Category talk:Candidates for deletion/Archive 13

Archived page

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Archive Pages for Category talk:Candidates for deletion:
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15

Alice and Kev

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeing as Forum:Determination of notability for Player Challenge had no opposition whatsoever, Player challenge will stick around. To avoid duplication, I'll redirect Alice and Kev to the Poverty Challenge section of the page. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 12:24, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

User blog:LizardMaster178/SimWeekly - Issue 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Instrument skills

It appears to be left over from before the various instrument skills were brought together in Instrument skill. That being so, I see no reason to keep it, and support deletion. Dharden (talk) 18:41, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

I am also in support of deletion. It's not really needed and it's best not to let it sit back and collect dust. And as said above, there is no reason to keep it. Beds ^{(parlare) (da leggere)} 18:43, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah pretty redundant. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:35, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

And it's gone. Dharden (talk) 20:21, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Money (The Sims FreePlay)

This article is very short, nonspecific, and incomplete. It doesn't explain how money in this game differs from other games, other than how to earn it. Most of all, money is not a currency. I don't suppose that article will attract anyone to improve it any soon, and I doubt it will, before it goes to oblivion. I say we don't need that page. If someone can really improve it, it can be recreated again. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 09:08, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Some of the information could probably be placed in The Sims FreePlay, but I agree that it does not warrant its own article. Dharden (talk) 12:32, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

The recent edit changed "money" into "Simoleons", which made it even more pointless to have its own article. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 09:47, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Suarakatakat Strange

I've read townie article, and it says townies are generated when Sims visit somewhere, and they will be deleted if they don't become part of Sim's relationship. Townies in Magic Town has the surname "Strange," so don't these reasons mean that this Sim is a generated townie? If so, it has to be deleted. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 06:21, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

File:Jill Smith.jpg

JasonThePlum added Delete to the image page, however no reason was specified for it. Whatever the reason, I oppose for deleting this image. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 00:18, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that it was nominated because it is an unused image. If you can find a place to put the image (Jill Smith might be a good place to start), I'd support keeping it. Otherwise, it's an IFP rule that we delete. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 00:23, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Actually the image was featured on the Jill Smith article, however it was removed yesterday by Nikel23. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 02:11, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Um, it could've been placed in a gallery section in the article instead. I think I removed it but forgot to place it back. :/

Anyway... I didn't really like that image to be used in {{Simbio-start}}, as it's too lengthy, so I'd prefer a gallery. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 03:32, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Like you totally forgot to place the bios back after removing them. I totally understand. I've added the image to the article's gallery due to its size. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 03:42, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Goth style, thrasher style, and socialite style

I don't like these articles. They're made so exclusive to one stuff pack only. Yet, the article type is not really prominent — architectural / object theme. I mean, there are still other themes that are more common than these three styles, such as Country, Modern, Moroccan, Mission, and so on; and I don't see how this kind of article can be improved. We can only distinguish these "styles" by the design of the objects, so how can we describe the article itself if not from images? And if so, are we going to make a gallery of "object styles"? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 04:33, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest merging all of them into The Sims 2: Teen Style Stuff, or else just deleting them if they don't have any information worth saving. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 06:26, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

The information could easily be added to the Teen Style Stuff page in some way, I think. We already have the information and pictures there, so I think it's a bit wasteful just to delete it. ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 06:56, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree to merge the information to The Sims 2: Teen Style Stuff as well. That would fit in better than making a new page for each style. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 07:15, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to sort out this issue, we may as well try to sort out this page as well. It's really only filled with the styles that came with The Sims 3: Fast Lane Stuff. The page is also rather stub-worthy, holding very little information and a few pictures. ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 04:23, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the best bet is to merge into this page as they are about similar topics. Deskita

If we merge onto style, that would mean that we'd need to fill the page in with information on all the other styles available... which I see as being quite an issue once you take into account all the games, expansions, and stuff packs that have been released, all of them with one or more styles available. I think the easier thing is to just put any style information on the game/EP/SP pages. - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 12:55, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

It's nice you can find that page, Waikikamukow. It just has the same issues with TSS styles. I also disagree with a merge onto Style page with the same reason as LiR's. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 16:44, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted these style pages. I cannot see how the information is worth saving, as the images of the architectures are what important, and they can be preserved in their respective EP / SP articles. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 08:54, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting Types of Death

The types of death article has once again been marked for deletion. An older discussion can be found here. The result was to keep the page. I wouldn't start the discussion, but I would just remind that there was once discussion for this. The result might change, though. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 18:02, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

The only page that links to it is the death page, and it doesn't have many categories. Deskita

