Star Wars: Battlefront II (2005 video game) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 16: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
KdogDS (talk | contribs)
obi-wan is a rebel hero on Mustafar
 
[[:Seth Finkelstein]]: long comment on risk analysis
 
Line 1:
<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{{Infobox CVG| title = Star Wars: Battlefront II
{| width = "100%"
| image = [[Image:114280e.jpg|250px]]
|-
| developer = [[Pandemic Studios]]
! width=20% align=left | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 June 15|June 15]]
| publisher = [[LucasArts]]
! width=60% align=center | [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive|Deletion review archives]]: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June|2007 June]]
| designer = |
! width=20% align=right | [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 June 17|June 17]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
| engine = [[Zero]]
|}
| released = [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|22px|North America]] [[November 1]] [[2005]]<br>[[Image:European_flag.svg|22px|PAL]] [[October 31]], [[2005]]
</div></noinclude>
| genre = [[Action game|Action]], [[Shooter game|Shooter]]
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 16|16 June 2007]]===
| modes = [[Single player]], [[multiplayer]]
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
| ratings = [[Entertainment Software Rating Board|ESRB]]: Teen (T) [[PEGI]]:12+ [[CERO]]:12
| platforms = [[PlayStation 2]], [[PlayStation Portable|PSP]], [[Xbox]], [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]]
| media =
| requirements = DirectX 9.0c compatible computer required.<br>
| input =
}}
'''''Star Wars: Battlefront II''''' is a [[first-person shooter]]/[[third-person shooter]] (interchangeable) [[video game]] developed by Pandemic Studios and LucasArts, and released in North America on [[November 1]], [[2005]], for Microsoft Windows, Xbox, PlayStation Portable, and the PlayStation 2. There are several differences between ''Battlefront II'' and the original ''[[Star Wars: Battlefront]]'', such as playable Jedi characters, new unit classes, space battles, and story campaigns, as well as ''[[Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith|Episode III]]'' content. The release date coincided with the release of ''Revenge of the Sith'' on [[DVD]].
 
ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ -->
''Battlefront II'' expands upon the original game's single-player experience with mission-based objectives drawn from ''Star Wars'' Episodes II through V. It is a story-based campaign which revolves around the [[501st Clone Trooper Legion|501st Legion]] as the unit evolves from the Old Republic [[clone trooper]]s to [[Imperial stormtrooper]]s. The storyline spans more than 16 new locations, many from ''Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith'', including volcanic [[Mustafar]] and the space battle above [[Coruscant]]. Many maps that came from the original ''Battlefront'' were edited and improved, like the Naboo battlefield. Also included are battles from the original trilogy, such as fights aboard the ''[[Tantive IV]]'', [[Princess Leia]]'s blockade runner, shown immediately at the beginning of ''[[Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope]]''.
 
====[[:Canon William Lummis]] (closed)====
This game is now an Xbox [[Platinum Hits]] game and a [[List of Sony Greatest Hits games|Sony Greatest Hits]] game in the [[USA]] and an [[Xbox Classics]] and Playstation Platinum game in the [[UK]].
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Canon William Lummis]]''' – Nothing to review, merging etc are editiorial decisions – [[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 20:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Canon William Lummis}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Canon William Lummis|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Canon William Lummis}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon William Lummis|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
 
The majority of voters on the talk page were in favour of keeping the article, yet it was merged. The article clearly demonstrates the subjects importance and notablility. The Victoria Cross is very important in the UK and this may not be obvious to American users. Lummis's research into it was historically very important and therefore notable. The article should be restored. The majority consensus was to keep [[User:Jack1956|Jack1956]] 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
==Gameplay==
*Merging is an editorial decision... there's technically nothing for DRV to review here. AFD just decides if an article is to be deleted or not, the decision here was to not delete it. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 22:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
===Basics and changes===
* If there is consensus to unmerge, unmerge. No need to bring it here. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 02:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There are several differences in overall gameplay between the first and second Battlefront installments. The first is an attempt to add realism to missions by adding objectives and changing the way orders are issued. The second group of changes revolves around a point system, which determines which units can be used, special abilities for players, and rank.
*'''Comment''' since there is no formal way of obtaining consensus for an unmerge, this would appear to be simply the creation of a new article with the content, as for any other breaking out of a section; I will mention it on the article talk page first. Based on what's just been said, the new article would not be susceptible to G4 as recreation of content after deletion at an AfD, as there was no deletion. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 03:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 
|-
In campaign mode, in addition to the basic tasks of capturing command posts and killing enemy troops, certain objectives must be met for a mission to be successful. These missions may include destroying a specific target, recovering an item, or keeping the opposing force from overrunning a position. In these situations, enemy reinforcements are unlimited and will continue to be deployed until the objective is completed.
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}
 
====[[:Talmey Elementary School]] (closed)====
While controlling troops, the most striking difference between the original and the sequel is the method of issuing orders. Unlike the original Battlefront, in which up, down, left, and right on the directional pad each issued a specific command to nearby groups, commands are now issued by using the targeting reticule to select a specific soldier and pressing the up button. The system chooses which command seems appropriate; for infantry troops, the up button toggles between "back me up" and "move out". In vehicles, the commands are either "get in" or "get out". An infantry trooper targeting a vehicle can order it to stop. Although the variety of commands is much more limited and issuing them is more complicated, the new aiming feature allows users to select the exact class of trooper they want to help them, as well as order vehicles to stop from a considerable distance. The number of troops at the player's command is based on the player's rank (see squad leader ranks below).
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:Talmey Elementary School]]''' – History undeleted behind redirect now in place. Although a few people mentioned relisting, no one appears to ''want'' that, so it is unnecessary. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Talmey Elementary School}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talmey Elementary School|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Talmey Elementary School}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talmey Elementary School|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
 
After two votes for merge, an admin speedily deleted and closed the AfD. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hero points are another new feature, and are the key to unlocking advanced unit types as well as playable heroes. Hero points are awarded for positive in-game actions, such as kills, capturing command posts or destroying vehicles. In order for players to spawn as a special unit (see below), they must accumulate the required number of Hero points. Until that time, the special units will be greyed out on the spawn select screen. In addition, only a certain number of any particular unit are allowed on the board at one time.
 
*'''Undelete''' and merge/redirect or renominate. NN School articles should be merged and redirected to the school district article. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
By accomplishing certain objectives, players will be awarded medals that can earn bonus [[power-up]]s during gameplay, including more powerful weapons and increased stamina. The bonuses are usually temporary but can become permanent if enough medals are earned. When a player earns a certain total number of medals, the character will receive a promotion. With each new rank, the player may command a certain number of friendly A.I troops. Sergeant (20 medals) allows for two soldiers to be controlled; Captain (100 medals) enables three soldiers; and General (300 medals) provides the opportunity for four controllable soldiers. However, "heroes" are unable to command A.I troops, with the exception of the assault modes.
*'''Undelete''' and relist. G4 does not apply in this situation. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 21:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
**More generally, speedy deletion does not apply in this case, because non-delete votes in an AfD is prima facia evidence of reasonable doubt.[[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 21:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' history but quite possibly keep as a redirect. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 21:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
* Review isn't required to recreate this as a merge to the school district. The article content can probably be sent to anyone wanting to do this. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 21:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. The article was practically empty. "R. C. Talmey Elementary is a public elementary school in Richmond, British Columbia part of School District 38 Richmond." The rest of the article was blank, minus some PDFs from the school's website.--[[User:Wafulz|Wafulz]] 22:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
**Mostly empty, but there was data in the info box. It was originally deleted, then later re-created as a redirect (but without the history). This is more of a procedural review, because it was part of a group of AfD articles speedily deleted together by the same admin, all of which should be restored and merged (or relisted). [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 23:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' and '''Relist on AfD'''. This was deleted as a G4 (recreation) but the only previous deletion was a speedy, so G4 does not apply. A speedy while an AfD is in progress and there have been keep votes is usually a bad idea (except perhaps for a newlky discovered copyvio or the like) and in this case was clearly not in line with the developing consensus. Restart the AfD and allow a peroper consensus to develop. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
* Procedural reviews are unnecessary. We're not a bureaucracy. Since the content was basically nil except for the name of the school district, we can close this now and pop the name of the school into the school district article, should it exist. If not I suggest that we waste no more ,time on it. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 23:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
**I requested the deleting admin to do this, but he refused unless overturned at Drv. So in this case, it shouldn't be necessary, but it is. I only brought one of many here. The admin can reverse his actions, and save us all a lot of trouble (and can do the merge as penance, IMHO). [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
***No you didn't. You "suggested" I relist at Afd. merge was never mentioned. You must have hallucinated the bit where you asked for the principal's name to be "merged". [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 09:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
****Is "hallucinated" an appropriate comment for an admin to make? And it's not correct either.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Talmey_Elementary_School]. You are apparently missing the point of this discussion. You jumped into an AfD in progress, and closed it early, against the developing consensus, and without proper grounds. And when this misstep was brought to your attention as a polite "suggestion" you called it "nonsense" and asked for a Drv.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Speedy_while_AfD_is_running] And now you are questioning others common sense? [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 10:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
**"I requested the deleting admin to do this" - and you link to the Afd? That's not a request you made of me. Totally correct and accurate. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 13:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
***No, I requested (or suggested) you undelete and let the AfD run, per [[User:DESiegel|DES]] above, as shown on your talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Speedy_while_AfD_is_running] (which speaks for itself). [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Undelete and relist''' - g4 didn't apply, speedy close was highly inappropriate. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 01:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' to follow process, though the result will be just the same. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 03:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' It wasn't a "group" it was two. Sorry about the G4 bit; I was under the impression a recreated A7 which still has no content was covered; my error - which, btw, no one bothered to helpfully mention to me. Principal name; school number, same links as all the other Richmond elementary schools. This is worth relisting for PROCESS reasons? Do any of you ever apply common sense? [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 09:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' it isn't just a matter of "process". It is partly a matter of preserving the history, which should normaly be done in the case of a merge. It is also because some people might well want to argue for retaining the article un mreged -- there is often someone who makes such arguemtns in the case of school articles, sometimes succssfully, sometimes not. While it would have been better had soemone pointed out the limits of G4 to you sooner, an admin who uses a speedy criterion to delete things is IMO expected to know it, and if someone questions the deletion, it might be a good idea to re-check the speedy criterion involved just in case. The {{tl|db-repost}} template includes a clear mention of this limit of G4, and had you used a "tag & bag" approach (which IMO is normally good practice) of not speedy deleting un less someone else had already tagged, but instead tagging for another admin to double check, you would have seen that mention of this limitation on G4. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
::: In the case of a non-trivial article, I agree that the history should be preserved. In this case the solution is to put the name of the school into the school district article and create a redirect in place of the deleted articles. Wasting days discussing this, including the inevitable metadiscussions justifying the timewasting, is pointless. Just do it. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 16:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: Disagree. Although you may think the content of the article is trivial, the effort to format it as an article with an infobox is not completely trivial. Preserving the edit history is important, because if the original author or someone else does find evidence of notability, they will not need to start from scratch to undo the merge. They can simply revert, expand and clean-up. And the original contributors will be credited in the edit history, as they should be. It may seem a minor point, but it is an important one. And it is not that hard to do it right, so why argue that doing it wrong is just as good? [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]] seems to have been correct that only two articles were involved here, at least the only other one I see is [[Westwind Elementary School]] and its talk page. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, although many related articles were brought to AfD as a group, only two were closed this way, and I only brought this one to Drv. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' Improperly closed. [[User:Haddiscoe|Haddiscoe]] 14:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 
|-
On certain levels, there are three-way battles between the two normal factions and a third, neutral group. Although neutral sides are not controlled by the players outside of hunt mode (see below), some of these forces will shift their neutrality in certain locations.
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
 
