~~~~ to the end of your request.

In addition to placing a request on this page, please place the {{delete}} tag on the top of the page that is being recommended for deletion. Please make sure that the original content remains on the page, so that others can judge whether the page is worthy of deletion.

Any deletion request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.

Once the deletion request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be voted on for a period of two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. At the conclusion of this two weeks, the appropriate action will be taken by a system operator, and at the end of that day the request will be moved into the Archive.

Certain types of pages may be better being scheduled for deletion in order to reduce the amount of red tape and stop this page getting too cluttered. To lodge a request for scheduled deletions, head for UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling.

Deletion of pages that match a certain criteria may be better serviced by a request for a Speedy Deletion. Speedy Deletions are for removal of pages that are clearly of no value to the wiki, and do not incur the two week voting requirement. Speedy Deletion requests can be lodged at UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions.

Speedy Deletion Eligibility

To be eligible for a Speedy Deletion Request, the page must fall under at least one of the following criteria:

  1. No Content: The page contains no more than a line or two of content that cannot clearly be expanded, consists of random or incoherent content, or is duplicated elsewhere to no purpose.
  2. Off-Topic: The page is a clearly off-topic page.
  3. Unused Redirect: The page is an unused or underused (ie, only 1-2 pages using the link) redirect.
  4. Empty Category: The page is a Category page that has no entries within it.
  5. Missed Talk Page: The page is a Talk: Page from a previous deletion request that has not been deleted with the request (please note the relevant deletion request if this is so)
    As of 19 May 2010, Crit 5 is now a scheduled deletion.
  6. Deletion Workaround: The page is a duplicate of a page that has been deleted from a previous deletion request (please note the relevant deletion request if this is so). A page that fits this criterion is immediately qualified for deletion without requiring it be nominated on the 'Speedy Deletions' page. Recreating a page that fits this criterion will get you a polite message to stop doing so. Any further infractions of this nature will qualify as vandalism and will be treated as such. Note that criterion 6 does not apply when the page has been restored through Undeletions.
  7. Author Edit Only: The page has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author, and has been edited only by its author. Note that edits by adbots or vandals and reverts caused by them do not count.
  8. User Page: The page is a User subpage that has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author.
  9. Personal Page (Prefix Rule): The page is named after a user without the "User:" or "Journal:" prefixes and its content has been moved to the appropriate User or Journal page. Includes pages that should be User subpages, ie. in-game characters.
    As of 2011, August 29, Crit 9 is now a scheduled deletion.
  10. Unused Template: The page is a template that has existed for at least one week and is currently unused within the wiki.
  11. Non-existent User Page: The page is a User: page for a user that doesn't exist, and any content on the page has been moved to the appropriate User: or Journal: page.
    As of 20 June 2009, Crit 11 is now a scheduled deletion.
  12. Defunct group page: The page is a non-historical group page, it is over two months old, it has not had an update in a month, and is not on the stats page. Such pages will remain in the queue for 5 days to determine their defunct status has been correctly identified. Due to the large number of pages that fit into this criterion, please {{speedydelete12}} on the pages to ensure that they are categorized differently from normal speedy deletion requests.
    As of 2007, September 16, this is no longer a valid criterion.
  13. Missed sub-page: The page is a sub-page from a previous deletion request that has not been deleted with the request, and that serves no individual purpose (please note the relevant deletion request).

A page may also fall under a scheduled deletion and should be posted here if it is missed by the sysops.


Guidelines for Voting on Deletion Requests

  • One vote per user.
  • Voting should take place underneath the request, and each vote should be started with a # with no empty lines inbetween votes.
  • There are four vote types:
    • Delete. For agreement with the deletion request
    • Merge. For indication that the content on the page should be merged with another page (includes an implicit Delete).
    • Speedy Delete. For indication that the page meets one of the Speedy Deletions Criteria (includes an implicit Delete).
    • Keep. For disagreement with the deletion request.
  • The specific vote keyword should be bolded within the lodged vote. Any relevant comments are also allowed, but these should not be bolded.
  • At least one Delete vote must be entered by the deadline in order for a page to be deleted. System operators may not use their own vote after the deadline to delete a page.
  • If more Delete votes are entered than Keep votes, the page will be deleted. In any other circumstance, the page is kept.
  • If 3 Speedy Deletes are lodged, and there are no Keep Votes, the page will be deleted as per Speedy Deletions.


