Unnecessary articleEdit

There is no information on the subject. We don't know what halos do or what they're for. All we know is when they were mentioned and the two instances in which they were seen (although I still don't see the supposed "shadow residue" from Gabriel's). This article therefore has no useful information on the subject and should be deleted.

Orion (T-B-C) 09:05, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

In Supernatural, the definition of halo is sketchy/finicky, but it's vaguely incorporated into their true form, and is webbed in grace. And close inspection the ashy residue contaminated the sheets above his head. --Monkeydemon, 4:39 AM, January 12th, 2020

That's just a normal burn from Kali's fire. It's there before Gabriel is even stabbed.

Orion (T-B-C) 11:31, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

It's been over a week now. If nobody has any objections, I'm deleting the article (again).

Orion (T-B-C) 22:12, January 20, 2020 (UTC)

Actually you will need a admin/Bureacrat to close this first. Jack3869 (talk) 22:55, January 20, 2020 (UTC)

In the episode were cass regains hi grace a halo can been seen. Jack3869 (talk) 22:55, January 20, 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a screenshot?
Orion (T-B-C) 08:30, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
I found a GIF and and Screencaps.--Mgdodl (talk) 10:22, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. I hadn't noticed that before.
Orion (T-B-C) 21:51, January 21, 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Kali's burst of fire scorched the tablecloth, it was nowhere near the bedding. If you think the subject is more noteworthy as a bulletpoint on the Angels' page, then you should also delete Ruby's blonde haired vessel, for example. -- Mathematician01, 6:06 PM, January 20th, 2020

You can see the burn marks behind Gabriel shortly before he's stabbed, they're quite visible.
Orion (T-B-C) 08:30, January 21, 2020 (UTC)

Orion's only contribution to this sub is mindlessly antagonizing and reversing non-administrator editors. SonOfEve (talk) 00:24, January 21, 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. -- Wobbuffet202, 9:28 PM, January 20th, 2020

