Wiki 24:Articles for deletion

This is a place where you can nominate articles for deletion. Place the page link and your reason for the nomination at the top of the list. The link will be removed once the article has been deleted. Articles will remain up for discussion for about a month before the thread is removed. An archive of rejected article deletions is also available. If content is deleted, there may be a leftover talk page; such discussions can be archived here with their original histories preserved. New pages that are obvious examples of spam, vandalism, and the like, should be reported on the Vandal alert project page instead.

Nominated content

Image nomination:

1. File:S8DVD.png - I tried uploading a transparent version of the cover but it ended up looking terrible against the dark background on here. Please delete. Drovethrughosts 15:43, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

More image nominations:

1. File:24-Season-6-Nuclear-Explosion.jpg - It's a duplicate of File:Valenciamushroom2.jpg Thief12 03:42, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Done! nice catch. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:09, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Two image nominations:

1. File:PDVD 209.jpg - A less compelling and inferior version of File:S1e22f2.jpg.
2. File:S1e22f3.jpg - In my opinion this should be deleted and swapped out with File:Sherry1x22.jpg, see the fuller explanation over at Talk:Day 1 9:00pm-10:00pm. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Purview of CTU - See its talk page. It's an oou disaster that pretty much can't be resurrected to fit with the other articles and is plagiarized to boot. Off with its head! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Images (Lonnie McRae) - This character doesn't meet all the requirements established on User talk:Wtl7 for having his own image category. We'd have to bend over backwards to get more images of him, which is silly. I say we delete this. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncontested... gone! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 17:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:7x24i.jpg - It is a near duplicate of File:7x24main.jpg. I say we keep the "main", since the afd image is the less useful of the two, and in the afd nom the only difference is that they're just standing around. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections; done. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:24Trivia and Wiki 24:Trivia archive - These are the remnants of a repeatedly abortive effort to get random facts on the Main Page. Even I wanted this to work... for awhile. But nobody has ever tried to get this going, and to be honest, I wouldn't support any new attempts either (we wouldn't want to invite new users into thinking this project is a warehouse for random trivia). Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Before we delete it lets make sure that all the trivia from that page is posted onto other, appropriate pages. There's some good stuff on there that I don't think is listed anywhere else.   SignorSimon  talk  contribs 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:MainPage R and Template:MainPage L: No longer used, unnecessary templates. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 06:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I hate old junk like that, especially when it sneaks by me for so long. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 11:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Also how about Template:MainPageL2? It's only linked in a test page and a forum discussion (I'll unlink it in the latter if it gets deleted). And, yeesh! Look at Template:MainPage. What an old bugger; it's as old as the hills. Looks like another page that is no longer useful. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Characters by groups - regardless of the fact that this article was created within the first 24 hours of Wiki 24's creation, it's terribly arbitrary and impossible to keep up. --proudhug 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, to prepare I have removed it from the 2 encyclopedic areas where it was linked. However, it remains linked in a number of old discussions and archives. Should we blank and redirect it to the main page to prevent the ugly red-linking which would occur in those locations? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Would simply bolding them, as we do on this page, be too much work? --proudhug 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope :P but it is a kind of "historical revisionism" to go and alter those. It's acceptable though I guess, since we're not changing the content of someone's post, just de-activating a link. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see a problem with it. There's definitely precedent. --proudhug 01:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Annnnnd... it's dead. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Jack Bauer 5.JPG - User:Tony Almeida 24 uploaded this for his userspace. Despite the bad file extension and lack of use anywhere else on Wiki 24, it was not deleted because it appeared on his userpage. He has since uploaded another image, so now one of them needs to be deleted. Since this one already has a bad file extension, it needs to be deleted anyway. --proudhug 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconded (& talk page too). Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gone. --proudhug 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A few nominations:

1. Do we delete Image:MarieWarner1.jpg or Image:Marie.jpg? I say we delete the first one and swap out wherever necessary.
2. Any of the "Day Galleries" in Category:Galleries, at the moment I count ten in there. They are outmoded now. The place where they are currently linked - at the top of their Guides - can just be edited to link to the new categories. The only sacrifice is that we lose the blurbs but who cares?
3. Category:Images (CNB) - I recommend we replace this with a larger category, like "Images (news reports)" instead of something so specific. Then we can put them all together, no real need for a bunch of separate ones.
4. Category:Images (timer) - a good idea but in practice it's kind of just category clutter. Hasn't even been used for that very reason, it seems.

Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed.

That was easy. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 21:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto across the board. --proudhug 21:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Very cool. I'll get to work on the galleries today and this will finally be finished. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just realized there actually may be a purpose for the galleries that I nominated for deletion in #2 above. Aside from the blurbs, which aren't that important, those galleries offer a chronological order for their images, and additionally they ensure that the images which are not linked on the Guide do not turn up in "Special:UnusedImages". I'm completely confused now as to whether they should co-exist with the new categs or still be deleted. Thoughts? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, SignorSimon did bring this up when proposing the category galleries: "Could leave the current galleries so that images that are only on there are not orphaned, but otherwise make no more gallery pages from now on." Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to have them though, so the question is what to do with the orphaned images. I'd lean more towards deleting the ones that can't be moved to another page. Wiki 24 is meant to provide information on 24, and images are merely used to illustrate and emphasize the text. This site was created to be an encyclopedia, not a photo gallery. --proudhug 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been slowly getting to deleting these galleries, and also the images that appear nowhere else but on the galleries as well. It's taking awhile but I will have it completed soon. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Inauguration.jpg - I think it can be swapped out with the pre-existing Image:RedemptGuide6.jpg which is the better shot of the two. Also there is that random dude! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I can't decide if that guy makes the picture totally awesome or if it makes it totally suck! I won't be upset if you delete it, but I also won't be upset if you want to nominate it for Picture of the Year! Any chance of this guy getting on your forbidden characters list? --proudhug 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rook, why the change of heart? On 22 January 2009 you added the image yourself to Edwin Ross' page and wrote "recyc good image" as the edit description! --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 07:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Simon I probably thought I was adding the one I uploaded (sorry that sounds kind of dickish lol). They both represent two angles of the same thing, and I think RedemptGuide6 is clearer shot of the main characters. Also Proudhug, at this point its a matter of inevitability that this guy will be added to the Forbidden characters! Anyway let's keep it. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 13:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

He's just so right there and more in focus than the main characters, it's hilarious! --proudhug 15:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Major lols. I want to save this convo, maybe over on the talk page for that image. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack Bauer as a fugitive - It's showing no signs of improvement. I don't see much of a future for this one. Even if someone came along and adopted it, I suspect they would be prolonging the inevitable. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 08:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. --proudhug 03:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Main - Unlinked, incomplete, also I agree with Proudhug on the Template Talk page that it's additionally unusable. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Jack Bauer - Any plans for this? it's currently only transcluded onto 1 Main namespace page. If no one has any ideas, let's delete it since Simon has a template that functionally supersedes this. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No attachment here. --Proudhug 17:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki 24:Sandbox/MainPageNext - Completed sandbox content. Could be moved to user space if someone wants to archive the conversation. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 13:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for a deletion. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 11:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Region encoding - I have no idea why this was even made in the first place. --Proudhug 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Looks like Dan made that back in '06. Silly seldom-seen Dan! Just realized: is it permissible to move the DVD region half of the page to the DVD article, and the other half to the BD article? Perhaps in a notes section, it might be a useful reference. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no, since it's still not 24-related. A Wikipedia link would suffice, if you think the information is useful. --Proudhug 20:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I unlinked it, feel free to make the kill. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 13:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Jumanji; vandalism redirect. -- Matthew R Dunn 10:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Guest characters - There are 3 problems with this page. First, it has arbitrary inclusion criteria (characters with up to two appearances? why not 3? or 1?). Second is the arbitrary and potentially confusing usage of the term "guest" in the title. Third and least important is the fact that it's horribly out-of-date. I'd like to note here that as per Talk:Main characters, the page Recurring characters has been overhauled and includes all characters with 2 or more appearances. Guest characters really doesn't have a point. There are only 2 reasons I can imagine why someone would want to keep this. First, it has a large edit history and was created in the wiki's first month. My response to this is seen in this Wikipedia reply (in summary, too bad, that's a non sequitur argument). Second, someone might think this would be a decent starting point if someone wanted to create a "one-episode-only" characters page; one could conceivably just move the page and shave off the 2x-appearance characters. This is a bad idea, however, as the page in its current state wouldn't even suffice as a skeleton for such an effort. Plus, a "one-shot characters" page is a horrific idea to begin with in my opinion. I say delete. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 14:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I say delete. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. That page was like a 3-year-4-month-old bloated tick on the wiki. Lol! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)