Deletion Queue

Image:Cyberfag and rackoon.jpg

Speaking of attack images... I just noticed this little gem. --Cyberbob 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete --Cyberbob 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - lol. --xoxo 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah, figured you might swing that way. Good to see that skim of sophistication you've been so desperately trying to build up since your demotion is indeed a sham after all. --Cyberbob 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wow. Also, its been up for months and you just noticed, haha Liberty 00:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not really that interested in keeping tabs on people. --Cyberbob 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    Why? This is about as blatant as it gets, and I see you voted delete on the other attack image below. --Cyberbob 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Really?--SirArgo Talk 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    What do you mean? --Cyberbob 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Obvious attack image. - Jedaz - 02:37/19/01/2009

Umbrella Zerg

Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service/Umbrella/Zerg

This contributes nothing more then malicious text. I wouldn't know the exact policy or guideline but this does not belong on the wiki.--Thadeous Oakley 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraneous discussion moved to talk page -- Cheese 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Interesting.--ScouterTX 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Little more than a barely concealed attempt to provoke the other side to edit the page and get taken to A/VB -- Cheese 21:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Keep - Meh. The other guys have done the same. Let them have it. -- Cheese 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Viable info. --Haliman - Talk 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete--Thadeous Oakley 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jackson threatened to put up zerg-related info about UBCS first anyway.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Umbrella threatened to do the same. I also don't buy into this whole "page created only to provoke the other side into vandalizing it" conspiracy.--SirArgo Talk 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Now that the other page is gone, I say that this one gets deleted as well to avoid future fighting between the Umbrellas.--SirArgo Talk 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Group subpage, they can say what they want in it. --Pestolence(talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Group subpage --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Group subpage, It's their property.-- Adward  22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - but only just. It's a group subpage, but it is bordering on trolling to make A/VB cases. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - As Argo. Move it off-site if you want the data kept. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep -This is a group sub page, you can write whatever you want about other groups on your own group pages and they can do nothing to stop you short of arbitration. The A/VB case in question was simple and ruled incorrectly, flame/A/VB bait or not, this group is entitled to have this page and deserves the protection afforded to all other group pages. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - or we'd have to get rid of classic pages like this one.--xoxo 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Kay, I get how this works. Will put a similar page up by tomorrow, no worries.--Thadeous Oakley 23:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Kthzbye. --Haliman - Talk 23:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Done. Jackson's old report back up. Long live the freedom of speech.--Thadeous Oakley 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    When will you understand that my report is an actual report, while yours is just circumstantial evidence and personal assaults with fake ass chats and shopped shots. --Haliman - Talk 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Our page, our space. --LithedarkangelMeth!The Great Meth Man 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • DeleteThat proves that it was created by the UBCS to discredit and to be used as a weapon against umbrella! I hope you know Lithedarkangel's comment will be exploited as the defence!--Beau Dece 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Then Haliman's vote also shows the same... >_> --LithedarkangelMeth!The Great Meth Man 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    More to use! This can be handy for my STARS problem! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beau Dece (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
    Beau, the creator has a right to vote on this page. --LithedarkangelMeth!The Great Meth Man 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Its obvious that it is a POV page and does not violate any terms, though it may be full of half-truths it should be respected like OUR PAGES should be respected in the same way. If Haliman can sport his page of half-truths then Umbrella Corporation should be able to display a page full of facts created by Haliman himself.--Umbrella-White.pngPresident JacksonUmbrella-White.png 01:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
DELETE - No viable "keep" option granted to for the Umbrella Report.--Umbrella-White.pngPresident JacksonUmbrella-White.png 23:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's in the groupspace, it's relevant information, even if the level of "proof" leaves a lot to be desired -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:14 12 January 2009 (BST)
  • Keep - POV, unfortunately. --Skouth 06:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Redundant Keep is Redundant --Cyberbob 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's in their groupspace; it's part of their raison d'etre, not just random drivel. They're allowed POV. --Blackboard 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Group Subpage, POV. --Janus talk 13:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Group subpage. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 16:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Kepp - I'm starting to enjoy the talk page it has where i can post proof of his team zerging --Colonel Krauser 04:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I hate both these fucking groups.----SexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Propaganda is acceptable. However, you wankers need to grow the fuck up. All of you. FAST. --WanYao 09:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - As a firm loyalist to Umbrella, I believe it's too much drivel. Nemesis645 08:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's nothing more than group propaganda, offensive or not, true or not.Liberty 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Old Protection Archive

Requesting deletion for the following pages, as they no longer have use (a new protection archive was created)

Any links to these pages should be changed to their new locations, whenever possible. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - Two weeks is more then enough time to sort out the archives (hence why it's not a speedy.) Linkthewindow  Talk  03:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm... on second thought, a lot of pages link to those pages, a lot (naturally,) protected. Why not just leave them as a disambiguation? Linkthewindow  Talk  03:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The new system sucks and will be scrapped for a modified version of the old system which currently has more functionality. Any protect page with {{Protect}} will show you as much. There should have been discussion on this before the change was done.--Karekmaps?! 04:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - New, bad. Old, good. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep; having redundant systems can't hurt. --Blackboard 15:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Amberwaves.jpeg

Crit 2 I guess. All in all, just another rather pathetic attempt by the TZH to trump someone they don't like.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not deleted. Image is in use. --– TANK! Nubis 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

From A/SD.

