Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars MUSH
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 18:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity article Non-notable. Delete. --Spinboy 20:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- First nomination for vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Wars MUSH/first nomination
- Delete. Advertising. 24 players online as of right now. Notable MU*'s—and there are very few—don't need to advertise for players on Wikipedia. —Korath (Talk) 20:25, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 23:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I would have hoped that would have been done by now, since this is the second listing on vfd. --Spinboy 00:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The last VfD for this was two weeks ago!
Unlist from VfD.-Sean Curtin 01:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)- Perhaps "no consensus" means something different for you than it does for everyone else. —Korath (Talk) 09:21, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- This should have probably been a continuation of the old VfD rather than an entirely new one. Delete, again. -Sean Curtin 02:36, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, but it was recommended we restart vfd. --Spinboy 02:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This should have probably been a continuation of the old VfD rather than an entirely new one. Delete, again. -Sean Curtin 02:36, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps "no consensus" means something different for you than it does for everyone else. —Korath (Talk) 09:21, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for expansion. <POV> For some reason, I'm interested in this now. </POV> -- Riffsyphon1024 09:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, though needs MAJOR work. Other MUSH'es are listed in Wikipedia and if it can be verified that this was the first of its kind, then it's OK by me. Too bad the title sounds like porridge. ;) 23skidoo 05:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it needs work though. Mark Richards 11:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it survived two weeks ago, so the renomination may seem to encourage querulous renomination - David Gerard 15:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a renomination, it's a relisting because there was no consensus on the first one. There is ample precedent for relisting a VfD with no clear consensus. On the original nomination, I count 5 deletes and 3 keeps. Hiding the old discussion isn't particularly useful though. Radiant! 17:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Since this is a continuation, the old votes should still stand... Spinboy: Delete, Korath: Delete (revoted above), Ellsworth: Delete, Oarias: Keep, BM: Delete, Sean Curtin: Delete (revoted above), Radiant: Keep, Megan1967: Keep (revoted above).
- It's not a renomination, it's a relisting because there was no consensus on the first one. There is ample precedent for relisting a VfD with no clear consensus. On the original nomination, I count 5 deletes and 3 keeps. Hiding the old discussion isn't particularly useful though. Radiant! 17:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.