July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 00:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` This article was deleted by User:Kurykh after an AfD discussion earlier this month. Kurykh made the decision to delete based on his opinion that this is news coverage and therefore doesn't belong, despite its meeting the notability standard. The discussion itself had an ambiguous result. I propose that, since the subject is notable, the article should be restored. Everyking 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, well-reasoned closing statement by closing admin. Notability is not incidental, and Wikipedia is not a news source; no arguments to the contrary were raised. As an aside, these sorts of events happen all the time, and there aren't articles on them since they don't have any lasting significance. --Core desat 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] The article seems to have clearly met the notability standard. While I can't view it now, in the AfD it was mentioned that it had many reliable sources cited and that Google News was listing hundreds of articles about it. There is no argument that circumvents that. Everyking 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, there is. WP:NOT#NEWS states that something being in the news for some period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article on it. WP:NOT is policy; policy trumps WP:N. All the news stories used as references in the article say the exact same thing - it happened, and there was very minimal damage. Not to mention that the article was absolutely horrendous and self-contradictory to begin with. --Core desat 03:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's another example of how BLP-based policies are used to cover other areas of content. What you cite justifies itself by pointing to "the harm our work might cause" and says that "the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately". Of course, it makes no sense whatsoever to apply that to an article on an earthquake. Everyking 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion - The effects of this earthquake was "knocking out power to 4,600 homes in Oakland, damaging some stores and snapping at least one gas line." - A thunderstorm is capable of doing such minimal damage. There is just no historic notability to this event. Corpx 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Historic notability is not necessary. In the sense of historic as most people understand it, only a small fraction of Wikipedia's content has historical significance. The encyclopedia has been built on a much broader understanding of notability, which is encapsulated in the requirement to have multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. I am just arguing that the same standard should be applied here. Everyking 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] As Coredesat mentioned, historic notability is required. - "something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". This sort of article is much more appropriate at wikinews Corpx 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] In your estimation, what sort of earthquake, or natural disaster of any kind, is historically notable? I can think of only a few earthquakes I would consider historically notable. What about hurricanes? Most of them drift harmlessly into cool water and dissipate, but our practice (quite rightly, in my opinion) is to have an article on every single one of them. Surely a hurricane that drifts harmlessly away from land is not historically notable? And back to earthquakes: what kind of damage or loss of life do you think needs to occur for historical notability to exist? I mean, if 100 people die, is that enough? 1,000? If a whole city is mostly or entirely destroyed, like Bam, Iran, should the quake have an article (I don't see one for the quake that levelled Bam)? Do a certain number of years, decades, or centuries need to pass so that we can ascertain historical notability? Everyking 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] This might be an earthquake, but it didnt cause any more damage than the storm that passed by my place last week. Do we really have articles about tropical storms that did not make landfall? Just like there is a difference between a thunderstorm and a tropical storm, there should be one for earthquakes (although I'm not qualified to say what that # might be) Corpx 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, we have many articles on storms that didn't make landfall, and some of them are even featured. But most hurricanes that do make landfall aren't historically notable, either, are they? It's a very poor standard to apply. You shouldn't look at an event and evaluate its notability based on how many people died or how much damage was done; you should evaluate it based on references confirming recognition of the subject and importance attached to it. If it has those multiple, independent, non-trivial sources, then we should keep it: that's the notability standard, and it's the only one that is consistent and reasonable. Everyking 08:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Everything that happens in the news will have significant coverage from independent sources. I dont think that means we should be writing about every story being covered by the press. I dont think an encyclopedia should be the documenter of current events with minimal long term notability Corpx 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] It sounds like Wikipedia is the wrong project for you. Click "random article" for a while and be horrified by all the non-historic information you see. Everyking 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Start AFD-ing them then :) Corpx 06:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion - where the boundary lies between news reporting and encyclopaedic recording is a matter of judgement but in my view a fair factor is how long the media coverage lasts. In this case, no long term reporting is cited nor are any consequential infrastructure changes. Finally, there was a good majority for deletion. TerriersFan 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion Fair closure. Conflates news with encyclopedic notability. Eusebeus 04:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. There may be a line between news and encyclopedic notability, but this isn't anywhere near it. --Calton \| Talk 07:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Is