I oppose deleting it. The one on death is a bit sloppy, in my opinion. I'd say keep it or even merge the two pages. I'm Luigis1upstand. Hi. (talk) 22:53, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion and I support deletion. If the main reason for keeping this list is because the list on Death is messy, then the solution is to clean up that list, not to have a separate article just to list something. The whole article is redundant. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 22:42, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it again, LiR is completely right. I would like to change to supporting the deletion. I'm Luigis1upstand. Hi. (talk) 05:13, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

I support deletion. The list in Death seems to be more detailed than the simple list in the list article. I can't see the content being replaced, as in this. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 16:07, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

---

Setup a redirect from Types of Death to the section on Death. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 03:47, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Template:Deaths

This topic navigation template, {{Deaths}}, was just created recently. While I do appreciate the effort of an unregistered user, I can't see how necessary it is to have this navigation template. Sure it can be added to articles like meteor, death by old age, or starvation, but adding it to articles like jelly bean, rally forth, mummy, or mermaid is unsuitable. The articles describe themselves like object details for jelly bean, how to get and the effects of rally forth, and so on. Adding this template at the end of the page makes me feel like features like rally forth essentially exist just to make our Sims die. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 07:26, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think the template should not be deleted. Even if it is judged unsuitable for articles such as jelly bean etc. it can still be added to more obvious pages such as starvation as a more effective navigation to find death related articles. Furthermore, I do not think adding this template to articles such as jellybean implies that jellybeans are always going to kill sims - the content of the article should disprove that handily. Elassint 13 March 2014

Template was unused and abandoned, so it was deleted. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 03:47, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Origin/Version History

This article hasn't been updated in 2 years. Regardless, I don't think the version history of Origin is specifically notable to the wiki and updating the page would place a burden on whoever chooses to provide the information as download clients like Origin are constantly updated. I don't really see the need to keep this sitting around. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 00:07, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Support deletion for the reasons Lab stated, as well as under TSW:NP - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 00:15, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

I support for deletion. It's not supposed to be a part of this wiki to deal with. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 15:16, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Gone. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:25, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Comparison between The Sims 3 and The Sims 4

It seems relatively likely that we will at some point in the future have a comparison thread between The Sims 3 and The Sims 4. However it seems like at the present time, we simply don't know enough about TS4 to begin drawing concrete comparisons between the two. I personally am recommending that we delete the article, possibly until TS4 is released or at least until we have more information on various features in the game. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 22:34, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

I agree on deleting it. We simply dont have enough information to properly compare the two yet. I'm Luigis1upstand. Hi. (talk) 22:49, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I support the deletion. Like stated above, there's not enough information to make comparisons yet. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 14:14, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It'll be needed eventually, but it can wait until more is known about TS4. Dharden (talk) 15:43, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

Deleted - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 22:40, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

File:A scream gone unheard.jpg

This file is unused, and it was uploaded in 2012. Deskita

Agreed. We should give the user time to copy it, if that's what they want, but not too much time. Dharden (talk) 15:46, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

The uploader of the image once put it in his talk page, but has removed it since... long ago. I say since it's a personal image, if they don't use it, they won't need it. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 15:51, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

I left him a note about the delete nomination. IMO, we can afford to leave it up until Saturday, just in case he forgot about it and wants to save a copy. Come Saturday, it's gone. Dharden (talk) 16:40, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

The user didn't respond to Dharden's message, (I'm sure I've seen him around on Chat after the message was left). The image is now deleted. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 16:56, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

The Sims Wiki:Battles/Nominations/Archives

I'm suggesting that we delete this page as it's largely unnecessary. Any battles nomination which ends up on this page would also eventually end up in The Sims Wiki:Battles/Archives, and the vote totals for the nominations are completely meaningless. It's worth noting as well that all other nominations or votes for other featured content (Featured Article, Featured Media, etc.) are deleted as soon as the nominated thing is featured. I see no reason to keep this stuff archived. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 22:49, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it's not exactly necessary too... Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 04:46, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

MySims

I don't know much about this game, aside from the whole article being copied and pasted from parts of MySims wiki. How should we keep it? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 02:09, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

We're affiliated with the MySims Wiki, so I don't want to step on toes. I think the best thing to do would be to Clean up the page, while cutting it down to a basic description of the game, then providing a link to the MySims Wiki's article about the game for more information. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 02:26, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't exactly intend to delete the page... Let's see if it can be cleaned up. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 02:45, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was copied from Wikipedia, but the article from MySims Wiki acknowledges that it uses content from Wikipedia. I would not assume that the anon who created the article knows that there is a MySims Wiki. The principle remains the same, though. It might rate a brief article since it's a spin-off, but a detailed treatment is really outside our scope. Dharden (talk) 12:37, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've re-worked it, added links, and added external link to My Sims Wiki. Dharden (talk) 13:21, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Vista Beach Lots