  1. Delete - Because I wanted to sign. At the top. Because I'm cool.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Delete - As Suicidalangel. --Janus talk 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Delete - Because I don't have to give a reason, hmmmm, I wonder if we can meatpuppet through everything of TZH while we're at it? -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    Why should we meatpuppet? --Janus talk 13:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    Meatpuppeting is the use of many users that have the same opinion to force through something that would not normally pass a vote if it was not the subject of their group opinion. It should not be confused with sockpuppetry where one or few users create multiple 'sock puppet' alts to subvert the community consensus. Sockpuppeting is illegal on this wiki, meatpuppeting is not. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 13:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    I see. What I don't understand is, are we meatpuppetting now? --Janus talk 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Delete --Toejam 18:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Baleet - Yup. Meatpuppeting is awesome. Especially when you're running for sysop and users from Brainstock who never use the wiki are told to go on and vote against you en masse. That's awesome. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Delete - As SA, and especially Iscariot! ■■ 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Delete - As Iscariot. --Pestolence(talk) 19:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. Delete unless you argue its a scheduled deletion under 22 July 2008 vote. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    No, it isn't scheduled. Attack images and pages were both up for votes and only pages passed. Images didn't get enough votes.--– Nubis NWO 18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  9. Delete - Ew. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  10. Insta-remove - Thats a personal attack image--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  11. Delete - No speedy crit, unfortunately. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  12. Keep Not porn, not copyrighted, and in use. --– Nubis NWO 23:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  13. Delete - Worthless shite. --Papa Moloch 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  14. Töten Sie es mit Feuer!! - Für große Gerechtigkeit! -- Cheese 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    Sie sprechen deutsch?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    Or for those of us who can't speak German; Kill it with fire!! - For large justice. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    Große in this context means great. =p -- Cheese 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    Großartig can also mean great. Haven't seen it used like that in a while though.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  15. Keep - has potential... but meh, i dont see a chance of this image being kept after this round of deletes --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 00:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    Potential? For what? To waste space and attack another user? Haggie, are you telling us that you whole-heartedly support the use of attack images? Okay everyone, flood the wiki with useless images! :)...:/ If they want to use these images, they should host them at an external image hosting site, then link to it. Stupid shit like this doesn't need to take up space on the wiki.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    Precedent says attack images when posted on group space aren't deleted. If you want to talk about useless things on the wiki I would say more than half the templates (especially ones like the mess you have on your page) should be deleted. And as for your idea that an image should be on more than one page to be "in use" is ridiculous. Are you going to put Image:Engel.jpg up for deletion? --– Nubis NWO 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    Precedent isn't law. Just thought I'd remind you that. Now, onto the rest of it. First, it's on his own talk page, not a group whatsoever. Sure, it's his space, but hell, that doesn't mean its completely exempt from being brought into a more respectable form. And if you feel those templates should be deleted, then put them up for it. I didn't make many, if any at all, of the templates, it doesn't concern me much. And as for your whole "user pic on one page" thing, there's a difference. User pictures are generally exempt from image deletion unless by author request, or its no longer in use. That, and the fact that an image representation of a users character normally doesn't attack another user in such a poor and shitty manner. But whatever. Attack images are a-okay, right Nubis? And I guess I should start a frivolous deletions case that I'm just going to vote keep on, because apparently I should think an image representation of one of my characters, just because it's only used in one place, should also be treated like an attack image that's only used in one place, huh?. Also, Hags, I figured the potential bit was just a joke. But just because you're guilty of a crime once, doesn't mean you should let it happen later, nor should you let more of a crime happen just because your friends get away with it. That's not how you should be doing your job. You should know that.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    You should stop foaming at the mouth for a moment and think about this. This is a game based on rivalry. Zeds VS Humans. PKers VS Everyone, etc. You are going to have "My team RULZ UR team SUX" type of propaganda everywhere. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much fun if everyone got along in a big old love in. So, yes, I do think "attack images" that aren't porn are ok. It isn't like the image says "This is Amberwaves and he lives at 123 Fake St." It isn't even a real picture of that user. It isn't being spammed on that Amber's page or groups that Amber belongs to. It is one fucking image in an old post of a goddamn talk page. I am sick of people (that aren't even involved) trying to dictate what the moral standards of the wiki should be. Attack PAGES are deleted. Attack IMAGES are not. --– Nubis NWO 14:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    Foaming? Not yet. :). Honestly, I understand what you're saying. Sure, it's not porn. Sure, he's not spamming it. But the thing is, it's still , as you even said, and old ass image in an old ass talk page comment, that won't ever be used again (unless it's by someone who has seen this case, as it'll probably remind people about it. Not like anyone would use it then anyway). I will reiterate my point. Its an old, USELESS image, that Dhavid Grohl probably doesn't remember he even uploaded. And I wasn't trying to dictate the moral standards of the wiki from the start. I wanted an old useless barely used image gone. I'm not calling for a scouring of the wiki for all attack images. I'm not even saying I don't want them on here at all. But for the ones that aren't going to ever get any real use, or even remebered months later, then hell, just put it on Imageshack. Quit wasting our space. Thats not asking for much right?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    It is being used and it is part of his page's history. If he comes along and archives his page and removes the image then eventually it will be deleted as unused. But until then for whatever reason he has chosen to have that image on there and we should not remove an image that isn't porn and is still in use. He is still active on the wiki, too. Your argument that it is old doesn't work because we keep old images (check out any historical page or archived page). Your argument that it isn't in use is clearly wrong. And letting "you" decide what images are appropriate goes against the voted policy that says sysops are responsible for removing images. Not to mention, we have tons of images that are on here that should be hosted off site or deleted for violating copyrights. And you can't change your song saying you weren't against Attack images. That's not going to work. Also how many times have I heard disk space = cheap. Stop grasping at straws.--– Nubis NWO 03:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    First, I will quote myself in one of my earlier comments here, and on speedy deletions. "Stupid shit like this doesn't need to take up space on the wiki" "Waste of bandwidth". Not to mention the many times I've said something along the lines of wasting space from the start. Its hard to "change my song" when I've followed it through from the start. And yet again, you're trying to make it look like I said something different than what I said. Not once did I say I was against attack images. I said these hardly used ones that are just wasting away could easily go, but I never called for a removal of all hate images. And who says I'm deciding what goes on the wiki? I simply thought of what a large portion of the wiki users would vote like, and put it up for speedy. And when it was brought here, look at that. Many of them agree with me. Huh. I guess I was right in thinking that the community would find the image to be shit. Doesn't mean I think I should decide whats on here or not, or that I'm trying to do that. One image maybe, but not the entire wiki. I'm not trying to portray myself as a voice of the community like Iscariot seems to here and there. I'm not trying to dictate the wiki's happenings a-la Grim. Quit trying to paint me like that.
