Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pussy City Pimps

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 of the debate was Delete WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locations from a romhacked NES game. Makes no attempt to establish notability. Delete as non-notable and possible vanity. --InShaneee 05:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per FCYTravis. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deleted was contested on WP:DRV. I have undeleted it as I think it's only fair that non-admins can see the content and engaged in reviewing the deletion. I'll unclose the Afd. Friday (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more discussion.

• Comment: At this point in the discussion, Voice of All speedy-deleted the article commenting "no notability at all". This is not a valid speedy-deletion criterion. I have temporarily undeleted the article and am re-opening this discussion. Please do not speedy-delete this article again without a valid cite to an accepted speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ridiculous, non-notable, un-encyclopedic, speculative (ie."If it were a real city, it would be located in either western British Columbia, California, or Florida due to its year-round warm climate and liberal attitudes towards sexuality"). Are these the only places that have year round warm weather? Silliness. Hamster Sandwich 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted - as utterly unreferenced and unencyclopedic junk, per WP:NOT and WP:IAR. The "article" isn't even about the game, but rather a speculative, original-research "discussion" of the "city" the game was apparently located in. If someone wants to write an article *on the game itself* discussing why the game is notable, its history, sources, etc. - they are free to recreate it, but as it stood the article was 100% Pure USDA Choice BS. This ridiculous insistence on endless bureaucratic hoops to delete clearly inappropriate articles is destructive to Wikipedia. FCYTravis 20:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since this was brought to WP:DRV I think it's reasonable to undelete. I'm not even saying I particularly disagree with the speedy, but since we've been asked, there's no reason not to allow more time for discussion. Friday (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this hack of a 1989 game which is still being discussed in 2006 and has a nice comprehensive review at i-mockery.com. I don't see why wikipedia users shouldn't be able to read about it. Kappa 02:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --NaconKantari 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep new micro-stub I wrote, pending someone with enough interest to actually write an encyclopedic article about the subject. FCYTravis 04:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since the article was re-written as a stub, I struck out my original opinions. Now I just say its non-notable and non-encyclopedic. A game hack? From 1989? With no citations provided? Puh-leeze. Hamster Sandwich 05:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should delete all game hacks, or just all game hacks from 1989? Kappa 05:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what he's saying is, there's lots of software in the world. A particular piece of software with no indication of importance doesn't need an article. Putting whatever sources are available into the article would surely help, but IMO just because it's reviewd on a website doesn't make it encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it will be easy to find information about all the other rom hacks released in 1989? Kappa 05:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the Hamsterwich. Friday (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Game hacks can be discussed in articles on that game. Gamaliel 05:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And people who search for game hacks should be invited to start new articles about them? Kappa 05:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and replace with a redirect then. Gamaliel 06:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So people who search for game hacks should be redirected to pages which have no information about them? Kappa 07:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, we could place the information in this article into the game article. Geesh, enough with the strawmen. Gamaliel 09:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So that would be a merge vote then? Kappa 17:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. 18:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Maybe you should familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy on respecting copyright. Kappa 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Don't you have an article to go write somewhere? Gamaliel 19:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Frankly the idea that my contributions can be deleted without any respect for wikipedia policy does not motivate me to write articles. Kappa 19:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Please, guys, it seems clear to me you aren't going to agree here. I don't see that anyone's trying to violate policy, we're expressing our (sometimes opposed) opinions on whether to keep this article. Friday (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to River City Ransom. Thanks to this little stub I have the urge to fire up an NES emulator.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No brainer.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Delete. Original research. --Improv 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify in what sense this is original research? Kappa 06:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable homebrew title. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Has seven hundred Google hits Compared to the first other ROM hack in my brain. Which is also not notable, by the way. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I make that 1,080 google hits vs 1,480 google hits. Kappa 17:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? I still get 700 vs 1700. Google works in mysterious ways. Thanks for checking my work, though. - brenneman^(t)(c) 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per other votes above. -R. fiend 16:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --kingboyk 16:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether 700 or 1,080 Google hits, the fact that a game from 1989 (e.g. pre-Google, pre-www) gets that many hits today makes it notable. Turnstep 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with River City Ransom. Interesting, but not really significant enough for a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete individual ROM hacks are neither notable nor encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambi 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Sjakkalle. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perverse gamercruft. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:00, Jan. 11, 2006
• Delete nn: Sjakkalle, others are right. Eusebeus 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.