the article somewhere on Wikinews? As the subject for a newspaper article, this would probably be appropriate, but I feel that an earthquake in the Bay Area which caused minimal property damage, and no injuries is about as notable as a storm during the monsoon season, and does not have a sufficiently lasting impact to make it notable. Closing rationale was otherwise appropriate. Sorry Everyking, but I think I'll need to endorse this deletion from Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm just going by the notability standard. One thing that would be useful to know is how long this article was. If there wasn't much content, perhaps it could be merged somewhere (probably the ideal solution, since I doubt there's very much to say about it), although I don't know where. Everyking 09:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] If I recall correctly, we can not transwiki to Wikinews due to license incompatability. This is unfortunate, as many articles that belong on Wikinews are started here. If there is a Wikinews article, it needs to be an independently written article. GRBerry 12:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sjakkalle, there isn't a Wikinews article that I can find. Nevertheless, GRBerry is correct that we cannot transwiki there as Wikinews uses Creative Commons licensing instead of GFDL. Everyking, the content in the Google cached version is about ten sentences referenced to two primary sources (USGS data) and one secondary source, a television station. Still, it wasn't deleted until five days after that snapshot. --Dhartung \| Talk 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

July 20, 2007 Oakland Earthquake – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 00:27, 5 August 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 deleted by User:Kurykh after an AfD discussion earlier this month. Kurykh made the decision to delete based on his opinion that this is news coverage and therefore doesn't belong, despite its meeting the notability standard. The discussion itself had an ambiguous result. I propose that, since the subject is notable, the article should be restored. Everyking 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, well-reasoned closing statement by closing admin. Notability is not incidental, and Wikipedia is not a news source; no arguments to the contrary were raised. As an aside, these sorts of events happen all the time, and there aren't articles on them since they don't have any lasting significance. --Coredesat 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems to have clearly met the notability standard. While I can't view it now, in the AfD it was mentioned that it had many reliable sources cited and that Google News was listing hundreds of articles about it. There is no argument that circumvents that. Everyking 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there is. WP:NOT#NEWS states that something being in the news for some period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article on it. WP:NOT is policy; policy trumps WP:N. All the news stories used as references in the article say the exact same thing - it happened, and there was very minimal damage. Not to mention that the article was absolutely horrendous and self-contradictory to begin with. --Coredesat 03:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's another example of how BLP-based policies are used to cover other areas of content. What you cite justifies itself by pointing to "the harm our work might cause" and says that "the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately". Of course, it makes no sense whatsoever to apply that to an article on an earthquake. Everyking 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - The effects of this earthquake was "knocking out power to 4,600 homes in Oakland, damaging some stores and snapping at least one gas line." - A thunderstorm is capable of doing such minimal damage. There is just no historic notability to this event. Corpx 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Historic notability is not necessary. In the sense of historic as most people understand it, only a small fraction of Wikipedia's content has historical significance. The encyclopedia has been built on a much broader understanding of notability, which is encapsulated in the requirement to have multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. I am just arguing that the same standard should be applied here. Everyking 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As Coredesat mentioned, historic notability is required. - "something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". This sort of article is much more appropriate at wikinews Corpx 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In your estimation, what sort of earthquake, or natural disaster of any kind, is historically notable? I can think of only a few earthquakes I would consider historically notable. What about hurricanes? Most of them drift harmlessly into cool water and dissipate, but our practice (quite rightly, in my opinion) is to have an article on every single one of them. Surely a hurricane that drifts harmlessly away from land is not historically notable? And back to earthquakes: what kind of damage or loss of life do you think needs to occur for historical notability to exist? I mean, if 100 people die, is that enough? 1,000? If a whole city is mostly or entirely destroyed, like Bam, Iran, should the quake have an article (I don't see one for the quake that levelled Bam)? Do a certain number of years, decades, or centuries need to pass so that we can ascertain historical notability? Everyking 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This might be an earthquake, but it didnt cause any more damage than the storm that passed by my place last week. Do we really have articles about tropical storms that did not make landfall? Just like there is a difference between a thunderstorm and a tropical storm, there should be one for earthquakes (although I'm not qualified to say what that # might be) Corpx 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, we have many articles on storms that didn't make landfall, and some of them are even featured. But most hurricanes that do make landfall aren't historically notable, either, are they? It's a very poor standard to apply. You shouldn't look at an event and evaluate its notability based on how many people died or how much damage was