Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zippy (SWG) rev 2


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Zippy (SWG) rev 2
Deprodded by whom created their account 2 minutes earlier. I'm guessing this is fancruft by members of "the Imperial forces of Wanderhome, a server on the MMORPG Star Wars Galaxies". A user made mod.

Probably best you read the article itself to understand why Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Also note the infobox is information regarding the game, not the character.-- Andeh 14:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - looks like a joke page to me. Artw 14:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Also; this page (in it's original form) was deleted yesterday, hence the rev 2. This does not fill me with joy. OBM | blah blah blah 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't delete! The voices will yell at me if I have to make rev 3... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.68.239.252 (talk • contribs).
 * Then I suggest that you explain how this is an encyclopaedia article, rather than a never-before-published original biography and history of a fictional pet animal invented by one of the players in a r&ocirc;le-playing game. Uncle G 15:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreated and probably salt, per yesterday's decision. Yomangani talk 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the last AFD by the way: Articles for deletion/Zippy (SWG) - Yomangani talk 15:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't a speedy deletion criterion that covers fictional pet animals, and that AFD was closed after a mere 2 hours. Uncle G 15:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But there is one (WP:CSD G4) that covers recreated articles, and the place for discussing restoring articles after AFD is deletion review. Yomangani talk 16:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This article was speedily deleted before, with the AFD discussion closed after a mere 2 hours. G4 does not apply. Uncle G 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon what may seem like impudence, but as near as I can tell a G4 applies to circumstances where a deleted article is reposted - but in my own experience (and QED here, apparently), this is apparently not always the case. So that said, when doesn't a G4 apply to a previously deleted article? --Dennisthe2 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When the article is deleted through an uncontested prod or a speedy delete, rather than an AfD. And if you read the link to the previous AfD, it was closed because it was speedily deleted. Danny Lilithborne 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The basic idea is that administrators can speedily delete content that has previously gained a rough consensus to delete &mdash; i.e. it has been through a full discussion in one of our normal (non-speedy) deletion processes &mdash; and therefore been examined by several pairs of eyes. Speedy deletions are things that we entrust to the judgement of just one pair of eyes.  (And thus our speedy deletion criteria are narrow, limiting speedy deletions to solely those areas where we trust that that one pair of eyes will make the correct decision almost all of the time.)  If some content was speedily deletable under another criterion once, if reposted it will be speedily deletable under that same criterion again.  So there is no need for G4 to apply to speedy deletions.  In this case, there wasn't a speedy deletion criterion that covered the article.  Uncle G 09:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete after full five days of AFD, so there is absolutely no question about future G4's. Per my nom in the first AFD: Apparently, a character created by a gamer on one server of the SWG MMORPG, unknown outside that server. Fails WP:FICT and WP:WEB. Fan-1967 16:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable and the article seems to be functioning as an attack page as well.BTLizard 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable fan-created character -THB 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as a G4, per the author's own admission even. See above.  --Dennisthe2 19:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Formatting error corrected. --Dennisthe2 19:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete this sham. Wryspy 19:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Danny Lilithborne 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, original title already salted, which is why we have "rev 2". A strong message should be sent that recreation under any title will be regarded as Vandalism. Clearly it's a sock of the same author, as content is identical. -- Fan-1967 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep No, don't delete! I thought everyone knew about Zippy... 203.208.28.171
 * Sorry, but I don't believe the average person plays on "the Imperial forces of Wanderhome, a server on the MMORPG Star Wars Galaxies". Unless you have evidence to proove otherwise.-- Andeh 13:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A OR biography about player's pet on a single server of an MMO doesn't satisfy WP:FICT. ---  The Bethling (Talk) 05:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - some virtual mascot on some server; not all players play on the server, probably not all who play on the server care either, and no one outside of the game probably has any interest. Yep, I'm all for relisting it here, let's humour the proponents of the article by giving it a fair shot at AfD. Then let's delete and salt the darn thing. I find it highly unlikely there will be any... media developments. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you people censor something just 'cause you don't care about it. I hope this guy reposts the article a million times, because this is wrong. 202.30.206.156 (talk


 * 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.