Category talk:Candidates for deletion/Archive 11

Please discuss candidates for deletion here

Archived discussions

Lists of archived discussions and their results. Sorted by year in which the discussion started.

• Archive 1 (2007)
• Archive 2 (2008)
• Archive 3 (2009)
• Archive 4 (2010)
  • Minister for Magic individual infobox
• Archive 5 (2011)
  • Johnpaul Castrianni
  • Tsunami
  • Unidentified lethal curse
  • Magical familiar
  • Robert Ripley
• Archive 6 (2012)
• Archive 7 (2013)
• Archive 8 (2014 to 2015)

Was M Dudziac (FB) deleted

I had come across M Dudziac (FB) a while back on this wiki and was just checking if there was more than one character with that surname before putting it away. Was it renamed or deleted? Will delete this post once I get an answer. Thanks in advance. (Vaudree (talk) 03:09, March 21, 2016 (UTC))

I have reinstated the above discussion because another user deleted it on the grounds of his unilateral decision that this page is no longer to be used for deletion discussions, a decision which has since been overruled. Furthermore, the stated reason for deleting it (that this kind of thing "is best discussed on the article talk page") is plainly absurd, since this discussion is asking if/why the article was deleted, meaning that there isn't (as far as is known) an article talk page on which to discuss it. — RobertATfm (talk) 18:20, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

FYI, it wasn't a "unilateral decision", blame everyone for not even bothering to post in the discussion thread I made and bumped over and over again: after nearly a month of doing so and receiving zero community response, then usual practice is to assume that nobody cares or they're fine with the decisions, this is how it works every where else. Don't call decisions "absurd" simply because you don't understand how a wiki feature works.

Furthermore, article talkpages are not places to ask random questions. This doesn't even belong on a talkpage, the user could just make the effort to search and find the page. Talkpages are not forums for asking questions like this. --Sajuuk 18:24, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

The article wasn't renamed or deleted. It's at M. Dudziac (note the period) and has been since I created it. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 18:54, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

American Wizarding Currency

We already have an article for the only known unit of American wizarding currency (the Dragot). All this article does is regurgitate the information from that article. It's redundant and unnecessary. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 21:00, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, it should be merged with Wizarding currency. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:50, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you're right; the idea was that it could be added to when we found out about the other notes/coins they use. Sorry for causing trouble,

 Felix Scamander (talk) 15:14, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

American Wizarding Society

Another redundant and unnecessary attempt to stretch scraps of information from other articles into a new article. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 21:08, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Deletion candidates

Talk:Alex Brock and Talk:Antidote to Veritaserum, please discuss these deletion candidates at the respective article talkpage, thanks. (leaving a note here since it is clear that regulars of this wiki do not read article talkpages about deletion candidates). --Sajuuk 08:40, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the deletion template from the Alex Brock article. There is no precedent for deleting sourced articles on actors who appeared in Potter films simply because they feature no images. The article is currently a stub and could always be expanded. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 08:49, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

Okay (would've preferred this on the article talkpage, so it's all centralised there, like I requested...) then what about the antidote? --Sajuuk 08:54, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

We've been over the having-deletion-discussions-on-article-talk-pages thing before, and the idea failed to receive community support, so frankly I find your attempt to do an end run around established practice and force us to do things the way you'd prefer very disrespectful. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 09:16, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

It's not disrespectful, it is common practice on just about every wiki I have edited: if you could name any other wiki on Wikia that discusses deletion candidates on a category talkpage (that is marginally successful), then please do link them and I'll be happy to stop using article talkpages for the purpose that they were designed for.

Just because one wiki does it a different way than is standard doesn't mean I should change how I discuss articles that I believe should be deleted, which is to use the article talkpage. If the article talkpages aren't going to be used for their intended purpose, we might as well just enable article comments and get rid of talkpages.

And we both know that there is hardly a community here to care about discussing changes, unless the user canvasses on talkpages to garner opinions. --Sajuuk 09:24, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

The way we currently handle article deletion discussions is an established process. How other wikis operate is immaterial to this fact. We can, of course, change how we do things, but that requires community consensus. Disliking our current article deletion procedure isn't license to ignore it, any more than disliking laws against jaywalking is license to cross the street wherever one wishes. There's a couple of policies I don't like (the policy that disallows honorifics in article titles, thus requiring we use the clunky construction "Hermione Granger's father" over the simpler "Mr. Granger"), but I respect them all the same. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 09:45, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

Curious Raven

Please delete this article. A curious raven is a raven that is curious, not a special type of raven. And we do already have a raven article. --Rodolphus (talk) 09:12, April 16, 2016 (UTC)