|}
===Units===
''Battlefront II'' features nine units, each with different weapons, equipment, and skills. The player can choose from six normal units in ground battles, two units in space battles, and "heroes" (characters from the films). The basic infantry class &mdash; and the default unit in "Galactic Conquest" mode &mdash; is the '''Trooper'''. The four troopers are the Rebel Soldier, Super Battle Droid, Clone soldier, and the Stormtrooper. They are armed with a rapid-fire blaster rifle, a blaster pistol (the [[Super Battle Droid]] has a wrist blaster and tri-shot instead), and thermal detonators (3 wrist rockets for the Super Battle Droid). '''Heavy Weapons troops''' specialize in taking down enemy vehicles, tight formations of infantry, and hard, reinforced points from afar. Each is armed with a rocket launcher, a pistol, mines, and thermal detonators. The heavy weapons troops include the Rebel Vanguard, the Imperial Shock Trooper, the Republic Heavy Trooper, and the Separatist Assault Droid. '''Snipers''' &mdash; which consist of Rebel Marksman, Imperial [[Scout Trooper]]s, Clone Sharpshooters, and the [[Assassin Droid]] &mdash; specialize in long range combat. They have a sniper rifle, a deployable stationary auto-turret, a pistol, and thermal detonators. The pilots from the original ''Battlefront'' have been replaced by '''Engineers''' in ground battles. They are much stronger in combat with combat [[shotguns]] and feature special equipment and abilities, such as det-packs, ammo and health dispensers, repair and hijacking tools (fusion cutters), and the ability to walk over and disarm mines without detonating them.
 
====Special units====
When a player earns eight points, he unlocks the '''commander''' unit. Each commander features a unique skill related to the player's faction. Republic '''Clone Commanders''' use chainguns, blaster pistols, and the ability to increase the defense of nearby troops with rally. Next, Confederacy '''Magnaguards''' use bulldog RLRs, radiation launchers, and neuro poison to cripple nearby biological enemy infantry. Rebel '''Bothan Spies''' are armed with a cloaking skill, incinerator blasters that destroy the enemy when it nears the cloaked spy, time bombs, and a regeneration ability to gradually heal nearby allies. Finally, '''Imperial Officers''' use sonic pistols, mortar launchers, and a rage ability that raises the attack power of nearby allies. All commanders (with the exception of a Bothan Spy, who has time bombs) characters can control and self-destruct recon droids &mdash; a returning feature from ''Battlefront I''.
 
When a player earns twelve points, a special unit for each faction is unlocked. The Republic's '''Jet Trooper''' can fly around with a jetpack and destroy enemies with EMP blasts, blaster pistols, or thermal detonators. Confederacy '''[[Droidekas]]''' feature strong armor, and they can morph into balls for travel and unfold to attack and defend themselves with a shield. This shield has been weakened from the original ''Battlefront''. The Rebels' '''Wookiee Warrior''' (formally known as the Wookiee Smuggler) are slower but more defensive than most troops. They come equipped with thermal detonators, grenade launchers, the aforementioned recon droids, and a [[bowcaster]] (which fires simultaneous shots or a single powerful charged shot). Imperial '''Dark Troopers''' have been modified from the original ''Battlefront''. They carry a brief use-only jetpack and an arc caster that can kill multiple enemies at once if charged up, as well as a blaster pistol and thermal detonators.
 
====Space units====
[[Image:Screenshot 0000.jpeg|thumb|right|300px|Flying an [[ARC-170 starfighter|ARC-170]] in a space battle in ''Star Wars: Battlefront II.'']]
During space (assault) missions, the player can choose from two units available to play: the Pilot class has the ability to repair ships and droids while flying or in the hangars with their Fusion Cutters, and plant timed explosives, using pistols as their main weapon. Marines are more focused on combat on-board the capital ships, utilizing blaster rifles, rocket launchers, and thermal detonators. However, they do not have the ability to repair their ship while flying. The appearance of these space units varies for each faction.
 
====Heroes====
 
Players can now play as a Jedi, Sith, or an infantry character (such as [[Boba Fett]] or [[Princess Leia]]). Each faction has a single character associated with any given battle map. There is only one map &mdash; Mos Eisley: Assault &mdash; in which every hero character is available; however, assault mode on Kashyyk, Yavin 4: Arena, Bespin: Cloud City, Rhen Var Harbor, Rhen Var Citadel, Coruscant, Mygeeto and Naboo is available for download on [[Xbox Live]]. Additionally, there is a time limit associated with heroes, which is increased by defeating enemies and decreased by taking damage or killing a teammate. This time limit replaces a hero's health gauge (represented by a blue lightsaber that slowly disignites as time decreases), allowing them to potentially withstand more damage than a normal trooper. Moreover, each side may only have a single Jedi/hero on the field at any given time, and how they join the battle varies depending on the type of game being played or settings being used - generally, once a Jedi/hero is defeated, a certain amount of time must elapse or a certain number of points must be earned before that character is able to re-enter the battle. [[Image:darthmaul.jpg|thumb|right|Darth Maul, an available hero in Star Wars Battlefront 2.]]
 
====[[:Annilie Hastey]] (closed)====
All heroes and Jedi can use special abilities and instantly kill most enemies. Each Jedi or Sith carries some form of [[lightsaber]], and also has special abilities generally utilizing [[Force (Star Wars)|the Force]]. These abilities include sprinting faster and longer than normal troopers, [[saber throw]], blocking enemy shots using their lightsaber, high jumping, the "Force lightning" ability, the "Force Choke" ability, and telekinetic abilities such as "Force Push" or "Pull". Each of these abilities drains the Jedi's stamina bar as they are used. Other heroes have their own special abilities or attacks, which do not drain stamina- for example, Princess Leia can project a special protective shielding buff on nearby friendly soldiers, [[Jango Fett]] and [[Boba Fett]] carry flamethrower weapons, which can set enemy troops on fire, and [[General Grievous]] can grant nearby friendly battle droids a damage bonus (however, this ability requires the use of stamina). These other heroes also carry weapons such as blaster rifles, generally of a higher standard than normal troops'.
{| class="wikitable"navbox cellpadding="0"collapsible cellspacing="0collapsed" style="fonttext-sizealign: 100%left; text-alignborder: center0px; widthmargin-top: 100%0.2em;"
|+ '''Heroes'''
|-
! style="width:10%; background-color: #BBEEFFf2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | Faction
* '''[[:Annilie Hastey]]''' – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a later rewrite should reliable sources surface. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" |
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" |
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" |
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" |
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" |
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" | X-Box Downloadable Additions
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Galactic Republic]]
| [[Yoda]]
| [[Obi-Wan Kenobi]]
| [[Mace Windu]]
| [[Aayla Secura]]
| [[Ki-Adi-Mundi]]
| [[Kit Fisto]]
 
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Confederacy of Independent Systems|CIS]]
:{{la|Annilie Hastey}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Annilie Hastey|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Annilie Hastey}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annilie Hastey|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
| [[Darth Maul]]
| [[General Grievous]]
| [[Jango Fett]]
| [[Emperor Palpatine|The Emperor]]
| [[Count Dooku]]
| [[Asajj Ventress]]
 