    Also, the whole disk space=cheap? Who cares if its cheap or not. Doesn't mean I want to waste it. And inb4you saying a bunch of my shit is wasting space, I don't feel it does. And if you do, then put it up for deletions. Even if its in my user space, as it's been proven before that the user space isn't sacrosanct. I'm not sure if I replied to each of your points, but I'm tired. If I missed something, let me know, and I'll try to hit it back.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    I don't know if there's much point to this large discussion but, to clarify; Attack images have been deleted in the past. One relating to Amazing, and one very similar one relating to Finis Valorum. The only real question, aside from if she actually wants it deleted, is if this qualifies as something akin to that as opposed to the Marty images. It's kinda dumb but doesn't cross the line into invasion of privacy that is usually used as the standard for deletion request for attack images. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 03:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    Even Marty (bless his thick skull) realized that the images were a parody. Of course, the Marty images are works of art as the Goons are professionals (unlike TZH).--– Nubis NWO 14:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    PMSL...the goon are TZH... the only difference is that they're zombie arseholes, and they have a numerical advantage :P -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:23 10 January 2009 (BST)
    Amazing was a prick, and the attack images were made with his "copyrighted material". It was easier to delete the image than to get him to shut up about it. And finis image was deleted because it featured a RL-photo of him. And Honest, you claim this image is a huge waste of BW, but this discussion prolly a) drew more attention to the image than it normally would b) created more BW usage than the image alone ever consumed. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 16:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    A)I know. It can't be helped that Nubis didn't think it should be deleted, he has his opinions, I have mine. Oh well, right? B) Again, not exactly something we can change. But I still think the image is a useless waste of space. And C) I'm not Honestmistake, please don't tell me you confused me with him, he hasn't even said anything here!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    I dont approve attacking other users, but i am not going to bar them from a crime i and several friends of mine were guilty of in the past (and some of them in the present). BTW, this image is not copyrighted by the user being attacked (heh), nor is it used elsewhere in the wiki besides the talk page of the user who uploaded this image. Its his right to express his hatred for a group or user in his own user page. If any user take this serious, its their fault. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 13:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    and the "has potential" bit on my vote is just a lil joke on one of the below cases :P --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 13:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    What about the 'Saromu is gay Devil' template? It was scheduled deleted..(attack against a user, no swearing). --Janus talk 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  16. Delete - Personal attack. --KyleStyle 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  17. Delete - Crap. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 13:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  18. Keep - it's on a user:talk page; it's free expression. If you don't like it, don't visit the talk page. Plain and simple. Is it pretty? No. Is it tasteful? No. You're right; it's crap (albeit with gobs of potential). But if we just start haphazardly deleting things we don't like, this wiki is going to turn to bland shit. Wait... unless we start with the DEM. Can we delete the DEM??? --Blackboard 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  19. Keep - Oh Lord, don't tell me you've all gotten this petty. The image is SIX MONTHS OLD. If it has offended anyone, the damage has long been done. I feel the whole deletion request only exists to piss off TZH.--SirArgo Talk 04:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    I have no dealings whatsoever with the TZH, I just happened to notice it while checking out some of their stuff. Just because it's old doesn't mean it can't offend anyone that may see it at a later time you know.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'm sure Amber Waves has already seen it, and I don't know of anyone else who would be offended. Plus it's not even well made, it's like a 10-minute paint job! If someone made an image like this about me I wouldn't be offended, if anything they would look like the morons for slapping this together in the first place.--SirArgo Talk 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    The funny thign is, thats one of the reasons why I said it should be deleted fromt he start, because it was such crap. :). Not so much because it was an attack image, or because it'd offend anyone, but because it was a hardly used, and very crappy image.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  20. Delete - But only because I feel ashamed for the guy who made it. I mean really? Who says PWNT to their own burn?--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 11:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  21. Delete - with prejudice. Some people who play this game need help. --WanYao 09:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Actions

Armored Squadron

Was just up for a speedy deletion, but brought here as users at A/SD are unsure about it's status in game. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Group page that has no content and even says they are disbanded. Armored Squadron, we hardly knew ye. --– Nubis NWO 11:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's random as my alt in Vinetown is standing in a building with a member of the armoured sqadron. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, now here is the question. They are in game (at least one) but they have no wiki presence to speak of. Should we still consider this a crit 1 (in pure wiki terms) or remove it from the requests (since they are in game)? --– Nubis NWO 11:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the page says they have disbanded and is just a few lines i'd say kill it. In game might be unrelated, or a leftover or whatever.--xoxo 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Take it to deletions, I think -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:46 12 January 2009 (BST)
Done. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Delete - Doesn't seem to be acting as a group. The page is a stub, it says they are disbanded, and the forum is inactive, despite there being a remnant member in-game -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:22 12 January 2009 (BST)