Many lots in Vista Beach are poorly written:

• 5019 Asta La Heights Rd.
• 2009 Main St.
• Paperclips Inc. Stadium
• Andrew Sim Public Pool
• William R. Wright Museum of Art

These articles don't seem to warrant their own pages, and most of them consist of several sentences only. I don't think they're really necessary, so I wanted to nominate it for deletion. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 08:32, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Deleted -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog}

Sybil Fawlty (unused sim) and Basil Fawlty (unused sim)

I can understand if they have ancient character data that might not be used anywhere else post-base game, but there's one problem. How important is it to create pages of their own?

To put simply, they don't warrant their own page. I mean, they're just merely leftover references found in the game files. It could be very old, I even doubt anyone has ever heard them, unlike the Baxter family (that is covered in List of Sims used in promotional materials#Baxter family). I mean, let's face it. We can't even write a word about them because we know nothing about them. Retrieving information from the files can't even get as far as their basic information for their infoboxes (e.g. Aspiration, relationship, personality).

Maybe, if someone wants to preserve their information, they might be able to be written somewhere else. The information about the old families of Waterside are mentioned here, so it's not entirely lost. However, I'm not sure how we could preserve this information, or where. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 12:16, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that these are real Sims - Basil and Sybil Fawlty are characters from a British TV show. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 20:20, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Could they be just placeholder names of some resources...? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 16:10, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

They may be, since I found something similar some time ago, hovewer, it had less info than ParanormalJ's finds. Mate1234 (Chatterbox...' You don't have to read this..) 17:16, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted them. They clearly don't warrant their own pages, lacking contents and purposes. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 17:44, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

Nicholas Landchild/Landlord M1

The article, Nicholas Landchild was created several days ago. The subject of the article appears to be related to that of Landlord M1. Although the name is randomly generated, the game files apparently reference Nicholas Landchild as a possible name. Given we've got two different articles on our hand that refer to the exact same subject, we need to figure out which one we want to keep and which one to delete.

I'd personally lean towards keeping Landlord M1 due to the random name generation whilst including a note about the Nicholas Landchild data and perhaps redirecting Nicholas Landchild to Landlord M1 but I'd like other opinions first. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 01:55, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the generation of the name of Nicholas Landchild with that Sim for other players seems incredibly unlikely, so I'd suggest keeping just Landlord M1 in terms of consistency with other NPCs with randomly-generated names. AsherÉire 'Sup? 01:58, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why the page has to be called Landlord M1, since Nicholas Landchild is his real name. I created it when the other one was lost and I had no idea the page already existed.

We should at least re-name the original one to Nicholas Landchild because the names that are referenced in the game files are correct. As far as I'm concerned, Nicholas Landchild was never called Landlord M1. All other pages of Sims with randomized names are called by their names from the ones referenced in the package files. The theory above mine is not entirely correct. Look in the package files located on the computer system if you don't believe me. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:07, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

They're the same exact Sims. Therefore, one should be kept, and the other should be deleted. It was actually simpler to rename "Landlord M1" to "Nicholas Landchild" in the first place, but it happened anyway. I say we keep Nicholas Landchild, because that's what his name's supposed to be.

The reason why it was named "Landlord M1" was because sub-neighborhoods generate Sims with randomized names. At that time, we couldn't find out how to create the pages because they didn't have proper names, while on the other hand, they really existed. Consequently, they were created that way because it made sense. Now that we know these Sims have their names fixed in the template files, we could name them properly. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 02:39, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

@Nikel 23 - Thanks for backing my comment up. Once again I only made the new one because the old one was deleted and I was unaware of its existence. However, the new one has more information in it, so we should keep that one. So is one going to be deleted or not? C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:45, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

I changed Landlord M1 into a redirect to Nicholas Landchild. Dharden (talk) 04:20, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Redirecting seems to be the best solution here.