Article describing a [[Miss Teen USA 2007]] contestant, deleted by [[User:Ocatecir]] <s>with no explanation</s>. Decision was marginal at best, and I feel that some relevant and strong arguments were overlooked, particularly that of [[User:After Midnight]]. Furthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull|kept]]. See also my discussion at the deletion review for Holly Shively [[User:PageantUpdater|PageantUpdater]] 17:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
|-
*'''Undelete''' Sources already seem to exist [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Annilie+Hastey%22&btnG=Search+Archives&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]. Not sure why no one managed to point this out in the AFD. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 18:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Galactic Empire (Star Wars)|Galactic Empire]]
*'''Undelete''' All 3 articles were sourced. As to why this may not have been adequatley pointed out? I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs and about a dozen PRODs. The PRODs were all spared and the 1st of 4 identical AFDs was closed keep, but that closing admin must not have noticed the 3 others (or declined to clode them) and they were then deleted by this closing admin the next day. There is no "crystal ballery" as the sourced already exist and no one is predicting the future here, despite what appear to be the claims of the closing admin and the AFD nominator. These should have all been nominated as a group (and then had a joint decision of keep), despite the nominator's refusal to do so when asked. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
| [[Darth Vader]]
:*''I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs'' - Two of those were completely unsourced at the time, and, more to the point, the sources were explicitly addressed both in the original deletion request AND in rebuttal, namely in pointing out their low quality ("only hometown news sources announcing that a local girl has won the state pageant").
| [[Boba Fett]]
:*I also don't have the faintest idea how PROD tags placed on other articles and removed are supposed to have had the slightest effect on this discussion, or how the verb "spared" is the least bit applicable, since a) the tags can be removed by ANYONE for ANY reason, and b) they were removed by the articles' creator, not by some authority figure that the use of the verb "spared" seems intent on portraying. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
| [[Emperor Palpatine|The Emperor]]
*'''Keep deleted''' It is straight-out false to say it was closed without explanation: the explanation said" crystal ballery: "sources will increase as pageant draws near." " It is '''misleading''' to say that the article was ''sourced'': the only two sources in the article is the state and national websites; the additional ones presented now are from one of the florida newspapers. It's misleading to describe her as a Miss Teen USA contestant. She is actually "[[Miss Florida Teen USA]], who is eligible to compete along with the other 50 or so state winners, in the next as-yet-unannounced ___location in august 20-07". This is local notability--and very temporary notability unless she succeeds against her 1:50 odds at winning the title. This is furthermore Miss Teen, not the adult division, and it is furthermore Miss USA, not Miss America. The second-level competition in the field, only a state winner, and only the junior division. When we don't accept title holding pole-vaulters in the junior division, & where it's the highest level of such competition, we shouldn't accept her or any of the others, except the 2% of them that win the National title. Ditto for them all. And similarly for all the other state delegates in the template [[:Category: Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates]], for all years. The close for those that were kept was an error against policy, because the limited state publicity is not sufficient. Of course, if this is kept, then there's good reason to look at junior division title-holders in sports more generally. All contests should be treated similarly. We do not have a template and articles for high school football, though we do have a list of winners. That might be the solution. As it wasn't mentioned in the previous AfD, it can be suggested if this is sent back, or at a later Afd. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 19:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
| [[Anakin Skywalker]]
::'''Comment''': Not sure how much it matters to the argument, but as the Miss America pageant has been failing in recent years and the Muss USA pageant is the entry into Miss Universe, it could be well argues that Miss USA is now more notable than Miss America. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 01:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' per DGG. As the closing admin I found the delete arguments more persuasive than the keeps. The crystal ballery comes from keep arguments like these: "Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc." and "it also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant (so why not hold off until then?)." <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">— [[User:Ocatecir|<font color="#660099">Ocat</font><font color="#333333">ecir]]</font>[[User talk:Ocatecir|<sup>T</sup>]]</span> 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. As per DGG. Part of an essentially identical series of 49 assembly-line "biographies" of teen beauty-pageant semi-finalists for a single year, with the article shortcomings outlined in the original nomination and explicitly considered by the closer, so I'm not seeing the process shortcomings here. As for ''He has clearly ignored the substance of each keep vote here: "Winning a statewide beauty contest is notable"'' - well, that's not substance, that's a declaration of faith, but this isn't "AFD ''part deux''", though DGG's impressively detailed rationale covers that.
:*As for ''None of the keep comments rely on crystal ballism as claimed by the admin'', let's roll the tape:
::*''Thre '''should be''' [emphasis mine] numerous TV and newspaper references if someone would dig them up'' -- Edison
::*''Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc.'' -- After Midnight
::*''It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls '''will certainly increase''' [emphasis mine] around the time of the pageant '' -- PageantUpdater
:*Finally, ''[f]urthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull|kept]]'' - that falls under [[WP:ALLORNOTHING]]. But since the inconsistency bothers you, I'll simply bring that closing here for review, too. See [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 17]]. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)--[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Valid close, arguments for keep not compelling, lack of proper sources not addressed. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
* '''Support keep''' Per BIO, “The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.” She has won the 2007 [[Miss Florida Teen USA]] which is an award deemed significant enough for inclusion at WP as an article. Surprisingly there are few credible resources supplying information about her, but the topic is valid for inclusion if it meets the requirements of BIO. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 12:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:*A few problems with that:
::*The existence of a subject doesn't automatically transfer any notability to its members.
:::*It has no third-party references other than hometown news sources announcing "local girl wins state pageant".
:::*It has no assertions of any kind of notability.
::*[[Miss Florida Teen USA]] isn't even an article, it's a list.
:::*The list has 25 members, only one of which has an article -- one just as thin as the article under consideration here.
::*[[Miss Florida Teen USA]] hasn't been "deemed significant enough for inclusion at WP" by any consensus, vote, or discussion anywhere, except perhaps by [[User:PageantUpdater]], creator of the article under discussion and the various templates, categories, and lists that make up this particular [[WP:WALL|walled garden]]. Different parts of a walled garden shouldn't be used to prop up the claims of notability of other parts. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 13:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
::::In response: just because most of the contestants don't have articles don't mean the rest are not notable: they are, but I just havn't got around to writing them yet. The content of an article, or the lack of content as in the case of [[Miss Florida Teen USA]], doesn't relate to the subject's notability. [[User:PageantUpdater|PageantUpdater]] 14:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
::::And as for nothing other than hometown news sources, something you have brought up on numerous occasions, I don't see WP:BIO mentioning anything about these being of less importance or irrelevant. [[User:PageantUpdater|PageantUpdater]] 14:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - valid close within process. The aberration of one article of four not being deleted does not warrant overturning this one but instead speaks to the importance of bundling these sorts of nominations. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC:
*Count that as one to one, considering the same admin closed all three for the same dubious reasons. [[User:PageantUpdater|PageantUpdater]] 05:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': concerns about the sparseness, triviality and locality of the coverage were not adequately rebutted. If one national television appearance were enough to confer notability, we'd need an article on every [[Jeopardy!]] contestant. AfterMidnight's suggestion that these people should be considered athletes rather than models makes no sense whatsoever. Close was a good reading, quite reasonable, and well within process. [[User:Xtifr|Xtifr]] <sub>[[User talk:Xtifr|tälk]]</sub> 22:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
::Use your brain, AM was not suggesting that the girls are athletes, but using it as a metaphor. Try re-reading it. I could do more to fight this (convincingly) but I'm on holiday in Paris and don't have the time right now. [[User:PageantUpdater|PageantUpdater]] 06:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I am using my brain (and it's fairly [[WP:NPA|uncivil]] to suggest I wasn't). I understood the metaphor, but found it unconvincing, and offered one of my own as counterpoint. But more to the point, we ''have'' notability criteria for models, so it's silly to suggest that we should use the criteria for athletes (or Jeopardy! contestants) for these young models. [[User:Xtifr|Xtifr]] <sub>[[User talk:Xtifr|tälk]]</sub> 13:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Completely valid close. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 16:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Rebel Alliance]]
| [[Luke Skywalker]]
| [[Han Solo]]
| [[Chewbacca]]
| [[Princess Leia]]
| [[Obi-Wan Kenobi]]
|}
 
====[[:Sommer Isdale]] (closed)====
===Vehicles===
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
''Battlefront II'' features three classifications of ships: planetary vehicles, starfighters, and capital ships.
 
For ground vehicles, the four factions come equipped with various models of scout vehicles, medium assault vehicles, assault walkers, command transports, and mounts. Scout vehicles are quick and have little armor, whereas medium assault vehicles have superior armor and firepower. Assault walkers are more powerful than the medium assault vehicles, but slower. The command transports, however, are the most powerful vehicles in the game (only available as the Republic's AT-TE and the Empire's AT-AT). Additionally, players may use mounts and special craft, such as the tauntaun and the snowspeeder. All vehicles except the Tauntaun and scout vehicles have a critical hit area. A hit in that area will much more damage than a normal shot. Each faction (Rebels, Empire, Republic, CIS) features four different types of [[starfighter]] &mdash; bombers, fighters, scout craft, and transports. Bombers are heavily armed and armored, but have extremely slow-firing weaponry which is ineffective against the swift-moving starfighters, however one hit from a bomber's primary weapon will usually inflict tremendous damage to a starfighter. Starfighters are medium sized all-purpose ships with a mix of firepower and speed. They are effective in attacking other small vessels, but can be used effectively against fixed targets, frigates and capital ships. They are all extremely similar and all feature proton torpedoes as secondary weapons (even the TIE Fighter). They lock on slowly but pack more of a punch against ship systems or frigates than the lighter rockets carried by scout fighters. Scout craft, or interceptors, are fast, fragile, lightly-armed dogfighters. They feature missiles which lock on quickly but do not hit hard, and their rapid-firing lasers are best used against multi-role fighters. Finally, transports have the most carrying capacity of all the vehicles. Tranports act as mobile command posts, allowing players to spawn when the transport is landed. All transports have more armor and have a remote rocket position.
 
{| class="wikitable" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 100%; text-align: center; width: 100%;"
|+ '''Space Vehicles'''
|-
! style="width:10%; background-color: #BBEEFFf2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | Faction
* '''[[:Sommer Isdale]]''' – Deletion endorsed, as in Hastey above. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" | Fighter
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" | Bomber
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" | Scout Craft
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" | Transport
 
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Galactic Republic]]
| [[ARC-170 starfighter#ARC-170 starfighter|ARC-170 Starfighter]]
| [[V-wing Starfighter|V-wing]]
| [[Jedi interceptor|Republic Starfighter]]
| [[LAAT|LAAT Gunship]]
 
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Confederacy of Independent Systems|CIS]]
:{{la|Sommer Isdale}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Sommer Isdale|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Sommer Isdale}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sommer Isdale|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
| [[Droid Starfighter#Vulture droid starfighter|Droid Starfighter]]
| [[Droid Starfighter#Belbullab-22 starfighter|CIS Strike Bomber]]
| [[Droid Tri-Fighter|Droid Tri-fighter]]
| [[Separatist Gunship|Droid Gunship]]
 