  2. Keep - Page has content, a record of the group's existence, a link to their former forum and the ever present group box. Just because a group has disbanded doesn't mean things should be deleted. Also there is no proof that the group themselves added the section saying they are disbanded, we could be looking at a piece of missed vandalism. Rosslessness' observations trump all arguments. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 13:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Delete Iscariot's point about the "disbanded" part possibly being missed vandalism is a good one. However, on further investigation I find that their forums are dead. I also hardly consider just a group box "content". I wanted this moved here in case the guy Ross is with can answer if they are gone or not. Having it here gives him a chance to come forth. (if he does then I may change my vote)--– Nubis NWO 13:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Delete. Come on, a template with a field saying FILLTHIS? The group can always just remake the page if they're so inclined. I mean, it DOES have potential. --Blackboard 16:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Delete - Page is empty, forums quiet since about May 2008. It's more than likely disbanded with a couple of stragglers in-game who decided to carry on by themselves. -- Cheese 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Delete - As above.--SirArgo Talk 23:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Delete - As above. --LithedarkangelMeth!The Great Meth Man 02:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. Delete - we've deleted groups stub pages with evidence of an in-game presence before, we'll do it again.--xoxo 13:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  9. Delete already. --WanYao 09:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted--– Nubis NWO 14:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Umbrella Corporation/Report

An exact same copy of an already deleted file. Posted as a personal assault directed towards me. Also posted just to "get back at me" for posting a logical report (with 0 personal assaults in it.) --Haliman - Talk 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - Crit 6. --Haliman - Talk 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
When you're posting shit like this please include links to the deletion logs etc, makes it a lot easier for people to figure out if what you're saying is valid.--xoxo 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
One moment... --Haliman - Talk 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Haliman - Talk 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:). It was deleted because it was requested so by the page owners before deletion by vote. It never got forcefully deleted. Not crit 6--Thadeous Oakley 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
False claim that I zerg, sure that's not a personal attack.--Thadeous Oakley 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep--Thadeous Oakley 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep--It's the equivalent of what you have, sure it's full of holes but so your slander page.--SirArgo Talk 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy - Already been deleted once. Crit 6. --Pestolence(talk) 23:40, 11 January 2009
    Striking vote, after looking at the deletion vote from August, I see most of the delete votes were actually move to subpage votes, which is where this already is. Keep: It's a group subpage. --Pestolence(talk) 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Nope. It was deleted by page owners not by A/D.--Thadeous Oakley 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Nonetheless, it fills Crit 6. You should have thought about of the possibility of wanting to bring it back when you requested it to be deleted. --Haliman - Talk 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Haliman, they had the empty page deleted because they didn't want that specific page anymore. Effectively they moved it to a group subpage, it just took awhile and was done in a strange and confusing way. The deletion (in that case) wasn't about the content but the desire to have the namespace deleted. Comprendé? --xoxo 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    So they just conveniently restore it now? --Haliman - Talk 23:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    It's their page and content, they have the right to do that.--SirArgo Talk 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - That case shows the page wasn't deleted with the content on it, the page that was deleted was empty.--xoxo 23:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    The page has nothing on because it was deleted. --Haliman - Talk 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Wrong. It was emptied by page owners, then it was empty then deleted by A/D by owner's request. The content on it was never deleted by A/D. Not crit 6.--Thadeous Oakley 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Your group wiped the page only after it became clear that it was going to be deleted. If you had recreated it outside your group space it would be toast by now due to crit 6 -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:24 12 January 2009 (BST)
    Boxy is indeed correct, I'm still contemplating Crit 6ing it because of the reason it was removed; "But agreed, im not sure if it violates the wiki rules officaly, but it does not belong here", which is a direct quote from MisterGame, even tempted to file a vandalism case for remaking it as it seems to be in bad faith.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete with difference of our page this one is a personal attack to Haliman while ours is a report about UC zergers.--LithedarkangelMeth!The Great Meth Man 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Yes and accusing someone of zerging, no that's a personal attack at all, huh?--Thadeous Oakley 00:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah, I thought so.--Thadeous Oakley 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    This one was not deleted and keeps in fact a list of zergers. Here. --LithedarkangelMeth!The Great Meth Man 05:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Because I can.--ScouterTX 01:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - As Sir Argo. We can't have double standards. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not only does it not fit into the criteria of a speedy delete, the page is not a personal attack, it is a record on a fictional character named Haliman111. Who roll plays this character we do not know but it is not an attack on that person behind the character, even though it tends to point out characteristics of the person behind this character, it should not be viewed as such.--Umbrella-White.pngPresident JacksonUmbrella-White.png 01:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's in the group namespace now -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:24 12 January 2009 (BST)
  • Keep - If Haliman can, why cant we? --Skouth 06:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sure, it's a heavy chunk of over-indulgent UD weirdness... but what the hell. --Blackboard 12:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - weak, though. This could be Scheduled Deleted (Personal Information) imo.. --Janus talk 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - and an escalation as per Crit 6. The original deletion vote was clear, it was subverted by the group's action of getting an author speedy first. The community's sentiment still applies. Failing to see this as Crit 6 opens the wiki up to every getting deleted being blanked and author speedied first, we'll never be able to get rid of some pages and Crit 6 and the policy enacted over it will be worthless. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 14:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    The original page in question was requested for deletion with the specific directive that it be moved to a talk page. It was. Crit 6 does not apply; perhaps the original page should have been given a "move" request instead of "delete". --Blackboard 16:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Did you just try an argue a technicality with me? Look back at the previous deletions voting, there were 8 votes for Delete/Move and 11 votes for a straight forward deletion. The community's consensus is clear. My Crit 6 vote stands. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Argue! With YOU!! How DARE I! My word! I retract, I'm sorry! I don't know what I was thinking! How silly of me! Please forgive me, oh great and mighty Iscariot!
