Deku-Scrub

Speakonia

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Speakonia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Speakonia. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Graham87 10:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Barneybunchlogo.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Barneybunchlogo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Panel de Pon

Please don't revert merges if you don't have a reason to do so. The article is completely uncited by reliable secondary sources, and as such, does not need to be its own article. It's basically only the Japanese version of Tetris Attack, where the only differences are the art and its story. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is that we do something that has no value. Basically, you're just asking for a vote. I believe that is a strong indication that you do not have a good justification to suggest that the article should be separate. The article has no reception and no development information mentioned, nor does it have any reliable secondary sources. This is not an argument of mine. This is an argument of Wikipedia guidelines. The article fails nearly every notability criteria simply from a glance. If you are going to revert my merge, I would be very happy if you had a single reason. Consensus can change, and I should not have to establish a new consensus now. Examining the consensus that was formed half a decade ago, the first argument made by User:KieferSkunk was three-fold - one, there were problems with non-overlapping content. This is not so with the current proposed state of the Tetris Attack article. The only differences are art assets and story. The gameplay, the reception, and even the references in other media, are all the same. Two, the argument that Panel de Pon has clear notability. When in fact, it clearly does not, as basic thresholds of notability are not present in the article. Three, that there existed a problem with the fact that Tetris Attack had "undue" weight over Panel de Pon. This is patently untrue. Wikipedia guidelines state that barring exceptional circumstances, all articles should focus on the English version(s) of a subject. In this case, Tetris Attack is clearly the primary game that people who are not fans - ie, people who would not know it was a different game in Japan - would be aware of or be interested in researching. Tetris Attack gets more weight because Wikipedia says it should. User:Poobslag argues that the merged article had quality problems, but only listed problems that do not exist today, thereby making his argument irrelevant to the current state of the proposed merge. User:AtaruMoroboshi argues that a different story is enough justification for having a separate article. As the story of a game is not the most important part of a notable article, and is simply for informational purposes, it cannot be used as a reason to split the one game article into two. Finally, User:hateless echoes the points made by KieferSkunk, but adds that the gameplay should be mainarticle'd in Puzzle League (series). This is not the standard, as readers should not be sent to other articles to receive an adequate understanding of the topic. The only exception being if there is content that is both notable and too big for the article to comfortably feature it, such as a characters page. In the end, if you really insist that I get a consensus to override an archaic one that uses unacceptable arguments, then I guess I have no other choice. Just remember though, once this consensus is obtained, that you should think more about the problem of holding up content improvement by forcing unnecessary bureaucracy into situations like this. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that I got directed here by a notification that I was mentioned. If memory serves, I commented that Panel de Pon and Tetris Attack were essentially the same game with different art assets and different scripts (ie. not a translation, but a completely different adaptation between Japan and NA). The Japanese version came first, that is true, and Tetris Attack was adapted from the Japanese game. But at this point, I don't recall what else I might have mentioned at the time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)