Article describing a [[Miss Teen USA 2007]] contestant, deleted by [[User:Ocatecir]] with an unfounded explanation. Decision was marginal at best, and I feel that some relevant and strong arguments were overlooked, particularly that of [[User:After Midnight]]. Furthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull|kept]]. See also my discussion at the deletion review for Holly Shively [[User:PageantUpdater|PageantUpdater]] 17:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
|-
*'''Undelete''' All 3 articles were sourced. As to why this may not have been adequatley pointed out? I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs and about a dozen PRODs. The PRODs were all spared and the 1st of 4 identical AFDs was closed keep, but that closing admin must not have noticed the 3 others (or declined to clode them) and they were then deleted by this closing admin the next day. There is no "crystal ballery" as the sourced already exist and no one is predicting the future here, despite what appear to be the claims of the closing admin and the AFD nominator. These should have all been nominated as a group (and then had a joint decision of keep), despite the nominator's refusal to do so when asked. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Galactic Empire (Star Wars)|Galactic Empire]]
:*''I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs'' - Two of those were completely unsourced at the time, and, more to the point, the sources were explicitly addressed both in the original deletion request AND in rebuttal, namely in pointing out their low quality ("only hometown news sources announcing that a local girl has won the state pageant").
| [[TIE Fighter]]
:*I also don't have the faintest idea how PROD tags placed on other articles and removed are supposed to have had the slightest effect on this discussion, or how the verb "spared" is the least bit applicable, since a) the tags can be removed by ANYONE for ANY reason, and b) they were removed by the articles' creator, not by some authority figure that the use of the verb "spared" seems intent on portraying. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
| [[TIE Bomber]]
*'''Keep deleted''' or listify, as suggested for the article above. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 19:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
| [[TIE Interceptor]]
*'''Keep deleted''' per DGG. As the closing admin I found the delete arguments more persuasive than the keeps. The crystal ballery comes from keep arguments like these: "Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc." and "it also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant (so why not hold off until then?)." <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">— [[User:Ocatecir|<font color="#660099">Ocat</font><font color="#333333">ecir]]</font>[[User talk:Ocatecir|<sup>T</sup>]]</span> 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
| [[Theta-class shuttle#Theta-class Shuttle|Landing Shuttle]]
*'''Keep deleted'''. As per DGG. Part of an essentially identical series of 49 assembly-line "biographies" of teen beauty-pageant semi-finalists for a single year, with the article shortcomings outlined in the original nomination and explicitly considered by the closer, so I'm not seeing the process shortcomings here. As for ''He has clearly ignored the substance of each keep vote here: "Winning a statewide beauty contest is notable"'' - well, that's not substance, that's a declaration of faith, but this isn't "AFD ''part deux''", though DGG's impressively detailed rationale covers that.
:*As for ''None of the keep comments rely on crystal ballism as claimed by the admin'', let's roll the tape:
::*''Thre '''should be''' [emphasis mine] numerous TV and newspaper references if someone would dig them up'' -- Edison
::*''Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc.'' -- After Midnight
::*''It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls '''will certainly increase''' [emphasis mine] around the time of the pageant '' -- PageantUpdater
:*Finally, ''[f]urthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull|kept]]'' - that falls under [[WP:ALLORNOTHING]]. But since the inconsistency bothers you, I'll simply bring that closing here for review, too. See [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 17]]. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)--[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
* ‘’’Support keep’’ Per BIO, “The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.” She has won the 2007 [[Miss Texas Teen USA]] [pageant which is an award deemed significant enough for inclusion at WP as an article. Surprisingly there are few credible resources supplying information about her, but the topic is valid if it meets the requirements of BIO. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 12:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:*A few problems with that:
::*The existence of a subject doesn't automatically transfer any notability to its members.
:::*It has no third-party references other than hometown news sources announcing "local girl wins state pageant".
:::*It has no assertions of any kind of notability.
::*[[Miss Texas Teen USA]] isn't even an article, it's a list.
:::*The list has 25 members, only six of which have articles -- just as thin as the article under consideration here, even counting the two who wound up doing an American realty-TV show.
::*[[Miss Texas Teen USA]] hasn't been "deemed significant enough for inclusion at WP" by any consensus, vote, or discussion anywhere, except perhaps by [[User:PageantUpdater]], creator of the article under discussion and the various templates, categories, and lists that make up this particular [[WP:WALL|walled garden]]. Different parts of a walled garden shouldn't be used to prop up the claims of notability of other parts. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 13:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - valid close within process. The aberration of one article of four not being deleted does not warrant overturning this one but instead speaks to the importance of bundling these sorts of nominations. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': concerns about the sparseness, triviality and locality of the coverage were not adequately rebutted. If one national television appearance were enough to confer notability, we'd need an article on every [[Jeopardy!]] contestant. AfterMidnight's suggestion that these people should be considered athletes rather than models makes no sense whatsoever. Close was a good reading, quite reasonable, and well within process. [[User:Xtifr|Xtifr]] <sub>[[User talk:Xtifr|tälk]]</sub> 22:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' valid close. No violation of process. Deletion review is not AfD by other means. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Rebel Alliance]]
| [[X-wing]]
| [[Y-wing]]
| [[A-wing]]
| [[LAAT|Alliance Assault Craft]]
|}
 
====[[:Holly Shively]] (closed)====
In space battles, capital ships such as [[Star Destroyers]] are present. Each faction has one capital ship. The capital ships can be attacked from the outside ''and'' the inside by destroying several vital points throughout the inside of the ship. Capital ships of the Galactic Civil War era are larger than those of the Clone War era. There are smaller ships around capital ships (how many depending on the map) called frigates. Frigates of the Clone War era are larger than those of the Galactic Civil War era.
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
 
{| class="wikitable" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 100%; text-align: center; width: 100%;"
|+ '''Capital Ships and Frigates'''
|-
! style="width:10%; background-color: #BBEEFFf2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | Faction
* '''[[:Holly Shively]]''' – Deletion endorsed, as in Hastey above. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 15:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" | Capital Ship
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" | Frigate
! style="width:10%; background: #BBEEFF;" | Alternate Frigate
 
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Galactic Republic]]
| [[Imperial Star Destroyer#Venator-class Star Destroyer|Republic Attack Cruiser]]
| [[Acclamator-class assault ship|"Acclamator" Assault Ship]]
| NA
 
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Confederacy of Independent Systems|CIS]]
:{{la|Holly Shively}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Holly Shively|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Holly Shively}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Shively|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
| [[Trade Federation Cruiser]]
| [[List of Star Wars capital ships#Banking Clan Cruiser|Banking Clan Communications Ship]]
| NA
 
Article describing a [[Miss Teen USA 2007]] contestant, deleted by [[User:Ocatecir]] with no explanation. Decision was marginal at best, I admit I acted poorly in the debate but I feel that some relevant and strong arguments were overlooked, particularly that of [[User:After Midnight]]. Furthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull|kept]]. I tried asking the closing admin for an explanation of this and two other decisions, but was impolitely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ocatecir&curid=3788272&diff=138583257&oldid=138580618 rebuffed], although he did leave a message on my talk page suggesting that any keep votes relied on crystal ballism. He has clearly ignored the substance of each keep vote here: "Winning a statewide beauty contest is notable", "Miss Teen USA state level winners are pretty notable", "As contestants in a nationally televised pageant, these are obviously notable", "nationally televised event is notable, and so are winners in the event ", "state winners would be notable because they complete in the national pageant", "the sources are there". None of the keep comments rely on crystal ballism as claimed by the admin. [[User:PageantUpdater|PageantUpdater]] 17:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
|-
*'''Undelete''' All 3 articles were sourced. As to why this may not have been adequatley pointed out? I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs and about a dozen PRODs. The PRODs were all spared and the 1st of 4 identical AFDs was closed keep, but that closing admin must not have noticed the 3 others (or declined to clode them) and they were then deleted by this closing admin the next day. There is no "crystal ballery" as the sourced already exist and no one is predicting the future here, despite what appear to be the claims of the closing admin and the AFD nominator. These should have all been nominated as a group (and then had a joint decision of keep), despite the nominator's refusal to do so when asked. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Galactic Empire (Star Wars)|Galactic Empire]]
:*''I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs'' - Two of those were completely unsourced at the time, and, more to the point, the sources were explicitly addressed both in the original deletion request AND in rebuttal, namely in pointing out their low quality ("only hometown news sources announcing that a local girl has won the state pageant").
| [[Imperial Star Destroyer#Imperial-class Star Destroyer|Imperial Star Destroyer]]
:*I also don't have the faintest idea how PROD tags placed on other articles and removed are supposed to have had the slightest effect on this discussion, or how the verb "spared" is the least bit applicable, since a) the tags can be removed by ANYONE for ANY reason, and b) they were removed by the articles' creator, not by some authority figure that the use of the verb "spared" seems intent on portraying. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
| [[Imperial Star Destroyer#Victory-class Star Destroyer|Victory-2 Class Frigate]]
*'''Keep deleted''' or listify, as suggested for the articles above. And it was reasonable to keep separately, as it is possible they had different degrees of sourcing, & for some it was suggested that additional prior even less important awards added to the notability '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 19:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
| NA
*'''keep deleted''' My closing statement did not mention crystal ballery, the delete votes were simply more in line with policy (failing WP:BIO and WP:N) as I saw it. Pageant updater did not ask for an explanation, instead wanted "to let [me] know that when you have had a chance to respond I am taking this to [[Wikipedia:Deletion Review|Deletion Review]] because I think these deletions were unfair," indicating that he wasn't interested in how I arrived at that decision, instead was taking to drv regardless because he didn't like my decision. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">— [[User:Ocatecir|<font color="#660099">Ocat</font><font color="#333333">ecir]]</font>[[User talk:Ocatecir|<sup>T</sup>]]</span> 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:*Small correction: PageantUpdater is apparently a she, not a he. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Part of an essentially identical series of 49 assembly-line "biographies" of teen beauty-pageant semi-finalists for a single year, with the article shortcomings outlined in the original nomination and explicitly considered by the closer, so I'm not seeing the process shortcomings here. As for ''He has clearly ignored the substance of each keep vote here: "Winning a statewide beauty contest is notable"'' - well, that's not substance, that's a declaration of faith, but this isn't "AFD ''part deux''", not worth going into much detail over.
:*As for ''None of the keep comments rely on crystal ballism as claimed by the admin'', let's roll the tape:
::*''Thre '''should be''' [emphasis mine] numerous TV and newspaper references if someone would dig them up'' -- Edison
::*''Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc.'' -- After Midnight
::*''It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls '''will certainly increase''' [emphasis mine] around the time of the pageant '' -- PageantUpdater
:*Finally, ''[f]urthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull|kept]]'' - that falls under [[WP:ALLORNOTHING]]. But since the inconsistency bothers you, I'll simply bring that closing here for review, too. See [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 17]]. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)--[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
* '''Support keep''' Per BIO, “The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.” She has won the 2007 [[Miss Delaware Teen USA]] [pageant which is an award deemed significant enough for inclusion at WP as an article. Surprisingly there are few credible resources supplying information about her, but the topic is valid if it meets the requirements of BIO. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] 12:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:*A few problems with that:
::*The existence of a subject doesn't automatically transfer any notability to its members.
:::*It has no third-party references other than individual references to .
:::*It has no assertions of any kind of notability.
::*[[Miss Delaware Teen USA]] isn't even an article, it's a list.
:::*The list has 25 members, only one of which has an article -- one just as thin as the article under consideration here.
::*[[Miss Delaware Teen USA]] hasn't been "deemed significant enough for inclusion at WP" by any consensus, vote, or discussion anywhere, except perhaps by [[User:PageantUpdater]], creator of the article under discussion and the various templates, categories, and lists that make up this particular [[WP:WALL|walled garden]]. Different parts of a walled garden shouldn't be used to prop up the claims of notability of other parts. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 13:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - valid close within process. The aberration of one article of four not being deleted does not warrant overturning this one but instead speaks to the importance of bundling these sorts of nominations. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 19:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': concerns about the sparseness, triviality and locality of the coverage were not adequately rebutted. If one national television appearance were enough to confer notability, we'd need an article on every [[Jeopardy!]] contestant. AfterMidnight's suggestion that these people should be considered athletes rather than models makes no sense whatsoever. Close was a good reading, quite reasonable, and well within process. [[User:Xtifr|Xtifr]] <sub>[[User talk:Xtifr|tälk]]</sub> 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Valid close, fully in process. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
! style="background: #ececec;" | [[Rebel Alliance]]
| [[Mon Calamari Cruiser|Mon Calamari Star Cruiser]]
| [[CR90 Corellian Corvette|Corellian Corvette]]
| [[Theta-class shuttle#GR-75 Medium Transport|Rebel Transport]]
|}
 
===Game=[[:Seth modesFinkelstein]]====
:{{la|Seth Finkelstein}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Seth Finkelstein|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Seth Finkelstein}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd)|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
[[Image:BF2ShieldGenerator.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Attacking a Star Destroyer's shield generator from the inside]]
''Battlefront II'' includes two variations of the traditional, story-based gameplay: hunt mode and galactic conquest.
 