C.Syde, I see what you meant that the old one was deleted. I thought by "old one" you were referring to "Landlord M1" all along. From the deletion log, Nicholas Landchild was once deleted and replaced with Landlord M1. Now it seems better to just use the reference names in their files, since it's consistent and we've done it with Downtownies and BV townies as well. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 04:13, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

The page "Landlord M1" wasn't under the Landlords category with the other two landlords. That's probably what made me think the page hadn't been created yet. I re-named "Landlord F1" and "Landlord M2" to "Vyn Shaw" and "Steven Butler" respectively. At the same time I created the page "Nicholas Landchild". A few days later, another user moved the pages Steven Butler and Vyn Shaw back to their previous page titles Landlord M2 and Landlord F1. Then the page Landlord M1 was added to the landlords category. Because I was unable to recall ever seeing this page, I thought it had been created when the pages Steven Butler and Vyn Shaw were changed back to Landlord M2 and Landlord F1. C.Syde (talk | contribs)

Repo Man 1 (Pleasantview) Repo Man 2 (Pleasantview) Repo Man 3 (Pleasantview)

I created articles for the Pleasantview Repo Men a few days ago. Now according to Nikel23, these Repo Men shouldn't have their own articles. Now what should we do with them? C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:16, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Basically, not everything has to be discussed about "how to get rid of things". Instead, we here discuss about whether the subject of an article is worthwhile to have its own page or not. If we decide that the articles don't warrant their own pages, they'll eventually be deleted. If we decide to keep them, then at least it would need improvement.

This place is to discuss if we should keep or delete a page, because it may or may not warrant its own page. If you should ask me about it, I say they're pointless and should be removed. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 18:12, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Hot Dog Chef

I think we really don't need this article. It's too short to warrant its own page. There's not much content there, and it can even be covered in NPC article entirely, except the warning sign. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 12:30, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 13:24, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Per the two users above. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 14:28, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

I just read the first comment, but I'm still not entirely sure how it would work out without extreme modifications to the NPC page. However there could be solutions that I haven't yet thought of. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:41, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

I've added the basic information to NPC as "Food stand cooks". Dharden (talk) 18:10, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Sim cheats

I know this article has been nominated to be moved to the Game guide: namespace. However, it is so poorly written that I do not believe it would be useful as a guide without serious re-writing, as well as being renamed to avoid confusion with the various sub-articles on cheat codes. Therefore, I think it is better to just delete it. Dharden (talk) 15:39, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

I have exactly the same thought. I suggest we delete it outright. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 15:49, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Some of the information about things that can be done with testingcheatsenabled can possibly be added there, maybe as a sub-page. Dharden (talk) 17:41, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Potion of dog transformation

This page is useless, and basically lacking everything. So I suggest delete. Joey.eyeball (talk) 04:36, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

Gone. In the future, you can also nominate pages for {{Speedydelete}} if they should obviously be deleted. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 12:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

Alien Baby

We mostly have this information here. Joey.eyeball (talk) 22:18, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

This page needs to be deleted for sure. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:47, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Done. The page is completely redundant. K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:32, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Try for Baby

Already featured in WooHoo. Joey.eyeball (talk) 22:22, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

The existence of this page is pointless, if you ask me. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:49, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Done. K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:32, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

I think a redirect would've been a better solution than deletion. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 09:40, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to WooHoo#Try for baby has been created. Dharden (talk) 11:48, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Alessandra Forstone

The list of families and Sims in Sugar Maple Coast doesn't contain a name that's even similar to this. Dharden (talk) 11:26, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

And the image on the page is File:The Sims 3-Fairy-Ghost.jpg, which is also used on Hybrid and was uploaded a year ago. Dharden (talk) 11:42, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

^{(edit conflict)}A snippet of the article:

She somehow takes over your device and traps you in a room which she creates. You then can never get out. When you press Build and Buy on your screen appear words...

That is all I need to know that this is completely made up. K6ka (talk | contribs) 11:43, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pink haired sims

This category clearly doesn't warrant it's own page and it was created by a contributor who continues to act in bad faith and does not make constructive edits. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:25, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

It was tagged for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion really just means "Deletion without or with little discussion". --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:59, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

File:Samantha Weir.jpg

This image was uploaded about nine months ago. The subject of the image appears to be a relation to Connor Weir. However there is no evidence that such a Sim exists. I've even searched the game files for the image and the list of Belladonna Cove Sims by first name for the character, but no such image or Sim has been found.

Given that this is an unused image, I see no reason to keep it. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:12, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. The uploader's list of deleted contributions shows a "Fanon:Samantha Weir", which was deleted by author request. It appears that the image was used in that fanon and was left behind when the fanon was deleted. Dharden (talk) 12:45, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

User talk:121.74.99.149

This was my original user / talk page before I got my own account. It may not be worth discussing but feel free to delete it. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:50, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for reason to delete anyone's talk page. It should be kept that way. Please remember that it's always encouraged that we preserve whatever is written in the talk page. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 15:08, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Starfish Sands Playground

There's nothing special about this article and it was create by this user. Commercial lots don't need information unless it is very important in the game. ThePeculiarMe | (talk to me) 03:00, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Deleted -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 03:26, May 22, 2014 (UTC)