Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

This page in a nutshell: The purpose of this page is to discuss debatable deletions. If the article is marked for deletion, an announcement here is unnecessary unless not dealt with within a reasonable amount of time.

Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion.

Guidelines

• Make a level 2 header with the link and title of the article/file.
• If it's a file, include a small thumbnail to the right.
• <s>Strike out</s> the title when it has been resolved.

Alice and KevEdit

This is considerably a player fanon, created before we had the moderation about fanons. This page was discussed before, but ended with no result anyway. I don't think we should keep it... Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 09:35, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

This is a unique circumstance, to be sure. Fanon articles, however, are really only intended to be created by the person who plays the fanon. If the creator of this series had created the fanon articles, it would be a completely different story. Since they did not, I believe this falls under 'pages about player-created content', which is specifically prohibited in TSW:NP. I say delete. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 19:28, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it is a bit different from a player fanon, as the author didn't write it here. Instead, it was written on another site and is known well enough to have its own article here. As well, it is not a fanon article - it is an article which talks about the story. In the policies for notability, would this fall under bullet 2 of prohibited content, or is it simply not addressed? Edit: I have began to read the story, and it almost doesn't seem like a fanon. It recounts events in the game, and the author doesn't treat the Sims as if they're people but simply game objects (if that makes sense). As the story is following the 'Homeless Challenge,' perhaps an article could be created on this and this story could be referenced? Or even a larger article on challenges or something, though that is a different conversation that's not meant for here. --Bleeh^{(talk) (blog)} 12:59, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Please, please don't delete this page. Poverty and Homelessness are subjects that should not be ignored in in the world of The Sims 3. The idea, by roburky to created Alice and Kev was one of unique genius. A story such as this, especially now, during the current state of world affairs should not be put on the back burner, or ignored. We actually need to do MORE stories like this one. So many talented Simmers have spent countless hours creating stories, movies and more, with incredibly sad themes, such as Sims suffering and dying of Cancer and other ailments, Sims who are neglected, desperately lonely, and abused. Are these subjects any less important than that of abject Poverty and Homelessness? I think not! And, I've read many, many Legacies, that follow a single Sim with extremely limited funds, as he or she finds employment, and begins to better their situation. I've seen them fall in love, marry, and begin to raise future generations, which also become part of that early legacy. Why is Alice & Kev's tale so different?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.95.214 (talk • contribs) 06:56, May 1, 2013 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~

67.171.95.214 , I took the liberty of editing out your lengthy description of the Alice and Kev story. (Anyone who wants to read it can access the history.) The issue here is not the nature or subject matter of the story, but whether an article about it meets our notability policy for inclusion in the mainspace. Quoting the policy, "This wiki is first and foremost about The Sims games themselves." While we have a Fanon: namespace, the mainspace is primarily intended to be a reference about the games and the series. It is not intended to be about what people do with the games, however meritorious that might be. So, the question, at least in my mind, is why Alice & Kev's tale is so different that an article about it should be allowed to remain in the mainspace when the policy disallows articles about downloadable Sims or families. Dharden (talk) 11:50, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

While I don't think we should keep a page on the Alice and Kev story specifically, I'd be open to looking at possible ways to incorporate that and other stories or themes into a notability policy-approved page. Certainly exceptions can be made to the Notability Policy if the community decides to do it. However, I still support deleting the page in its current form. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 11:54, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

We could simply ask the creator's permission to copy all the text and make it into a full fanon over here.Hurshbr (talk) 02:05, May 17, 2013 (UTC)Hurshbr

Fanon doesn't really work like that. By our own rules, the owner would have to waive direct ownership of the page to allow anyone else to edit it. The owner would also have to register a Wikia account in order to have fanon here to begin with. And, to top it off, if the owner did register and did allow it to be copied over, they would still have to update it regularly to keep it from being considered 'abandoned'.

tl;dr this isn't fanon and we can't treat it like fanon. - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 02:30, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I say we should delete it. The article is player-created content which is in the prohibited category of TSW:NP. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 03:40, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the story has ended in the blog, while the one here is just the review, but seemingly unfinished. Despite the fact that it attracted averagely 100 comments or more, that doesn't necessarily mean it's widely known and notable around the fans of Sims. It's basically one of many player stories written in a blog. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 14:00, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I read the story a few years ago and recently re-read it so that I could have a proper opinion for this discussion. If you read the 'story,' it is not a fanon. Alice and Kev does not seem like your typical story if you read it, as it is a recount of game events by the author. No exaggerations, no invented quotations, etc.; it simply retells what the characters did in the game. As such, this article would be better suited as being treated as an example of the game challenge used rather than a fanon, etc.

As well, for the questioning of its popularity - this story is definitely one of the most well-known, if not the most well-known, story using The Sims 3. However, it's hard to prove this for several reasons. One of them is that this story was written a few years ago and its popularity has obviously diminished. Though, a simple Google search of "Sims 3 story" has Alice and Kev as the top result - even above a page on TS3's official site. Because of this, I believe it is notable enough to be mentioned somewhere on the wiki. Perhaps not have its own page, but I do support keeping this page.

tl;dr what LiR said, but perhaps with a different definition. As well as the addition of this statement: Alice and Kev is notable. --Bleeh^{(talk) (blog)} 01:05, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

User blog:LizardMaster178/SimWeekly - Issue 1 Edit

This blog seems almost like an exact clone of our weekly news blogs and does appear to be more news-oriented than opinionated. Normally I'd opt to just deleting it straight up but I'd like others to give their opinions first. Lost Labyrinth • stuff • reading 20:10, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

I say keep. There's no rule saying a user can't write news blogs, and he didn't add it to any of our blog categories, so there is no harm done. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 20:38, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

I say you should give him a warning for spamming on chat last night, he get posting the link and begging us to look. Dosen't it say the rules no spamming. Blue12porcupine talk 06:41, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use a deletion discussion to report a user. Keep the discussion here on whether or not to delete the page. Thanks. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 06:51, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Delete it, don't want to confuse users with unofficial news blogs and we already do a weekly news thing anyway. ฬђ ^talk 10:53, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

I think we should warn or notify them about this issue since it can really confuse readers with our weekly news, especially with that wiki border since it's commonly used as community / Sims news. I know there's no restriction on this, but this will make people confused and if this continues, we might end up to proposing such usage of border to be restricted.

I choose to delete it. If the user wants to write weekly news, he can be part of the weekly news writers. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 14:43, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

The reason I suggested the deletion was that if the user does make this a weekly thing, as hinted, then it can easily cause confusion and even undermine our current news blog system. Nikel's solution sounds like the best here. Lost Labyrinth • stuff • reading 17:19, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

This is kind of unexplored territory, as far as deletion is concerned. I understand that having two concurrent news blogs is not really a good plan, but deleting this blog would be sending a really powerful message to users - only administrators can write news blogs. I for one am not comfortable with making that assertion without community consensus to back it up. After all, if we begin by making that limitation, how far are we willing to carry it?

So, I'm suggesting that we contact the user that wrote the blog and see if we can't reach some sort of compromise. I am absolutely not in favor of limiting editor freedom without good cause or without a community discussion. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 17:44, May 8, 2013 (UTC)