Close did not follow the consensus of the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd)|Afd Discussion]]. On weight of numbers, 22 deletes to 19 keeps is a long way from any sort of consensus to delete. On weight of arguments, those who favored keep pointed out more than sufficient mainstream media coverage and significant acts to pass [[WP:BIO]] and [[WP:N]]. Those who favored deletion disagreed on notability, largely on "IDon'tLikeit" and "I never heard of him" (both of which are irrelevant) and on arguments over whether his actions and media mentions were "important enough" for an article, with little policy basis. And they urged that Seth Finkelstein does not want an article, as he himself urged at some length. His main argument was that the article was a "troll magnet", but the history showed that in fact it has been in a vandalized state for a grand total of less than 20 minutes over the last 7 months, a pretty good ratio. Even the current version of BLP says only that the closer can consider the subject's desires in a close case, but this wasn't anywhere near being close to a consensus to delete, and BLP does '''NOT''' say that the subject's desire is in and of itself a reason to delete, nor should it, IMO. The closer has been asked by multiple editors to overturn his own close, has discussed it, and clearly declines to do so. Closers have a degree of flexibility, but they are not supposed to find a consensus to delete where none exists. '''Overturn''' and close as "No Consensus, defaulting to keep". [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 05:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
In hunt mode, players choose whether to be the hunter or the hunted. The hunted team must survive until the time runs out to claim victory, while the hunters must kill all the hunted to win. Neutral factions may be used in this gameplay variation.
*As the closer, I'd like to refute the statement that "multiple editors" asked me to overturn my close. DESiegel is the only one who asked me to revert my closure, and I declined. See the [[User_talk:Sean_William#Finkelstein_closing|relevant thread]] on my talk page. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk:Sean William|@]] 05:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
**While the words "Please revert your close" weren't used, I think that the comments of [[User:JamesMLane]], and particularly "If someone else DRV's it, I'll vote or non-vote or whatever to overturn." are a fairly clear indication that he wanted the close changed. He surely questioned the close. But let this stand on my nomination here, and whatever discussion follows. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 05:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
***I expressed my disagreement, but I also told Sean William that I wouldn't start a DRV because I was too lazy. Therefore, I'll be a wuss and say that you're both right. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
* The closer quite properly decided what weight he would put on the subject's wishes. As it turns out, that weight was decisive. There's no problem with this close. The thread cited gives no reasons to rethink the close. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 05:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
* '''Overturn'''. As an award-winning leader in his field [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9406E0D9163AF93AA25754C0A9679C8B63]and [[The Guardian|Guardian]] columnist[http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=Seth%20Finkelstein], Mr. Finkelstein is ''highly notable''. Unlike a high school athlete thrust into the spotlight against her will, Mr. Finkelstein's notability is based on a lifetime of achievement, deliberate public stands on issues directly affecting society and active advocacy in the press. This is a position that Mr. Finkelstein has himself supported for others [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barry_Schwartz_%28technologist%29&diff=prev&oldid=99484519], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Cutts&diff=prev&oldid=99483313]. This means that, under the current wording of [[WP:BLP]], there were no grounds to delete his article in the face of the non-consensus shown during the discussion. It took a long time for wikipedia to establish notability guidelines. The goal was to eliminate subjectivity from the analysis. Vocal opposition to having an article - particularly in the absence of any proof of harm - can not erase the fact that the subject of this article easily qualifies for inclusion based on [[WP:BIO]] and thus can not be considered "semi-notable" (which, at present, is an undefined concept). --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 11:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
**I believe that a living person's wishes should weigh heavily in such a decision, pro or con. I'm not a strict inclusionist or deletionist. In the cases you reference above, both people indicated they wanted the biography. So there's no contradiction. Regarding harm, it's one thing to give every dog one bite, another to go down the road that the bitten bears the burden of proving against the unwilling "owner" that another bite will happen, that it will break the skin, that there will be infection, and rabies is rare anyway, etc. etc. One bite should be more than sufficient to establish the reasonableness of not wanting that dog around. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
* Your beliefs are not the current policy standard at wikipedia for highly notable individuals such as yourself. Furthermore, regarding potential harm, the exact same argument could be made about the potential dangers to others from your Guardian colums - where you consistently name names - or your anti-censorware civil-libertarian activism. Work, I might note, where you do not seem to take into consideration the "wishes" of the targets of your investigations.[[User:JJay|JJay]] 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
**I am not a "highly notable individual", in the sense that very few people have ever heard of me, and more importantly, are likely to have _substantially_ heard of me <em>before</em> looking in something like Wikipedia. Again, that's a rough estimate of "do no harm". My _Guardian_ columns are subject to the strict British laws on libel and defamation, are reviewed both by an editor and if there is anything at all problematic, a staff lawyer (this came up, for example, when I wrote about the [[AACS encryption key controversy]]). Further, I <em>have</em> let people opt-out, beyond the legal standard. My activism was done under constant threat of a lawsuit, and I was driven to abandon decryption research in part because of the risk of being sued. Organizationally, Wikipedia displays almost the exact opposite behavior, amplifying libels of the most malicious attackers, and placing all burden on the target to do after-the-fact reaction. The difference should be very clear. You seem determined to pronounce a contradiction no matter what the evidence. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Tony. Valid AfD, reasonable close. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 11:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
* '''Overturn'''. No consensus, and the subject's wishes are only relevant when the subject is on the fringe of notability. Finklestien is clearly notable, therefore his wishes are irrelevant and the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus". [[User:Js farrar|Js farrar]] 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
* '''Overturn'''. The closer seemed to use the subject's wishes as the final determination. Since the debate on Finkelstein's notoriety ended with no consensus (which even the closer admits), using his wishes for deletion weren't appropriate. [[User:Jhall1468|Jhall1468]] 16:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*:I'm not sure I follow you here. No consensus plus the subject's wishes sways the decision. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk:Sean William|@]] 17:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*::Subject's wishes only apply when subject is not clearly notable, as I've already said; hence subject's wishes should not have been taken into account here. [[User:Js farrar|Js farrar]] 19:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Arguments have already been explained in the AFD. We do not need another AFD. AFD was valid. :) - <b><font color="669966">[[User:QuackGuru|Mr.Gurü]]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>[[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/QuackGuru|contribs]]</sub></font>) 18:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per subject not wanting the article being the decisive factor that justified the deletion, therefore in process, well done closing admin Sean, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' This is a notable career as shown by notable awards and press coverage in major national sources. Every statement in the article is sourced. No sensitive information is disclosed (at least as seen in the final version, which I will email on request. The subject's view at the AfD was " even though the article is non defamatory now, who knows what it will be tomorrow, or the next day? " Every subject of every biography is WP can say as much, and we will continue on the trend, starting from where we let people with bios they find unsatisfactory to remove their articles, to anyone at all at whim. As far as I can tell, the motivation is the subject's desire to hide his conflict "with Michael Sims, which splintered the opposition to "censorware. " ". '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
**Sigh. Note - here's another example of why I don't want a wikipedia biography. It's just a disaster waiting to happen. You can say many things about my "conflict with Michael Sims", but hidden is not one of them. My desire is much more that I don't want him to have yet another attack-platform against me. Having such an attractive nuisance for trolls, and then having to justify dealing with them, seems to me proof enough of harm. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''': despite what nom says, this was ''obviously'' a close case, and arguments about whether subject is "important enough" are ''very relevant'' to a bio where subject wants the article deleted. Meeting [[WP:BIO]] is a ''minimum'' for articles, and articles that are near that minimum are very definitely on "the fringe of notability". (Anything below that minimum is beyond the fringe, else the guideline would be redundant.) I think closer did a fine job of teading a difficult debate. Not sure I would argue if it were closed as no-consensus either, but the choice was clearly within the bounds of closer discretion. [[User:Xtifr|Xtifr]] <sub>[[User talk:Xtifr|tälk]]</sub> 20:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. In response to Xtifr's comment above, a distinction needs to be drawn between two questions.
::(1) Is Finkelstein notable? I consider him notable, but reasonable Wikipedians could disagree with me.
::(2) Did the AfD show a consensus that he is not notable? I think it did not show such a consensus, and, frankly, I don't see any reasonable basis for disagreeing with my conclusion on that score.
:The recent change in [[WP:BLP]] upon which the closer relied doesn't spell out how the bio subject's wishes are to be considered in the context of an overall process that is clearly supposed to be consensus-based. I suggest that an appropriate reading would be as follows:
::Where there is clearly a consensus on notability, the consensus must be honored, regardless of the subject's wishes. Where there is clearly no consensus on notability, the usual rule that "no consensus defaults to 'keep'" must be honored, regardless of the subject's wishes. Where, however, it is not clear whether there is consensus -- where reasonable people could differ as to whether the comments show a consensus -- then the closing admin may choose to give some weight to the subject's wishes.
:I don't fault Sean William's good faith in the slightest, as he was trying to apply a new policy that wasn't well thought out, isn't clearly worded, and doesn't have a useful history of application that he could consult. Nevertheless, given the importance of consensus in Wikipedia decision-making, I don't think this recent expression of concern for living bio subjects can be read as working a substantial change in what has long been our rule: "AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to 'keep'." ([[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure]]) The change in treatment of living subjects was apparently never even mentioned on [[Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion]]. Repeals by implication are disfavored. :) The way to harmonize these different considerations is to say that the subject's wishes are considered only where there is reasonable disagreement about whether consensus has been reached. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''', [[EFF Pioneer Award]] and a NYTimes profile plus self published work. If this isn't overturned, would someone '''please''' write the unwriten policy that all the admins seem to be using here down somewhere. It would save DRV a lot of time and grief. --[[User:Rayc|Rayc]] 01:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*:Already done: [[WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards]]. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk:Sean William|@]] 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
::But it reads "When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. " and the argument is that he was notable, not semi notable. A NYT profile is enough to make any privacy aspect absurd, & is enough for notability. if everything were based upon web sources, then it could reasonably have been called semi-notable. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 03:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Our notability standards are the bare minimum for inclusion (and you really don't have to be very notable at all to meet them). An article that doesn't meet the most basic notability requirements would be deleted in any case. So it seems pretty obvious to me that "semi-notable" in this context would ''have'' to refer to someone who is notable enough for inclusion, but not much more than that. I agree that it could be expressed more clearly, but the intent should still be fairly obvious. Someone who is known, but not ''well''-known would be semi-notable. And if the best we can scrape up for this guy is one obscure award and one newspaper article, I'd say that's semi-notable. [[User:Xtifr|Xtifr]] <sub>[[User talk:Xtifr|tälk]]</sub> 05:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
::With all due respect, a definition that consists of ''someone who is notable enough for inclusion, but not much more than that'' or ''someone who is known, but not ''well''-known'' is hopelessly vague. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 15:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Vague, yes. Hopelessly? I don't think so. It is, like ''so'' much else in Wikipedia, a judgment call. For "well-known", WP:BLP says: "there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources". Absent that multitude, I think it's hard to justify calling someone well-known. And it also says, "there is no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin." With a close debate, no apparent "multitude" of reliable sources, and "keepers" only arguing that he met WP:BIO, I see no procedural problems here at all. [[User:Xtifr|Xtifr]] <sub>[[User talk:Xtifr|tälk]]</sub> 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. This review request misrepresents the reasoning for supporting closure. I nominated the article based upon the subject's wishes and a recent change in [[WP:BLP]]. These claims about notability, verifiability, etc. are red herrings: I certainly wouldn't have nominated this page for deletion if I believed they were overriding issues. Wikipedia has a longstanding custom of courtesy deletions for biography articles that do satisfy those standards but whose subjects don't want their lives to be researched or dissected on this site. The crux of the matter is how far we extend that courtesy: I've proposed doing it for living persons who wouldn't be covered in any traditional paper and ink encyclopedia. That's a consistent and durable limit - and the failure of this review nomination to acknowledge or address that issue is characteristic of the ''keep'' side in this discussion. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 18:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
**Durova, I'm not sure of the process by which living people were given any kind of power to censor Wikipedia's coverage of them. What I am sure of is that your personal belief on this score -- that we should reduce one of our significant advantages over traditional paper encyclopedias by sometimes limiting our coverage to theirs -- was not adopted as policy or guideline or anything else. Given that, as you acknowledge, it's only your personal proposal, you have no basis for an insinuation about the "keep" voters just because none of us addressed it here. Above, I suggested what I considered an "appropriate reading" of the new BLP language, and no one on your side has addressed it, nor are they required to. BTW, in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)]], users Itub, Seraphimblade and I stated our criticisms of your proposal. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 23:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
***First I'd like to clarify that I am a longstanding and vocal opponent of censorship. Then, you're right, the place where I'd like to set the bar for courtesy deletions is not endorsed in policy. [[WP:BLP]] recently changed to allow the wishes of an article subject to figure in deletion closures, but current policy does not have a good definition for how far we carry that idea. That's why I'm ''proposing'' this standard as a moderate expansion of existing practice: it's measurable and makes a pretty good dividing line. I hope the community accepts it. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*This is a tough call. This case demonstrates how poorly thought out that paragraph at WP:BLP is. Here, about 80% to 90% of the delete opiners were using the subject's desire for deletion of the article as the primary, if not the only, reason for deleting the article. That paragraph applies only to the closing admin's actions, and as written says that if they find 1) ambiguous notability and 2) the subject wanting deletion, then 3) they can do whatever they want, knowing that there is no wider consensus to direct them. As to the subject wanting deletion, there is no reasonable doubt about that. So, we should look at the arguments in the AFD (and the prior AFD) about notability. And the first failure in the AFD is that so many of the delete opiners didn't clearly address notability, or used standards ("I've never heard of him.") that are clearly rejected by the community. That failure almost required this review. Fortunately, here we have the first AFD that was primarily about notability (although the subject's wishes clearly influenced the majority of the delete opinions in that AFD) to look at. The second AFD was almost entirely about the subject's wishes rather than notability. (As a policy prescription, I think we need to communicate that opiners referencing the subject's wishes as a reason for delete must first evaluate notability on the usual standards and explain their evaluation on those standards.) I believe the clear consensus, from both AFDs, of those who opined on the notability of the subject was a decision that the subject is notable. If the subject is notable, then the deletion was not in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards|WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards]], because that only applies to subjects of ambiguous notability. Despite that being my opinion, it is not unreasonable to say that the folks who were willing to opine based on the subjects wishes had decided that the subject was of marginal notability. (Too many didn't say so, however.) In which case, the community's decision as to notability is ambiguous. So I think we need to endorse the deletion, but also to direct those opining based on the subject's wishes to make their evaluation of notability (and the reason for that evaluation) unambiguous. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
**I agree with you to the extent of saying that your suggestion is the logical consequence of one interpretation of the recent change. Instead of "notable" or "non-notable", there are now three gradations: "notable" (enough to have an article whether s/he likes it or not), "borderline notable" or "semi-notable" (article depends on subject's wishes), and "non-notable" (no article whether s/he likes it or not). The closing admin, to assess consensus, would need to know which of these three categories each person thinks is applicable. Of course, as a practical matter, there's no way that the majority of AfD participants are going to parse their responses that finely. Absent such information, a great deal will depend on which admin happens to pick up the AfD to close it -- another bad effect of the recent change. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 02:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - The AFD is a farce. The change in BLP suggests that we should let the AFD arguments play out in full and then if appropriate consider the wishes of the subject. However, many of the delete arguments do not even look at whether the subject is notable or not, and instead just comment "Delete - Subject doesn't want it". These are not arguments that should be made in an AFD, the AFD should concentrate on whether or not the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. (given his [[EFF Pioneer Award]] and media mentions, I think he is). Only ''after'' the initial AFD has ended in no consensus should the subjects views be applied, and yet even given the invalid "Delete - Subject doesn't want it" type arguments, it still ended up with no consensus, I feel the deletion should be overturned. Editors in AFD discussions should not be concerned with the whims of the subject, but on whether the subject is notable/encyclopedic. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 20:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - I think the subject is clearly notable. --[[User:Jmbranum|Jmbranum]] 04:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - If mr. Finkelstein would have wanted to keep out of the limelight, he should not have started a highly visible project, or written articles in widely read newspapers. [[User:Tinus|Tinus]] 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**Wikipedia didn't exist back then for most of it. "Grandfather" me. In the future, maybe I'll have to consider as a disincentive to do anything more, that it might result in being in Wikipedia. That seems an unintended consquence, maybe you should reconsider. As a rule of thumb, I believe a living person should only have a biography over their objections if they are so notable that it's not significant compared to other media coverage of their life - e.g. [[Bill Gates]] won't be affected by his Wikipedia entry. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''overturn''' per Jjay, DGG and the nom among other reasons. While there is some limited amount of leeway that the new clause in BLP gives to closing admins this is well over the level that is at all appropriate. I'm sorry for Finkelstein, for whom I have the highest respect but he isn't a borderline notable person that this sort of policy was designed for but is highly notable. The notion that the BLP clause could apply in his case is simply not credible especially when the person has taken steps to put himself in the public eye. That, together with the lack of consensus (especially when the nature of many of the delete votes is taken into account) this should be overturned. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' subject is sufficiently notable. Should not have been removed via BLP. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 16:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstein_%282nd%29&oldid=137127697 AfD nomination] says it all; this is a request to expand BLP yet further which failed to find consensus. Should not have been deleted. (I cannot judge whether any actual BLP offenses were contained in the article, since I cannot see it; but I don't see any argument to that effect, In any case, they should be removed, possibly with oversight, not deleted.) [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**The BLP argument is based upon the subject's desire for article deletion rather than on the specific content of the article. So that proposed solution isn't really feasible, but a complex merge similar to [[Daniel Brandt]] would satisfy me. Would that be acceptable to you also? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*** Even many of the people who endorsed the Brandt close agreed that the merge was suboptimal. If there isn't a consensus to remove information we shouldn't go out of our way to split it up in a difficult fashion. Obscurity is not a good solution to these situations. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**** If the ''Signpost'' article is correct, the deletion review on that article turned up 2/3 support for the merge closure, which was significantly greater support than the deletion nomination received. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
***** Many of which agreed that it was suboptimal or endorsed simply becuase they were sick of the matter. I suggest you read the DRV. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
******Please comment on the merits of the matter without making insinuations. As the editor who initiated both deletion nominations, I'm surprised and dismayed that you imply I haven't followed the discussion adequately. My own approach is to avoid pile-on situations unless I can bring something significant to the table that hasn't been discussed before. You may disagree with my reasoning, but please do so respectfully. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 17:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
******* I'm sorry if you took my comment as not civil, but it is quite clear from the DRV that the merge in that circumstance was considered suboptimal by many. Indeed, it is hard to read that DRV and get the impression that anything more than a slim majority (if that at all) thought that was optimal. Most who endorsed were simply happy that it might make it go away or were sick of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
******** It's been extraordinarily difficult to achieve any consensus at that topic, yet the closure review gained more backing than my nomination. AMIB received several barnstars for it. While a significant minority disagreed vehemently, my point here is how that solution garnered more overall support than anything else. I'm proposing a flexible solution here because I'd be equally satisfied with a deletion endorsement or a similar complex merge. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' to satisfy BLP concerns. There's no point in creating articles about semi-notable people who don't want their privacy invaded. We should give the benefit of the doubt to the article subject. This person is of no real public interest. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 23:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
** This seems pretty close to endorse deletion becuase the person's notability isn't in an area you care about. Apparently both the New York Times and the [[[[EFF Pioneer Award|EFF]] think that Finkelstein is very much of public interest. Indeed, to argue otherwise is almost an insult to the man's achievements. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*** I know exactly who he is and have corresponded with him on at least one online forum. In reading the article, there was very little biography. Most of the facts were related to his organization. Perhaps that organization should be the subject of the article, and Seth will be mentioned. What many fail to understand is that a Wikipedia page about a person will rank first in Google for that person's name. When somebody gets a Wikipedia article because of their activism, this can have a profound effect on his employability. We don't want minor half-page articles, not very well researched or written, to impact somebody's life. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 04:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
**** Exactly right. There's plenty of mentions of me in other Wikipedia pages. I haven't objected. I just don't want a "weapon of asymmetrical warfare" aimed at me personally -- 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
**** Ok, first point taken. As to the second point, I don't see any issues here with the article being "not very well researched or written". [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. The deletion was against current policy; the subject is clearly [[WP:N|notable]], so his request to have the article deleted is not supposed to be considered. Personally I'm sympathetic to changing the policy to give such requests more weight, but given the current policy, this deletion was not valid. -- [[User:Avenue|Avenue]] 02:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' With respect to DES' differing opinion, the original AfD looks like a valid closure to me. The closer evaluated the opinions presented, and explained his decision fairly well. Plus, I'd say I agree with the evaluation of notability to BLP concerns. --[[User:InkSplotch|InkSplotch]] 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''', "subject doesn't want it" is not a policy-based argument for deletion, and given the number of deletion arguments based on that alone or simple statements along the lines of "I don't think he's notable" there was no consensus for deletion and the debate should have been closed as such. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:*Actually it ''is'' policy-based at [[WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards]]. The recent change in policy there is why this recent round of deletion nominations started. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::*As I said before, "consideration" doesn't make it grounds for deletion in itself. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 21:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. This deletion, along with the fiasco of the recent Daniel Brandt AfD/DRV, shows why the change in BLP policy was a bad idea. Even at that, the policy (which says that a closer ''can'' take into consideration a subject's wishes, it doesn't require it) is being stretched here to cover a notable person. Fringe or borderline notablity is Brian Peppers (and I wouldn't go to the mat if it was invoked for Angela Beesley), not Seth Finkelstein. --[[User:Groggy Dice|<span style="color:indigo; border:thin solid cyan; background:aliceblue">Groggy Dice</span>]] <span style="border:thin solid gold;">[[User talk:Groggy Dice|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Groggy Dice|C]]</span> 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' I fail to see how someone with "about" 220,000 google hits on his name, discussed in reliable sources too numerous to list here (some random examples: [http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/03/12/16/0526234.shtml][http://scoble.weblogs.com/2004/04/19.html][http://www.eff.org/awards/20010305_pioneer_pr.html]) and winner of an [[EFF]] Pioneer award could be considered "borderline notable". He's a leader in his field. [[User:JulesH|JulesH]] 15:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
**I've been on the Internet for around <em>25 years</em> (really - I had one of the early accounts from being at MIT). My saying about that Google count is that it only proves I've wasted entirely too much time in my life. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
***I note that [[WP:BIGNUMBER]] is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, while agreeing with JulesH that Seth is a leader in his field, and continuing to hold the opinion I stated above. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
**** BIGNUMBER seems to be much more reasonable to invoke when we are dealing not just whether the person is notable but how notable the person is. The normal problem with BIGNUMBER arguments is that they don't address the presence or absence of sources. However, since everyone agrees that we have more than enough sources to have an article BIGNUMBER is valid evidence against claims that Finkelstein is marginally notable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
***** The flaw is that the BIGNUMBER represents chatter, not notability. You also have to normalize for the unusually high number of years I've spent in contexts where that chatter is recorded. Look at it this way - I do not put on any resume that a Google-search for my name brings up a lot of hits. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
****** Yes, in this case a large part of the hits are not indicative of notability. I was making the more general point that BIGNUMBERs are in general more relevant when discussing possible claims of borderline notability of people who meet [[WP:N]]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' Per <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font>'s explanation -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. This has been a wrenching decision as I have the greatest respect for Mr. Finkelstein, but clearly his notability -- even if a type of ___domain notability -- is more than sufficient for our purposes. In the absence of actionable libel, I am loath to endorse [[WP:OWN|veto power]] over articles by article subjects, as I feel this is a slippery slope that erodes principles of free speech. I don't feel that the mere ''risk'' of libel is sufficient to say that an article should not exist. Obviously policy now supports an interpretation that could in this case be more restrictive. I would hope that the "do no harm" provisions apply in common sense and that merely having an article about a subject is not itself harm. Obviously again policy could support more restrictive interpretations. I am willing to make those considerations important in cases of [[WP:BLP1E]] for a variety of reasons. But in this case, I don't think the notability '''is''' marginal, it's simply narrow. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 09:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
**I really should write a FAQ on this (I hope I don't have to!). It's not about free speech, as that usually isn't taken to include libel and defamation. If someone could guarantee me that Wikipedia's policies of sensitivity and encyclopedic standards WOULD be followed, then I wouldn't have any objection. But that anyone who wishes me ill - and several people do - gets to use Wikipedia to try to reputation-wash their attacks is, in my view, an unreasonable "cost-shifting". -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*** That's an argument to delete pretty much all BLPs not to delete your BLP. In any event, I, and I think many other users here are more than happy to guarantee to keep track of your article to the best of their ability. I strongly doubt there will be any serious issues. And again, this would be more doable as a request if you were less of a notable, public figure. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
**** I believe that a living person's wishes should be respected if at all possible (i.e. not a major public figure). Remember, as a price of my activism (it never goes unpunished), there are people who generally have sought to do as much reputational damage to me as they can manage to inflict. I'm hardly notable at the level I'd need to be for that to be insignificant. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 13:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
***** On that we have some disagreement. You are a well-known, notable individual(see the comments above about many secondary sources about you and awards you've won) and given how much attention this matter has gotten we can guarantee that the Wikipedia article will remain very clean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
****** Again, I'm not well-know or notable in any major public sense. In my view, there needs to be a balancing, where the incremental utility of the page has to be weighed against its potential to be used as a tool of harassment. This is always going to be a judgment call. But there should be more than "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life.". Note you are not giving a guarantee - nothing will happen to <em>you</em> if you are wrong :-( -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
**I note that I did say "in the absence of actionable libel", and as for Wikipedia's policies, they should be followed at all times and any violations may be reverted by any editor in keeping with [[WP:BLP]]. Jimbo Wales has said that Wikipedia will not back off from its open posting/editing principles, and with that there will always come certain risks of abuse or inaccuracy, but it is always the responsibility of all editors on the site to ensure that our boundaries are respected. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 16:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Folks, my view is that in terms of reasonableness, Wikipedia has already gotten it's "one bite" in terms of the article being used to smear me, and then policy being more honored in the breach than the observance. As was [http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2006-July/050295.html said] by The Great And Powerful Wales himself "A Wikipedian in good standing, with thousands of edits, reads this obvious personal attack, and instead of *removing* it, chooses instead to put a fact template around it. Ouch.". That's enough. That's a reasonable basis on which to answer the speculation objection. It's been addressed. Asked and answered. I think I know who did that vandalism too, and if I'm right, it wasn't a random kiddie, but I'd have a difficult time proving it in court. I didn't come to my position lightly. Nobody who does anything from accusing me of censorship, to counselling stoic forbearance in the face of adversity, to saying it won't happen again, has any risk if what they say is wrong. And that makes all the difference in weighing the arguments. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' The deletion was perfectly legitimate, it had a majority favor and it was in keeping with stated policies.--[[User:Oakhouse|Oakhouse]] 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 
====[[:The Holidays]] (closed)====
In Galactic Conquest, the objective is to conquer several enemy planets, one battle at a time, to increase control over the galaxy. There are 4 different starting scenarios for galactic conquest (one for each faction). Galactic conquest consists of two stages. Stage one is the acquisition stage, where new fleets, bonuses, and new troop classes can be purchased by using credits accumulated by conquering planets. Stage two consists of moving a fleet (or, alternatively, skipping the turn). When a fleet attempts to occupy a space occupied by an opposing fleet, a space battle ensues. If a fleet attempts to occupy a space occupied by an enemy planet, a ground battle will occur. If both are present, then the space battle must be won to continue to the planet. Capturing planets earns the player credits, which are also earned each round from held planets. After each battle, a summary will appear, showing various statistics of the round. The first player's round ends, and the second player's round begins.
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* '''[[:The Holidays]]''' – Deletion endorsed. – '''[[User:Daniel|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel</span>]]''' 07:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|The_Holidays}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/The_Holidays|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:The_Holidays}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The_Holidays|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
 
