Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koadic's Endless Intellect 2

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 17:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Koadic's Endless Intellect 2nd nom

 * This nomination also covers Spells of Everquest, where the article content was copied &amp; pasted by User:Trollderella during the VFD discussion.

I nominated this something like a year ago. I think it got about one keep vote, yet here it is. My reasoning for deletion still stands, you can read about it at Votes for deletion/Koadic's Endless Intellect. -R. fiend 07:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN Dlyons493 08:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, a spell from a videogame. --TheMidnighters 08:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also the copy and paste version. --TheMidnighters 06:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable Sliggy 10:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * As the article contains no assertion/evidence of notability, a quick speedy delete to them all, before they have any more offspring! Sliggy 18:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * In light of later comments, and to be utterly explicit: my vote is a delete for Koadic's Endless Intellect and Spells of Everquest on the grounds of non-notability Sliggy 12:31, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Both ("Both" added Alf 11:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)) Spells of Everquest was deleted (I assume), so Enchanter (character class), (don't smirk, I read the article and took the link), would be the only other place to put it, but I don't give that much either. Alf 11:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Spells of Everquest was never created in the first place. Uncle G 12:00:41, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, doesn't assert notability. Martg76 13:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both cruft. Martg76 03:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, per above. Dottore So 14:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Spells of Everquest. Trollderella 15:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The VfD notice says, please do not blank, merge, or move this article. Since you've already performed a merge despite a rapidly-forming consensus to delete, we'll have to keep Koadic's Endless Intellect as a redirect unless Spells of Everquest is also deleted. As such, I vote to Delete both. android  79  16:40, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Chill out. I was trying to form an article where stubs on the spells can rest, like the many similar ones. Your eagerness to delete the material at all costs seems at odds with trying to create an acceptable article. Trollderella 22:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * He is not trying to "delete ...material at all costs." He is following the rules. You were not.— Encephalon | &zeta;  03:41:01, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
 * That's fine, it's even good, but that should be done on a /Temp subpage or in userspace or something. Otherwise, the merge overrides the VfD debate which is why the tag requests that such not be done during the debate. -Splash 00:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Chill out"? I'm perfectly calm, thanks. Regardless of your intent, it should now be apparent why merging during an ongoing VfD discussion is a bad idea. My "eagerness to delete the material at all costs" extends to my single vote. I will abide by the consensus here. android  79  03:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merging is a bad idea, because it causes GFDL problems.  didn't perform a merge, though.  Xe simply did a copy&amp;paste move into a new article, creating a duplicate.  And copy&amp;paste moves are evil, of course.  Such duplicates created mid-discussion are best brought under the umbrella of the existing discussion, as this one has been.  See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Archive. Uncle G 06:21:05, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
 * Delete... *sigh* ... Alex.tan 18:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and the other one per Android79. -Splash 00:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Both - Spells of Everquest is junk. What about a Fatalities of Mortal Kombat article, or a Scrolls of Morrowind article?  Retarded - Hahnchen 03:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:N; really, Alex.tan's reason is as good as any. Incidentally, please do not place a speedy tag on this. The first two sentences can easily be "interpreted" as assertions of notability, by folks who specialize in seeing such where there are none.— Encephalon | &zeta;  03:41:01, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
 * Comment. The notice at the top of this subpage (This nomination also covers Spells of Everquest, where the article content was copied & pasted by User:Trollderella during the VFD discussion) was introduced after the vote was under way. Can the editor who initiated this VfD please contact all editors who voted before the notice was put up and get them to confim that their vote is for both articles? If it is not clear that people are voting for both, it can be argued that there are grounds for dismissing the VfD. Regards— Encephalon  | &zeta;  05:40:32, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --*drew 07:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both per Android79. Xoloz 17:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per drew. Nandesuka 23:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.