done; you should evaluate it based on references confirming recognition of the subject and importance attached to it. If it has those multiple, independent, non-trivial sources, then we should keep it: that's the notability standard, and it's the only one that is consistent and reasonable. Everyking 08:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Everything that happens in the news will have significant coverage from independent sources. I dont think that means we should be writing about every story being covered by the press. I dont think an encyclopedia should be the documenter of current events with minimal long term notability Corpx 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It sounds like Wikipedia is the wrong project for you. Click "random article" for a while and be horrified by all the non-historic information you see. Everyking 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Start AFD-ing them then :) Corpx 06:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - where the boundary lies between news reporting and encyclopaedic recording is a matter of judgement but in my view a fair factor is how long the media coverage lasts. In this case, no long term reporting is cited nor are any consequential infrastructure changes. Finally, there was a good majority for deletion. TerriersFan 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Fair closure. Conflates news with encyclopedic notability. Eusebeus 04:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There may be a line between news and encyclopedic notability, but this isn't anywhere near it. --Calton | Talk 07:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article somewhere on Wikinews? As the subject for a newspaper article, this would probably be appropriate, but I feel that an earthquake in the Bay Area which caused minimal property damage, and no injuries is about as notable as a storm during the monsoon season, and does not have a sufficiently lasting impact to make it notable. Closing rationale was otherwise appropriate. Sorry Everyking, but I think I'll need to endorse this deletion from Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just going by the notability standard. One thing that would be useful to know is how long this article was. If there wasn't much content, perhaps it could be merged somewhere (probably the ideal solution, since I doubt there's very much to say about it), although I don't know where. Everyking 09:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I recall correctly, we can not transwiki to Wikinews due to license incompatability. This is unfortunate, as many articles that belong on Wikinews are started here. If there is a Wikinews article, it needs to be an independently written article. GRBerry 12:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sjakkalle, there isn't a Wikinews article that I can find. Nevertheless, GRBerry is correct that we cannot transwiki there as Wikinews uses Creative Commons licensing instead of GFDL. Everyking, the content in the Google cached version is about ten sentences referenced to two primary sources (USGS data) and one secondary source, a television station. Still, it wasn't deleted until five days after that snapshot. --Dhartung | Talk 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brandy Talore – Deletion overturned; content moved to proper capitalization; sent to AfD. – Xoloz 00:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brandy Talore (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Article has been continually speedy deleted without ever having an AfD discussion. She passes the WP:PORNBIO notability criteria by having won a FAME award. Epbr123 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Most of the versions appear to be the same, and the only source in any of them is the performer's MySpace. Feel free to write a proper article asserting notability, but there's nothing to undelete I think. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] There's a point that Epbr123 didn't address - it's salted, on Wikipedia:Protected_titles/March_2007, and he doesn't have the mop, so he can't write the article unless we move it off there. Personally I'm willing to do it, Epbr123 is an experienced editor, and, frankly, has been a noted scourge of pornographic performer articles of questionable notability :-) so this is something like Nixon going to China. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] I should also point out that there is a recently created article on Brandy talore. If Brandy Talore gets unsalted, the content can be moved from there. Epbr123 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Seems like a good-faith request from somebody who knows what they're doing; I see no pressing need to keep it salted at this time. As JzG mentioned, there's probably nothing much to undelete. At the very least, we could run it through an AfD. I'd say unsalt, with XfD listing optional. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Unsalt for recreation. DRV nom asserts notability so it should be sent to AfD if the rewritten article doesn't address concerns. Eluchil404 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore & Move - Not sure why Brandy talore was deleted today, because the FAME award certainly made it pass WP:PORNBIO. Restore Brandy talore and move to Brandy Talore Corpx 07:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] It doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, or Wikipedia:Notability, which are a lot more important than the ill-conceived WP:PORNBIO page. —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] The article meets Wikipedia:Notability as she has received significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. This AVN.com article is reliable and independent, and is significant coverage as it mentions her winning a major award. Epbr123 11:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Which is not grounds for a speedy delete, but rather for referral to AfD. Undelete and Move. Evouga 07:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] I stand by my deletion of this article. Keep deleted. JDoorjam JDiscourse 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Unsalt. Now notable per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 16:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Brandy Talore – Deletion overturned; content moved to proper capitalization; sent to AfD. – Xoloz 00:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article has been continually speedy deleted without ever having an AfD discussion. She passes the WP:PORNBIO notability criteria by having won a FAME award. Epbr123 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the versions appear to be the same, and the only source in any of them is the performer's MySpace. Feel free to write a proper article asserting notability, but there's nothing to undelete I think. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a point that Epbr123 didn't address - it's salted, on Wikipedia:Protected_titles/March_2007, and he doesn't have the mop, so he can't write the article unless we move it off there. Personally I'm willing to do it, Epbr123 is an experienced editor, and, frankly, has been a noted scourge of pornographic performer articles of questionable notability :-) so this is something like Nixon going to China. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that there is a recently created article on Brandy talore. If Brandy Talore gets unsalted, the content can be moved from there. Epbr123 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good-faith request from somebody who knows what they're doing; I see no pressing need to keep it salted at this time. As JzG mentioned, there's probably nothing much to undelete. At the very least, we could run it through an AfD. I'd say unsalt, with XfD listing optional. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt for recreation. DRV nom asserts notability so it should be sent to AfD if the rewritten article doesn't address concerns. Eluchil404 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore & Move - Not sure why Brandy talore was deleted today, because the FAME award certainly made it pass WP:PORNBIO. Restore Brandy talore and move to Brandy Talore Corpx 07:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, or Wikipedia:Notability, which are a lot more important than the ill-conceived WP:PORNBIO page. —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets Wikipedia:Notability as she has received significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. This AVN.com article is reliable and independent, and is significant coverage as it mentions her winning a major award. Epbr123 11:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not grounds for a speedy delete, but rather for referral to AfD. Undelete and Move. Evouga 07:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my deletion of this article. Keep deleted. JDoorjam JDiscourse 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt. Now notable per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 16:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rule_34 – Deletion endorsed. Proposed redirection not supported by consensus. – Xoloz 00:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rule_34 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` A number of references exist, for example http://kotaku.com/gaming/porn/doa-tomb-raider-interactive-sex-flicks-283675.php and a number of websites dedicated to the term, such as http://rule34.of-the-internet.com/ . It seems to be a long-lasting meme which has occurred in multiple places. I came to wikipedia looking to find an origin of the term.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff (talk • contribs). Keep deleted, unless you have more reliable sources than a gaming blog. --Dhartung \| Talk 19:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] I would have thought the existance of a number of websites, even if each is not a completely trustworthy source, which discuss the same "Rule 34", would demonstrate such a term exists, and it's common definition?Mrjeff 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] There's no additive property to sources such that two sources deemed half-reliable add up to one that is reliable. Please read WP:RS, a core policy. --Dhartung \| Talk 06:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted as above. A quick mention on a blog is not the same thing as a reliable source. Besides, it's been speedied 7 times by different admins going back over a year. If it was restored, it wouldn't last more than a couple minutes at most. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted and protected, no evidence provided of WP:RS that would legitimize allowing the recreation of this much-deleted article. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to 4chan as an apparently plausible search term. Protect the redirect if need be. --W.marsh 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted and protected ~~either~~ in its current state ~~or as an indefinitely-protected redirect to 4chan (but why?)~~, no evidence of any reliable sources. --Core desat 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Do not redirect. --Core desat 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Rule 34 is one of the oldest chan memes, ever. Finding a source for its origin* would probably be impossible; let alone a reliable one. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to 4chan, but to be honest it is one of the most prominent internet memes... ugen64 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redierct as above, it's better than a redlink. >Radiant< 14:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Do not redirect. 4chan does not mention this. I don't care whether this is deleted or undeleted. --- RockMFR 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted. I've yet to find Harry Potter/Anakin Skywalker slash necrophilia mpreg porn, so the rule in itself is a load of bullshit. Will ^(talk) 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] "It will take magic to extend his light sabre again," he thought, examining the corpse... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] That hurt my brain. Well done. Keep deleted as quite likely unsourceable unless we make *chan boards reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Rule_34 – Deletion endorsed. Proposed redirection not supported by consensus. – Xoloz 00:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A number of references exist, for example http://kotaku.com/gaming/porn/doa-tomb-raider-interactive-sex-flicks-283675.php and a number of websites dedicated to the term, such as http://rule34.of-the-internet.com/ . It seems to be a long-lasting meme which has occurred in multiple places. I came to wikipedia looking to find an origin of the term.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff (talk • contribs).