meets criteria for [[WP:BAND]]:<br>
==Story==
It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable (see [http://kingbobbysix.blogspot.com/search?q=the+holidays] which is published in a street press called [[drum media]] and [http://www.sandwichclub.fm/blog/2007/05/holidays-dish-demos.html] and [http://whothehell.net/?s=the+holidays])<br>
<!--This section needs to be prosified into a plot synopsis with PERHAPS a mission list -->
and<br>
{{spoiler}}
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources (toured [[Australia]] with [[Jamie T]] and toured [[Australia]] with [[The View (band)|The View]])
The [[501st Legion (Star Wars)|501st Legion]] is an elite Clone trooper/Stormtrooper unit who worked under the command of [[Darth Vader]]. They can be seen marching into the Jedi Temple as part of [[Order 66]] in ''Revenge of the Sith''. They soon become known as "Vader's Fist". The campaign portion of the game puts players in control of the 501st, from their second battle on [[Battle of Mygeeto|Mygeeto]] through the [[Battle of Hoth]]. (The 501st's first battle on [[Battle of Geonosis|Geonosis]] is the subject of the game's tutorial.)
<sup></sup>--[[User:Sam765|Sam765]] 03:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 
* All your sources are blogs, they aren't [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 07:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
===Clone Wars Missions===
'''Chapter 1: Fall of the Old Republic'''&mdash; This chapter takes place during the Clone Wars, as the 501st Legion attempts to defeat the Separatist droid armies and strengthen the Republic's hold on the galaxy.
* Part 1 ([[Star Wars Episode III|Revenge of the Sith]]): [[List of Star Wars planets (M-N)#Mygeeto|Mygeeto]]&mdash;Amongst the Ruins - The 501st must destroy a Separatist power plant and steal the power crystals for use in the Death Star. General Ki-Adi-Mundi is their commander and hero.
* Part 2 (Revenge of the Sith): Coruscant Space&mdash;A Desperate Rescue - The 501st is pressed into space combat during the [[Battle of Coruscant]], and must destroy a Separatist cruiser to clear a path for Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi to rescue Chancellor Palpatine.
* Part 3 (Revenge of the Sith): Felucia&mdash;Heart of Darkness - The 501st is called in to find a lost legion on Felucia, and battle the CIS with the help of Aayla Secura, their hero.
* Part 4 (Expanded Universe): Kashyyyk Space&mdash;First Line of Defense - The 501st are sent on a seemingly suicidal mission to relieve forces on Kashyyyk. But first, they must fight their way to the planet's surface.
* Part 5 (Revenge of the Sith): Kashyyyk&mdash;A Line in the Sand - With the help of Yoda, the 501st defend Kashyyyk from CIS forces in the [[Battle of Kashyyyk]].
* Part 6 (Revenge of the Sith): [[Utapau]]&mdash;Underground Ambush - The 501st is sent with General Kenobi to defeat the CIS forces and General Grievous in the [[Battle of Utapau]].
* Part 7 (Revenge of the Sith): Coruscant&mdash;Knightfall - The [[Great Jedi Purge]] has begun, and Darth Vader leads the 501st to clear out the Jedi Temple of traitors.
 