Consensus hasn't been reached and Orion has contributed to this discussion far more actively and constructively than you have SonOfEve. This whole debate started because a newer user removed a delete tag instead of debating on a talk page. Orion, MonkeyDemon, and Mathematician01 are the only ones who've made useful points on here and you've seemingly came out of nowhere (on this discussion) just to insult Orion. Please cease such actions and don't devolve this discussion into insults. Zane T 69 (talk) 04:03, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
Oh, how incredible that he has contributed more than I do here. That was my first post here, though, and I wasn't even trying, so that's not saying much in his favor, is it? Orion's sole contribution to the broader Wikia is mindlessly reverting non-administrator users, often with hostile messages, and intimidating people from contributing out of fear of getting reverted on the spot, and insulted by him to boot. His contributions, if we can call those that, are entirely negative; it's just undoing and destroying. There are plenty of pages here that are about ill-attested phenomena with little presence in the series, yet there's no effort to close most those pages. Why? Because such pages were created by administrators, so the content is allowed to stay no matter how minor or banal is the subject, and no matter how ill-written the content itself is (and it often is all three of those things at the same time). The only reason administrators are so determined to close harmless pages like this, is that they were created by non-administrator and you people - and Orion above all - just enjoy undoing what we do and antagonizing us for its own sake. SonOfEve (talk) 21:43, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
You're free to mark those pages for deletion and try to get consensus for their deletion, as I have done. In the mean time, try not to go off-topic.
Orion (T-B-C) 21:54, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and the administrators here sure can be trusted to harshly judge their own contributions like they judge mine and those of other ordinary editors. Sure. SonOfEve (talk) 21:58, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't work the way you seem to believe it does. Mark the articles for deletion, start the debate, see what happens. Or don't. You're clearly not here to participate in this discussion, so feel free to leave.
Orion (T-B-C) 22:14, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
Orion hasn't really constructively contributed that much to the discussion, his comments so far are wrong; at the least, he undoes loads of non-admin edits without just cause, disapproving all else stating "it's an expression/figure of speech" as if he's the arbiter of when something's being used literally or metaphorically. His dismantling isn't for the sake of the wiki, he must do it cause he's that bored. -- Wobbuffetmax, 6:04 PM, January 21st, 2020
    • Also, we do have some info on halos in SPN: their apart of angels' true forms, their linked to their power, they appeared at least twice, and have been mentioned numerous times as well. -- Wobbuffetmax, 6:11 PM, January 21st, 2020
My point is that there isn't enough information to warrant an entire article on the subject. The information can be summarized into a trivia point on the Angels article (it is, after all, literally one sentence long).
Orion (T-B-C) 23:24, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
Okay this has devolved into insults with some users seeming to have a grudge against Orion because he reverted their edits. The article consists of one sentence as previously pointed out. Admins have previously allowed their work to be undone, they have no choice if consensus is against it. They can debate their points but they ultimately only have one "vote." Those users who believe that this page is worth saving have until January 24th to add the information and source it. This is a fair compromise, it gives those who favor keeping the page a chance to further validate its existence by adding sourced information. We'll revisit this issue then and give everyone time to cool down some. Zane T 69 (talk) 00:00, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
I like Orion more or less don't have much of a problem to see the page get deleted, and being delegated to a single bullet as a mere mention on the Angels' page. However, it as far as I'm concerned meets the basic criteria. If not, there are plenty of other weak pages in need of removal (typewriters, beer, etc). -- Wobbuffetmax, 5:58 AM, January 22nd, 2020
The problem is that aside from the list of appearances, the only information we have is literally one sentence long. Is it worth having an entire article listing all the appearances of a visual effect we know so little about, the information is literally one sentence long? I don't think so.
Orion (T-B-C) 11:43, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
Again, I don't mind if the page gets deleted, as you're kinda right, there's not much to go on, but make sure to stand up and follow through that other useless pages (typewriters, beer, etc) meet the same fate. You can't fight vigorously for one undercut page to get banished but then let others slide, otherwise you just look like a dickweed. -- Wobbuffetmax, 8:18 AM, January 22nd, 2020
You make it sound like you believe I'm aware of every single article on the wiki. I'm not. If you find articles you think should be deleted, mark them for deletion and start a discussion on their talk page.
Orion (T-B-C) 14:30, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
No one's aware of every single compartment on the wiki without inventorying, but you did edit the Beer page last month, and didn't raise fire regarding it despite the fact that it's pretty mundane. And it's not my responsibility as a regular user to go around flagging unneeded articles, but you on the other hand being a content moderator means it's your obligation to diligently moderate content specifically even more so than the local admin. -- Wobbuffetmax, 12:17 PM, January 22nd, 2020
What you consider an unneeded article may differ from what I (and others) consider unneeded articles. I consider this article unnecessary because the descriptive information is one sentence long.
It's not my obligation to check each and every article (there's literally thousands of them) against each and every user's definition of what constitutes an unneeded article. To expect any singular person to monitor every single article and then view those articles through your perception is unreasonable, to say the least. You, as an editor, also have a responsibility to voice your concerns.
If you see a criminal on the street, I'm assuming you tell a cop, right? Same thing. Cops aren't all-knowing, and neither am I, so stop acting like I'm some all-knowing entity who chooses to not take action based on what you believe is the best course of action.
Orion (T-B-C) 22:17, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, simply because more words can be put to an article and supports canon, doesn't automatically mean it deserves a whole page. I never proclaimed that you alone need to examine gullies of pages for consideration of deletion, I said you should actively watch out and label viable unneeded articles with the deletion tag that you definitely know are on the wiki (such as the Beer page, which by the way is funnier than this page). -- Wobbuffetmax, 6:32 PM, January 22nd, 2020
And as I said, what you consider unnecessary is not necessarily what someone else would consider unnecessary. That's why consensus exists, and it's also why your criticism of my actions falls flat. You're literally saying that because you consider an article unnecessary, I should be the one to mark it for deletion and argue on your behalf for its deletion, regardless of what my opinion on the subject actually is. You're also implying I can read minds, since you expect me to know what constitutes an unnecessary article for you.
Orion (T-B-C) 12:35, January 23, 2020 (UTC)
Here I'm not judging what constitutes or what doesn't as necessary or unnecessary based on personal opinion, but referring to the ideal standard guide pertaining to appropriate pages, and if it doesn't apply it is likely unneeded. So there's no bias/partiality in my position. Consensus can also help if the page in question thereof could benefit the wiki in a way the individual arguing for its deletion may not see. the Furthermore, I'm not saying you should argue on my behalf and certainly not claim what my belief is, rather fulfill your due diligence as is expected of you and monitor for potential unneeded pages. -- Wobbuffetmax, 11:28 AM, January 23rd, 2020
  • Yes - In favor, not high though, of the article to not be deleted. The reason is, it at the least has a fair description (not robotic and copied/pasted from Wikipedia), and has been mentioned numerous times. I can over the next few days build upon it. -- Wobbuffetmax, 2:54 PM, January 23rd, 2020

What's this vote for? An admin already said you had until the 24th to provide more canon information, if indeed it exists as you and others have claimed.

EDIT: Besides, consensus (the thing that is required for this article to either stay or go) is not the same as a vote.

Orion (T-B-C) 20:13, January 23, 2020 (UTC)

Okay, slow your role there. One, I allotted a few days on January 22nd and you're the only one who's contributed to bettering the page and that was only in the "Appearances" section. It needs real content. Two, formatting and calling for a vote/final decision is something that generally admins and experienced users do. I've given people time to salvage the page's existence, but they've wasted it. Also, this will require require more than a mere vote and a review of opinions and arguments. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:17, January 23, 2020 (UTC)
It's correct, a vote isn't always the same thing as a consensus, but it can be (depending on the context). In a manner of terms, it's only rational that votes lead to consensus in a form. I am assisting in the forcing the page to progress but it's not my fault no one else is contributing to the discussion and issue. -- Wobbuffetmax, 3:30 PM, January 23rd, 2020
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.