Keep deleted, unless you have more reliable sources than a gaming blog. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the existance of a number of websites, even if each is not a completely trustworthy source, which discuss the same "Rule 34", would demonstrate such a term exists, and it's common definition?Mrjeff 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no additive property to sources such that two sources deemed half-reliable add up to one that is reliable. Please read WP:RS, a core policy. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted as above. A quick mention on a blog is not the same thing as a reliable source. Besides, it's been speedied 7 times by different admins going back over a year. If it was restored, it wouldn't last more than a couple minutes at most. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and protected, no evidence provided of WP:RS that would legitimize allowing the recreation of this much-deleted article. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4chan as an apparently plausible search term. Protect the redirect if need be. --W.marsh 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and protected ~~either~~ in its current state ~~or as an indefinitely-protected redirect to 4chan (but why?)~~, no evidence of any reliable sources. --Coredesat 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not redirect. --Core desat 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rule 34 is one of the oldest *chan memes, ever. Finding a source for its origin would probably be impossible; let alone a reliable one. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4chan, but to be honest it is one of the most prominent internet memes... ugen64 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redierct as above, it's better than a redlink. >Radiant< 14:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not redirect. 4chan does not mention this. I don't care whether this is deleted or undeleted. --- RockMFR 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I've yet to find Harry Potter/Anakin Skywalker slash necrophilia mpreg porn, so the rule in itself is a load of bullshit. Will ^(talk) 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It will take magic to extend his light sabre again," he thought, examining the corpse... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That hurt my brain. Well done. Keep deleted as quite likely unsourceable unless we make *chan boards reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steven Cann – Deletion overturned; AfD concerns addressed. This DRV closed by AfD closing admin. – Kurykh 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steven Cann (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Has now rejoined a professional club (Rotherham United) [1] and also had a previous spell as a professional at Derby County. Also players like Andy Liversidge have articles although they have not played in a professional league. Kingjamie 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore, the AfD's notability concern is now addressed, as apparently the subject now plays in a fully professional league - but I might be wrong, since the other person, Andy Liversidge, apparently plays in the same club? Either they are both professionals, or neither is. Sandstein 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore per nom. Epbr123 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Steven Cann – Deletion overturned; AfD concerns addressed. This DRV closed by AfD closing admin. – Kurykh 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has now rejoined a professional club (Rotherham United) [1] and also had a previous spell as a professional at Derby County. Also players like Andy Liversidge have articles although they have not played in a professional league. Kingjamie 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, the AfD's notability concern is now addressed, as apparently the subject now plays in a fully professional league - but I might be wrong, since the other person, Andy Liversidge, apparently plays in the same club? Either they are both professionals, or neither is. Sandstein 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per nom. Epbr123 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Twilight War: After the Fall – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 00:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Twilight War: After the Fall (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` The deletion of this wiki was due to misunderstanding and old information. Smiling Gator Productions has long since handed production of the game over to General Computers Inc. Although funding was not available a year and a half ago with SGP, GC has since taken up the project and is expected to not only have a closed beta start early August, 2007 (http://www.twilightwar.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=80) but also has an expected release date within 2007. To delete this wiki on the premise that it is a game that will not make it into production is highly illogical and simply incorrect. I would expect that the game wiki would be restored, if you have any doubt as to why you should restore the wiki, please let me know and I will resolve any issues you may have. Thanks. Extra Resources that may help in your research: http://www.twilightwar.com http://www.twilightwarhq.com BackhillAccess 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted, valid AFD and the sources provided by the nominator are not independent of the subject, nor do they address the concerns raised in the AFD. --Core desat 10:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Valid AFD, no real sources, and let's face it: very few "in-production" games need articles: Halo 3, yes. This: no. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I made a note in the AFD that this game was still in production, although it was too late as no further votes were cast. This is a valid close. I wouldn't be against a restore, but the article would most probably have to be improved significantly to withstand another AFD. The game's about to go into beta, give it some time to pick up more players and sources and a recreation should be easy. - hahnch e n 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Restore. There's a whole list of games that are in development on wikipedia, even games that won't be out for another year, how do you justify keeping all of those but deleting Twilight War? And the argument that this isn't as big as Halo 3 means it should be deleted is a matter of personal opinion only. There are many games listed that few people care about. Furthermore, if there's a problem with calling it an "XORG" that can be easily fixed by labeling it as a massive multiplayer online roleplaying game. - Daimos, 31 July 2007 Restore. The article should be restored. Unless there is a policy that states at which point an upcoming game becomes worthy of an article then all these should be deleted too if the Twilight War article remains deleted. The game has been through a patchy time but is now coming to a beta stage, which means people are once again interested in learning about it. --Thinkharder 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion When it's released, an article can then be produced. Eusebeus 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. By that logic every article on every game that's not released yet should be deleted. I don't see how you can justly isolate one game. --Daimos
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Twilight War: After the Fall – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 00:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deletion of this wiki was due to misunderstanding and old information. Smiling Gator Productions has long since handed production of the game over to General Computers Inc. Although funding was not available a year and a half ago with SGP, GC has since taken up the project and is expected to not only have a closed beta start early August, 2007 (http://www.twilightwar.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=80) but also has an expected release date within 2007. To delete this wiki on the premise that it is a game that will not make it into production is highly illogical and simply incorrect. I would expect that the game wiki would be restored, if you have any doubt as to why you should restore the wiki, please let me know and I will resolve any issues you may have. Thanks. Extra Resources that may help in your research: http://www.twilightwar.com http://www.twilightwarhq.com BackhillAccess 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, valid AFD and the sources provided by the nominator are not independent of the subject, nor do they address the concerns raised in the AFD. --Core desat 10:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Valid AFD, no real sources, and let's face it: very few "in-production" games need articles: Halo 3, yes. This: no. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I made a note in the AFD that this game was still in production, although it was too late as no further votes were cast. This is a valid close. I wouldn't be against a restore, but the article would most probably have to be improved significantly to withstand another AFD. The game's about to go into beta, give it some time to pick up more players and sources and a recreation should be easy. - hahnch e n 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. There's a whole list of games that are in development on wikipedia, even games that won't be out for another year, how do you justify keeping all of those but deleting Twilight War? And the argument that this isn't as big as Halo 3 means it should be deleted is a matter of personal opinion only. There are many games listed that few people care about. Furthermore, if there's a problem with calling it an "XORG" that can be easily fixed by labeling it as a massive multiplayer online roleplaying game. - Daimos, 31 July 2007
Restore. The article should be restored. Unless there is a policy that states at which point an upcoming game becomes worthy of an article then all these should be deleted too if the Twilight War article remains deleted. The game has been through a patchy time but is now coming to a beta stage, which means people are once again interested in learning about it. --Thinkharder 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion When it's released, an article can then be produced. Eusebeus 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By that logic every article on every game that's not released yet should be deleted. I don't see how you can justly isolate one game. --Daimos

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

Image:SacredHeartPioneers.png – Speedy overturn, my mistake – ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:SacredHeartPioneers.png (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Was deleted as being an orphaned fair use image, but the image was clearly in use on this edit which was made a full eight days prior to the deletion date and was the current edit at the time of deletion. fuzzy510 03:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:SacredHeartPioneers.png – Speedy overturn, my mistake – ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was deleted as being an orphaned fair use image, but the image was clearly in use on this edit which was made a full eight days prior to the deletion date and was the current edit at the time of deletion. fuzzy510 03:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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