*despite the sources only being blogs, it still meets the criteria for a band as they have done a national concert tour in a large country (criteria for a band)--[[User:Sparkelman|Sparkelman]] 12:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
===Galactic Civil Wars Missions===
: You mean if that is true it may meet the guideline standards for notability (Of course to know if it's true we need that verified from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], the articles content must also be [[WP:V|verifiable]] from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. No reliable sources == no verifiability == no article. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 12:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
'''Chapter 2: Rise of the Empire'''&mdash;The Galactic Republic has fallen. Emperor Palpatine has created a new Galactic Empire to rule in its place, and Darth Vader has taken command of the 501st, replacing Republic uniforms and equipment with [[Stormtrooper]] armor and weapons.
*'''Endorse''' per pgk. [[WP:MUSIC]] is not an entitlement. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 17:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''': without reliable sources, we can't accept the claims of notability. We don't need much, but we do need ''something''. [[WP:BAND]] is only a guideline (and some of its criteria are more controversial than others); [[WP:V]] is policy. This seems like a borderline case, and we can obviously reconsider if reliable sources ''are'' provided, but until then.... [[User:Xtifr|Xtifr]] <sub>[[User talk:Xtifr|tälk]]</sub> 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' I got a notice of this discussion as the deleting admin, but looking at the AfD discussion I was not the deleting admin (I think I G4ed a later reposting). Nonetheless, without reliable sources to demonstrate notability, I say it should stay deleted. [[User:Natalie Erin|Natalie]] 06:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and undelete'''* --[[User:Jmbranum|Jmbranum]] 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', [[WP:V|verifiability]] is not negotiable. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 
====[[:Smashboards]] (closed)====
* Part 1 (Expanded Universe): Naboo&mdash;Imperial Diplomacy - The 501st, newly-dubbed Stormtroopers, must effect a regime change on the Emperor's home planet by killing Queen [[Apailana]].
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
* Part 2 (Expanded Universe): Mustafar Space&mdash;Preventive Measures - Gizor Delso, a surviving member of the CIS, has reactivated a droid army. To prevent the Clone Wars from starting up again, the 501st is sent in.
|-
* Part 3 (Expanded Universe): Mustafar&mdash;Tying up Loose Ends - The 501st must stop the production of new Battle Droid prototypes, kill Delso, and destroy his factory.
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
* Part 4 (Expanded Universe): [[Kamino]]&mdash;Changing of the Guard - The cloners on Kamino are raising a legion of clone troopers to use against the Empire. Boba Fett leads the 501st to quell the uprising.
* '''[[:Smashboards]]''' – Deletion endorsed – [[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
* Part 5 (Expanded Universe): Death Star&mdash;Prison Break - A dull assignment on the Empire's new battle station turns bloody when a group of Rebels breaks out and steals the station's plans.
|-
* Part 6 (Expanded Universe): [[List of Star Wars planets (O-Q)#Polis Massa|Polis Massa]]&mdash;Birth of the Rebellion - The 501st, reassigned due to the breakout, attempt to track the stolen plans to a Rebel outpost on a faraway asteroid. The [[Galactic Civil War]] has begun.
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
* Part 7 (A New Hope): The 501st is sent to recapture the plans from Princess Leia Organa. The battle reenacts the opening battle of ''A New Hope''.
|-
* Part 8 (Expanded Universe): [[Yavin 4]] Space&mdash;Vader's Fist Strikes Back - With the destruction of the Death Star, the remnants of the 501st fight to prevent the Rebels from escaping.
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
* Part 9 (Expanded Universe): Yavin 4&mdash;Revenge of the Empire - The 501st is sent to exact revenge for those lost on the Death Star by killing the Rebellion's high command of [[Bothan]]s.
:{{la|Smashboards}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Smashboards|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Smashboards}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smashboards|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
* Part 10 (Empire Strikes Back): Hoth&mdash;Our Finest Hour - The 501st fights in the [[Battle of Hoth]] to crush the Rebellion once and for all.
 