    Anyway, some of the same people who voted to delete it then are voting to keep it now for that very reason. I think the issue wasn't the page content, per se, but rather the content in the context of where the page was posted.--Blackboard 16:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - You make a flame bait page, they do the same back. Let them have it. -- Cheese 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - I just wonder what's the next file/page under the delete order.--Beau Dece 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - There's a policy somewhere saying group pages may have NPOV paragraphs edited in. (Found it.) I believe that's what's been done on similar cases in the past where a group page's content has been controversial, like Red Rum's Tommy Gun page. A short paragraph along the lines of "This is a sub-page of <groupname>, its content reflects the views of that group. The views of other users or groups may differ from those presented here" can help to take some of the sting out of a page where a user feels they are being criticised unfairly or misleadingly. The NPOV section should try to communicate that people should trust what they read in the rest of the page in proportion with how much they trust the source. Also, this same comment goes for the matching case below. --Toejam 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep* - They get the zerg page we get this page, all is fair --Colonel Krauser 04:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - You are assholes. The wiki already decided this was NOT appropriate content and you posted it again. Go to hell, you fucking creeps. --WanYao 09:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted under Crit 6. -Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 14:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The "page" that was deleted had no content. This is like someone getting their group deleted so they can rename it and move the content elsewhere, then getting crit 6 when they do move it elsewhere. But thanks for stepping in and stopping democracy, the people almost had a say in something then! I was starting to panic.--xoxo 01:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the page that would have been deleted was this exact one which the author then chose to move off of the wiki and that is what the original deletion was for. The author himself said this was the wrong place for that content and chose to remove it, no different than a Crit 7. --Karekmaps?! 04:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
He said it was the wrong place, and moved it to the correct place AKA group subpage. The owner has clearly stated he wants the content on and if it was only deleted because he removed it (it was) then it should be subject to a vote as per the guidelines (it was about to be before you interupted). Don't make me put a/m back on everyones watchlists...--xoxo 12:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
"If more Delete votes are entered than Keep votes, the page will be deleted. In any other circumstance, the page is kept." Hmm. Seems pretty clear. I mean, maybe I'm just shit at counting, but... I'm pretty sure this is just power-tripping. You don't like it, you CAN delete it, so you do. I call bullshit. --Blackboard 17:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that I count 2 sysops voting keep makes this even worse.--Thadeous Oakley 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nigga Hardcore Squad

As below. Last edit by Vantar (category) on July 2007. --Janus talk 02:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved from A/SD. It's got a keep vote. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. Keep - Has potential. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 02:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    How is that? Almost no content and hasn't been edited for over a year.. --Janus talk 03:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    It has potential to be a great group. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Speedy Delete - Inactive group, no content. Exactly what Janus said above. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Speedy Delete - Activity? None. Content? None. Potential? None. -S Aline 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    You're angry. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    Not in the least. Should I be? -S Aline 08:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    I've never seen Sarah Aline voting on deletions before. Is she working up to running for sysop??? Or just THAT bored??? ;P --WanYao 17:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    Gasp! How'd you know, Mr. Yao?! -S Aline 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Speedy Two years is more than enough time to wait on it's "potential", Sonny. Get real. --– Nubis NWO 04:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Keep --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM!(Delet-o) - No one breaks the law on my watch! I'm confiscating your stolen goods. Now pay your fine or it's off to jail.--Karekmaps?! 08:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    I see someone's been playing Oblivion. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    [1]--Karekmaps?! 08:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Speedy Delete - Funny, but useless. --ZsL 19:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. - Has potential-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Quote from Wan Yao just down this page: "Boxy is right: we don't speedydelete old groups" . If the god of the wiki and boxy both agree, why exactly are so many of you trying to get this speedy deleted???? --xoxo 23:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    There is a huge difference in the amount of content between this page and the one that Wan was talking about.--– Nubis NWO 10:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    Because you're quoting out of context, Wan continues on to say "Boxy is right: we don't speedydelete old groups. Many abandoned groups get deleted. However, this usually is because there is mininal, or garbage, content on an abandoned group's page. Though not always... Still, we usually don't delete groups with some decent content which were once active..." -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:46 3 January 2009 (BST)
    Yeah, it's a crit 1. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  10. D- Surely if it has potential it can be re-created later. Liberty 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  11. Speedy Delete - Crit 1. No activity, no content. If someone comes along and wants to start this group, they can recreate the page. It's not like a lot of work will be deleted if this is gone - it's got one template. --Pestolence(talk) 16:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'll lead the group. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 17:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    Do it faggot. I'll join.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  12. Speedydelete -- I'm quoted above... But this isn't even a group. It's a no content page. Ciao! --WanYao 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  13. Keep - because we got rid of crit 12 a fuck-age ago because Disk Space = Cheep!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 18:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    There's no content. It's not an actual group page with any existence in UD's history. Therefore Crit 12 doesn't apply. --WanYao 20:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    Oh god, it must be such a huge drain on the server... hurry and delete it from existance before the wiki crashes--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  14. Delete - because getting rid of crit 12 doesn't mean that contentless group pages are automatically kept -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:46 3 January 2009 (BST)