Deleted after recreation per AfD even after it was rewritten so it wouldn't be deleted. [[User:Deletion Quality|Deletion Quality]] 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[[Image:Kaminouprising.jpg|thumb|300px|The [[501st Legion (Star Wars)|Vader's Fist Legion]] and Clone Anti-troopers battle on Kamino.]]
*'''Endorse deletion''', the rewrite didn't do anything to address the concerns of the AFD, which were mainly to do with [[WP:WEB|notability]]. The last version didn't contain a reasonable assertion. --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<font color="#006449">desat</font>]] 01:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' If you're going to re-create an article after a consensus to delete in an AfD, at a bare minimum you should address the reasons it was deleted for. In this case, we need a claim of notability and some reliable sources, neither of which were present in either the old article or new. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', rewritten article still did not address the concerns raised at AfD. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 
|-
===Cross-era story missions===
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
The missions '''Preventive Measures''' and '''Tying up Loose Ends''' are Empire vs. CIS. In these two missions a rogue Geonosian called [[Gizor Delso]] has reactivated the Droid control beacon on [[Mustafar]], and the 501st must go to the planet, shut down the droids, and kill the [[List of Star Wars races (F-J)#Geonosian|Geonosian]] engineer.
|}
 
The mission '''Changing of the Guard''' is Empire vs. Clones. In this storyline [[Kamino]] has been secretly growing a new Clone Army to help the Rebels fight back against the Empire. [[Darth Vader]] hires [[Boba Fett]] for his knowledge of the inner workings of the Clone Facility, and sends the 501st to [[Kamino]] to destroy the Cloning Facility and growing cylinders.
 
=== PSP missions===
 
The PSP has 3 exclusive campaigns focusing on different areas of combat. The player has no allies on the battlefield but has unlimited lives . Each campaign has 4 missions, in which heroes can be used.
 
Imperial Enforcer - The player must eliminate native species on the battlefield such as the Gungans on Naboo within a certain amount of time . Similar to hunt in that it focuses on the use of Snipers.
Rogue Assassin - The player must eliminate key targets (commander units) on the battlefield within a certain amount of time. In this campaign the player gets to use the jet trooper with a rapid-fire blaster rifle that is similar to enemy troopers' in the Changing of the Guard mission on other formats. The missions focus on overall combat.
 
Rebel Raider - The player must steal vital technology from the enemy and bring it back to a certain ___location within a certain amount of time. This mission type is similar to capture the flag .
 
==Downloadable content==
On [[December 19]], [[2005]], LucasArts introduced a new downloadable level for the Xbox version of Star Wars Battlefront II through [[Xbox Live]]. The upgrade adds a Hero Assault Mode to Kashyyyk, which provides a new alternative to Mos Eisley for the Hero Assault mode.
 
Another Xbox Live download was made available on [[January 31]], [[2006]], with two new playable hero characters ([[Kit Fisto]] and [[Asajj Ventress]]) as well as four maps from the original Star Wars: Battlefront. Each of the new boards (Yavin 4: Arena, Bespin: Cloud City, Rhen Var Harbor and Rhen Var Citadel) has Conquest, Capture-the-Flag, and Hero Assault modes (including the two new characters). Rhen Var Harbor also has a Hunt mode where the native species are [[wampa]]s. In addition, Hero Assault modes were also added to the following maps: Coruscant, Mygeeto, and Naboo.
 
In late March 2006, the game was added to the Backwards Compatibility List for the [[Xbox 360]], and is now playable on both the original Xbox and the Xbox 360. [http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/starwarsbattlefront2/news.html?sid=6146852]
 
Lucasarts released a [[Patch (computing)|patch]] on [[February 15]], [[2006]]. [http://support.lucasarts.com/patches/Battlefront2.htm]. The patch also included support for additional maps, and the modding tools were subsequently released on [[February 21]]. [http://forums.lucasarts.com/thread.jspa?threadID=104078&tstart=0]
 
==Critical response==
[[IGN]] claimed that the game suffers from problems remaining from the original ''Battlefront'', such as a lack of challenging [[AI]] characters in single player mode. Computer-controlled opponents and allies tend to run headlong into gunfire, wander off ledges, and walk into walls. IGN felt that this, along with redundant use of planets featured in previous ''Star Wars'' settings, were problems carried over from the original ''Battlefront''.[http://ps2.ign.com/articles/663/663685p1.html]
 
IGN also noted that the complex controls and graphics of space battles and all-hero battles can make online multiplayer games virtually unplayable. Moreover, IGN felt that [[Packet loss|Lag times]] and high [[ping]] rates can cause the action to become choppy, objects and players to disappear, and weapons to become ineffective. [http://ps2.ign.com/articles/663/663685p3.html] A related criticism from [[Electronic Gaming Monthly]] (EGM) is the longer load time needed between boards, which is also caused by more detailed graphics and larger maps than the original Battlefront.[http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/ElectronicGamingMonthly/2006/01/01/1090078?ba=a&bi=9&bp=1] For the Playstation 2 version, many have complained about the lack of a patch to resolve most gameplay issues, as well as having a server with large amounts of AI without crashing.
 
In addition the omission of fan favorite maps (e.g. Cloud City, Bespin Platforms) from the original Battlefront, and the subsequent XBOX Live-only addition of these maps have caused great disappointment among fervent fans of the game with other systems. However, many of the original Battlefront maps are available to download on some fansites. Minor fan complaints also mention the abrupt and inconclusive story ending of the campaign which stops at the Battle of Hoth without at least concluding with ''[[Return of the Jedi]]''. A possible explanation, however, could be that since the Imperials historically lose the Battle of Endor, the player would have to also lose in order to conclude the war as it happened.
 
Official criticism of the PSP version revolves mainly around the platform's ability to handle the game, rather than the game itself. Although the graphics were slightly stripped down to improve load times, EGM found ''Battlefront'''s controls to be too complex for the PSP's simple controls. EGM cited further problems with the game's slowdown in multiplayer mode.[http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/ElectronicGamingMonthly/2006/01/01/1090078?ba=a&bi=9&bp=1]. Many players also cited dislike for the PSP version due to its ommitence of the story-line mode from the console versions depicting the Rise of the Empire, and the ability to enter large enemy ships like the Star Destroyer and damage them from the inside, probably due to the technical limitations of the PSP system.
 
==External links==
*[http://www.lucasarts.com/games/swbattlefrontii/indexFlash.html# Official site]
*[http://www.lucasarts.com/games/swbattlefrontii/indexFlash.html#Gallery.Trailers Official trailer]
*{{sww|Star Wars: Battlefront II}}
*[http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/s/starwarsbattlefront2/20051221-kashyyykassault.htm Xbox.com page with details on Kashyyyk Assault download]
*[http://www.freewebs.com/swbf2characters/ An in depth Hero and Villains character study, still updating]
*[http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/s/starwarsbattlefront2/20060125-expansionpack.htm Xbox.com page with details on Expansion Pack]
*{{moby game|id=/star-wars-battlefront-ii |name= ''Star Wars: Battlefront II''}}
 
{{Clone Wars}}
 
{{Star Wars}}
 
[[Category:2005 computer and video games]]
[[Category:PlayStation 2 games]]
[[Category:PlayStation Portable games]]
[[Category:Star Wars computer and video games|Battlefront II]]
[[Category:Windows games]]
[[Category:Xbox games]]
[[Category:Multiplayer online games]]
 
[[es:Star Wars: Battlefront II]]
[[fr:Star Wars: Battlefront II]]