  15. Po-tat-ional - Is that how you spell it? (Why the fuck do you think Potential is in fucking bold. Cause it has it! Morons)--/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 08:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  16. Kill with fire - 'nuff said. -- Cheese 15:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  17. Keep - IRC told me to. As Jorm. There is content, the image, that will be deleted if this page is. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    Hai, I don't see jorm anywhar...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    Jorm has moved on, but his message hasnt--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 05:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    I've seen that before AS, I was being sillwwy. :D -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 06:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    Groups with actual text content -- a few lame-assed lines -- get deleted all the time. The lame and probably ripped off image is no different than these kind of pages. And... Crit 12 doesn't apply here, this isn't speedydeletions. --WanYao 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  18. Keep - Has potential. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 17:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  19. Delete - Had potential. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  20. Delete. Why keep every crappy aborted fetus group page? It contributes nothing to the wiki; it makes it look cheap and used. Like your mom. Everything "has potential". That's a bullshit argument. I'm going to go and make a half-assed template for a dozen fake groups and put them each on a separate page. Because then, they can have potential too! --Blackboard 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    The difference between this, and all these other groups, is that I or Sonny might actually form it. I'm still thinking on if I have time or not.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    Well! Why didn't you say so! That changes everything. Change my vote to an emphatic keep! This one has REAL potential, instead of the usual brand of potential potential. --Blackboard 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    I didn't say so because I can always remake the page should I decide to make this group. Doesn't stop me from voting keep before it's deleted, right? :D. But I would appreciate your change of heart, and will gladly accept your "keep" vote. ;) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  21. Delete --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  22. Delete - No useful content, the group's inactive. G F J 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  23. Delete - As above. --LithedarkangelMeth!The Great Meth Man 04:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Deleted - 15 delete to 8 keep. -- 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Urban Dead Leaderboard

It talks about a website that no longer exists, the user himself has not contributed since 2006, and the link was removed from External Links a while ago.-- Adward  15:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - It's something worth keeping around, possibly rewording to make clear that it's not actually still up. --Karekmaps?! 15:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As Karek. If only because it was around at one point, and I don't like removing the game's history. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, maybe add something like 'Website not active' at the top.. --Janus talk 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No site = no proof. No proof = no page for something like this. If someone created this page today it would be deleted out of hand without proof, this is no different. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Except this happens to have been a big part of the game for a long time and was used by various groups for various purposes. Sticking your head in the sand is not reason to ignore what we know and that's exactly what this is equivalent to. The site existed, it was popular, it was used for competitions in the meta-game. That's not the same as if it had been an insignificant page for a project that never happened.--Karekmaps?! 06:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • If it was such a big part of the game for such a long time, then you'll have no problem in providing some objective proof. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 15:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Find proof that The Many, The Undying Scourge, and TSO existed.--Karekmaps?! 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually, The Many were mentioned in a real life magazine blurb about UD back in 2005. XD--– Nubis NWO 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I know, but that doesn't make it any more valid than all the references that are easily found on major forums to the use of the leadrboard.--Karekmaps?! 19:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
              • One minor point, those pages aren't up for deletion, this one is. As with any rational debate, burden of proof is on the claimant. You claim they are an important part of the history, I'm asking for verifiable proof, you're not providing it. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Deletions isn't a debate it is a vote. Your opinion that proof needs to be shown isn't any more valid than my opinion "let's keep it because I like the name". You are also sounding like Grim and his demand that a screen shot of Radio Survivor be provided when no other entry is subjected to that standard. So you vote no and I vote yes and we cancel each other out. Next.--– Nubis NWO 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - As Iscariot the Invisible. --WanYao 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC) vote changed --WanYao 00:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - But conditionally. If this leaderbard did, in fact, play an important role in the metagame community, then the page ought to reflect that fact. Go in an do a little write-up about this... --WanYao 00:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The UD Wiki article needs to be edited to reflect the curent status i.e. it WAS but is no longer and a past tense descriptor of what the site did. And a Point of order...I personally entered over 600 profiles to the leader board (DHPD, RRF, Known allies, and most of our Rouges Gallery and Wanted Lists) Calls for proof are meaningless because in all sense of the word I can't even prove you were involved in UD before September 1st of 2007. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Remove the links to the website and state that it was in the past, no longer exists, etc, but keep as part of UD history. -S Aline 03:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep- Someone should do what WanYao said, write about its significance and then let the page be. Liberty 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - All the page needs is a couple of minor tweaks to say that it is no longer online. -- Cheese 15:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I like the name.--– Nubis NWO 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Kept - I've past tensed the article and someone with more knowledge might want to clean it up a bit. -- Cheese 15:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

some old unused images

Images I uploaded, that I no longer have use for, and that are no longer in use. Just taking up space. Thankyou.-- Denver  5MoC 07:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy - Crit 7. In future, just go straight to A/SD, and do it there (if you are deleteing stuff you uploaded yourself. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • speedy -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:57 10 January 2009 (BST)
  • Speedy.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 08:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedied.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 08:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'll remember to do that in the future. thanks again.-- Denver  5MoC 08:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The 7th Stockman Walk Regiment

Apparently disbanded, not a confirmed or historically important group, no edits since July, all members apparently inactive/not on the Wiki in the first place.

--aClashInRedSnowHand logo.png|talk 02:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - We don't delete old groups' wikis, unless they're blank. And there's content in them thar wiki! Thus, it stays. --WanYao 02:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - As Wan. Crit 12 died for a reason (although "group pages" with only a sentence are occasionally deleted.) Linkthewindow  Talk  03:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Author Keep/Kill Request - Oh, thanks for clarification, I wasn't sure whether it was deletion material or not. That settles it for me. Can I just move this to the Recent Actions section or delete it or does it have to stay up for vote? --aClashInRedSnowHand logo.png|talk 04:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Er, for further clarification, what about a group like this? I suppose I'd like to know what the threshold is on what constitutes lack of content. --aClashInRedSnowHand logo.png|talk 09:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thats a keep. Were looking for a couple of lines, or a group box that isn't formatted. Something that was created one day and then abandoned. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I've thrown up the Inactive Group template on the page. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - but only just. WanYao's comment isn't exactly correct. Deletion votes can indeed get rid of group pages if they get enough votes, it's just that a group page has to be very minimal, and lack any real history to get the required votes. People create heaps of groups that never do anything of interest in Malton (or the other cities), it's reasonable to delete these pages if they drag down the wiki's signal to noise ratio too much, like the further link provided. Don't feel that because a nomination for deletion gets voted down, that that means you've done something wrong by bringing it here -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:29 23 December 2008 (BST)
Ahh, gotcha. Thanks for the full run-down (and being friendly while at it!), all. I think I'm clear now on how slim a page needs to be for deletion. --aClashInRedSnowHand logo.png|talk 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Boxy is right: we don't speedydelete old groups. Many abandoned groups get deleted. However, this usually is because there is mininal, or garbage, content on an abandoned group's page. Though not always... Still, we usually don't delete groups with some decent content which were once active... --WanYao 06:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
What Wan said. Groups that only have ever had one member, with minimal content on the page (such as a broken table or only a few lines of text,) usually fall under a crit 1 speedy deletion. Most of the time, however, they are left. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Kept -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:02 8 January 2009 (BST)

The E.Vil Cliq

Crit one, not edited since 30 December, sole editor has left the wiki. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - It's less than a week old! And you don't know that the editor has "left the wiki". It's a holiday. --WanYao 14:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved from A/SD. 11:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep- for now. --Janus talk 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wan has a point. I'll be more careful in future. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Kept - The sysop who processed them decided that they didn't fit the spirit of criteria 1 on A/SD, so there was no need to move them here -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:00 8 January 2009 (BST)

Disposable Heroes

Ditto, except 27 December. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - A week old. Back off. Give it a month or so. --WanYao 14:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved from A/SD. 11:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep- for now. --Janus talk 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Are you bored link?--ScouterTX 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Yes, I was bored. I'll be more careful in future. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Kept - The sysop who processed them decided that they didn't fit the spirit of criteria 1 on A/SD, so there was no need to move them here -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:00 8 January 2009 (BST)

Perzeus

Ditto again, except 1 January. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - SHEEEEEEEEEEESH, quit putting brand new pages up for deletion! --WanYao 14:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved from A/SD. 11:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep- for now. --Janus talk 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wan has a point. I'll be more careful in future. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Kept - The sysop who processed them decided that they didn't fit the spirit of criteria 1 on A/SD, so there was no need to move them here -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:00 8 January 2009 (BST)

Archive

Deletions Archive
2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2014 Jan-Jun Jul-Dec
Years 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/2011_06&oldid=1366559"