Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hotel bayram
Advertisement for some hotel, most of it written in turkish, POV ('friendly staff...') Splette 
Talk 17:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No notability asserted. ~ trialsanderrors 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as spamvert with notenglish. Ifnord 18:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn, Splette. Anand(talk) 18:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertisement & wrong language. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 22:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. You could move it to the correct language, but they'd probably just delete it as well. tmopkisn tlka 23:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I would also encourage people reading this to contribute to a proposed set of guidelines for establishing the notability of hotels to facilitate future similar debates. (hope you'll forgive the shameless advertisement!) Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. NPOV. Black-Velvet 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, POV. Grandmasterka 06:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect, as all meaningful content has already been merged into the suggested article. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inherit the Earth
This page was nominated before for deletion and kept. However, at that point, the article was about a commerically released computer game . It's now about a furry fancomic of the computer game. Previous votes for keeping this article include, "It shouldn't be on List of web comics" and "Keep on the basis of the game, not the non-notable webcomic". Although I applaud its massive assailing of the Alexa ranks from 2 million of the previous nomination to 1 million of its current nomination, this is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 01:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per above. -- Jared Hunt 01:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge
Redirectto Inherit the Earth: Quest for the Orb. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- That is where the original content of the article went. It is customary to redirect after you move an article. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GassyGuy 05:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and revert to the point where it was kept. ackoz
12:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC) - Redirect as per Armedblowfish. --Kristjan Wager 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the webcomic content, and redirect to the computer game. -- Dragonfiend 16:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
KeepMerge the computer game was quite popular at the time and I can imagine that the official webcomic of it is of interest to some people --Splette Talk 18:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- If the webcomic is based on the game, perhaps it should be merged and redirected? (We could start with a redirect, as I voted above, and merge appropriately.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs)
- Delete or Merge with the game page. Bwithh 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with the game. It's the "official sequel" of (what I assume) is a notable video game, hence it is notable for being linked to this. However, I think both the video game and its webcomic sequel can be in a single article. Xuanwu 21:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Yes, the game shouldn't have been listed as a webcomic. But there isn't any reason to merge the sequel into the original. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with the game article. If I hear "Inherit the Earth", I think of the game, whatever the subtitle happens to be... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or, failing that, merge with the game's page. Disk space is cheap. Bryce 19:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Nom is incorrect about the authorship of the comic, it is the official sequel to the game. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge per Bryce. Royalbroil 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with the game. While considering this vote I went over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. It was interesting to note that the members of the project have been through a process of attempting to formulate rules on deciding which webcomics were notable and appear to have been unable to reach a consensus - though, under strong guidance from Abe Dashiell, there seems to be a positive movement toward shifting webcomic stubs from Wiki onto Comixpedia.org. Unfortunately, the general attitude then is to leave the AfD process to clear away any mess. I would have hoped that members of the project would have taken more responsibility for their own area of interest and made positive decisions themselves as to which articles are worth keeping and which are not. SilkTork 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete all. Xoloz 02:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of channel 20 TV stations in the United States
Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. We have no article on the topic of Channel 20 TV stations in the United States because being assigned to channel 20 tells you nothing intrinsic about the nature of the station. if someone had written a meaningful, sourced, encyclopedic article on "channel 20 TV stations in the United States" this list could be a section within the article. But there is no such article, because this is not an encyclopedic topic. This should be a category, not an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
For the same reason, I am also nominating:
- List of channel 19 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 18 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 17 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 16 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 15 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 14 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 13 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 12 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 11 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 10 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 9 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 8 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 7 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 6 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 5 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 4 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 3 TV stations in the United States
- List of channel 2 TV stations in the United States
I just noticed that most of these lists include cable channel assignments mixed in with broadcast channel assignments without any indication of which is which, which makes it quite an intriguing intellectual puzzle to devise any plausible use for the list. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the phrase most of, for those that aren't, can't you just edit them so that they are?? Georgia guy 02:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're asking, but... the articles on channels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 say they include broadcast stations only; 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 say they include broadcast and cable; 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 are simply lists without explanation other than the title; 19 and 20 simply repeat the title without explaining whether a "channel 20 television station" means broadcast or cable channel. I am not sure how anyone could "just" edit them without individually checking every station on the list. It could be argued that the lists which only include broadcast stations are slightly more useful than the others because have some use in determining whether there is a possibility of the stations interfering with each other, but a category would do just as well. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you could just remove the cable stations, couldn't you?? Georgia guy 02:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're asking, but... the articles on channels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 say they include broadcast stations only; 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 say they include broadcast and cable; 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 are simply lists without explanation other than the title; 19 and 20 simply repeat the title without explaining whether a "channel 20 television station" means broadcast or cable channel. I am not sure how anyone could "just" edit them without individually checking every station on the list. It could be argued that the lists which only include broadcast stations are slightly more useful than the others because have some use in determining whether there is a possibility of the stations interfering with each other, but a category would do just as well. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I can't even see any reason for a category of this - being channel 20 is, as you say, meaningless. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- For anyone voting in this discussion, please negotiate with CoolKatt number 99999 for a good decision on what to do with UHF channel lists. Georgia guy 01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, indiscriminate. --Coredesat 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per above. -- Jared Hunt 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Less than a day old, has not been given sufficient time to develop. Could potentially become useful, eventually. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Plenty other of list of TV stations by other classifications, such as state, network affiliation, others. CoolKatt number 99999 02:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, Wikipedia is not paper. CoolKatt number 99999 02:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- References would help. And maybe intros regarding how all being on the same channel number in different places connects the channels... but be careful not to cross into original research. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Eventually, you might also consider turning them into charts, including channel name, location, broadcast/cable, company, target audience, etc. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- A good ref would be the FCC TV Query CoolKatt number 99999 02:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Is that what was used in the creation of the lists? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, see my comments below. Georgia guy 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Is that what was used in the creation of the lists? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- A good ref would be the FCC TV Query CoolKatt number 99999 02:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, Wikipedia is not paper. CoolKatt number 99999 02:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete This might be helpful for people without cable, but if you have cable these numbers rarely mean anything anyway. I like the idea, but unfortunately it's too confusing to salvage. Danny Lilithborne 02:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nomination. These stations on each list have no significant connection with each other. For two stations in different cities to be on the same channel would only be meaningful if viewers were to carry their television sets from one city to another without being willing to change the channel on their sets when they arrive. By contrast, stations in the same geographical area have the same potential viewership, and stations with the same network affiliation broadcast many of the same programs as each other. --Metropolitan90 02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- It could also, of course, be useful to a Martian with a very sensitive television set and excellent powers of concentration in deciding whether he would prefer to view the thirty stations mixed together on channel 4 or the thirty stations mixed together on channel 5. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete all Seriously, WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.I really truly fail to see the point in these lists. Viridae 02:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, here is the chronology:
- Someone created List of channel 6 TV stations in the United States a long time ago and it was never Afd'd.
- Someone added lists to the dis-ambiguation pages Channel 2 through Channel 6, and when I saw the lists, I moved them to list titles.
- Later, I was hoping channels 10 through 13 were going to be created similarly, and 10 11 and 13 were created, and finally I created 12, letting CoolKatt number 99999 know it. Later, CoolKatt number 99999 started UHF. Georgia guy 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
(I also say that I have proposed on the village pump some info about Wikipedia lists that I want to know what a good general rule is.) Georgia guy 02:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- You might want to try improving them before creating anymore (see my suggestions above). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete. Seems unlikely to be useful, even when fleshed out. —tregoweth (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not useful at all, and this is coming from someone who is part of WP:TVS --CFIF (talk to me) 02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nuke with fire - Just... arbitrary. —THIS IS MESSED
OCKER (TALK) 02:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Most of them are new articles. I don't like the idea of nuking articles without giving them a chance to develop.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I was the one who created the lists on the Channel 2-5 and 7-9 dab articles. They seem more "in place" there in my opinion - I meant it for someone in, for instance, Atlanta, who wanted info on WSB-TV, and who would blindly type in "channel 2", to get a link to the article. It was only meant to be a dab list, which also explains why stations that used their cable channel in their branding were on the list (i.e. WZVN would be referred to in the community more as "channel 7" than "channel 26"). As a "list" article rather than a dab page it seems less useful. I have no opinion on the deletions of the articles as they are now (hell, I'd even lean towards delete if forced to choose), but would support a merge back into the "Channel x" articles. Kirjtc2 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, based on your comment, if you think it makes sense to have lists at simply Channel X titles, it makes sense to have List of channel X TV stations in the United States re-direct, doesn't it?? Georgia guy 02:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Might as well. Kirjtc2 03:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, based on your comment, if you think it makes sense to have lists at simply Channel X titles, it makes sense to have List of channel X TV stations in the United States re-direct, doesn't it?? Georgia guy 02:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete including cable channels on some of these makes them spectacularly not useful. The original disambig wasn't a bad idea, but it sounds unlikely that someone would be searching for a TV station on Wikipedia without knowing that channel numbers are regional. I really can't see any use for this. Opabinia regalis 03:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Very arbitary criteria. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 05:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete utterly useless, numeral codes have got nothing to do with the station, insufficient nexus between items to form a useful list. Jammo (SM247) 05:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Another solution could be to merge the lists into one article called "List of television stations by channel number." CoolKatt number 99999 05:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment that would be far too long, even if limited only to US free-to-air channels. Jammo (SM247) 05:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Metropolitan and other arguments. GassyGuy 05:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, is there some significance to being on channel number 20/19/18/17...? I really can't see any point to this. - Motor (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Pointless lists are not what Wikipedia is for. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links, which these articles are and will forever more be. Batmanand | Talk 09:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the lot, arbitrary listcruft. Deizio talk 12:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. You could move these to CoolKatt number 99999's user namespace. Georgia guy 13:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the unencyclopediac garbage. Unless, of course, CoolKatt 99999 want's to put it in his/her userspace.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete all, listcruft. ~Chris /e@/iar/beans/dbad/ 14:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all and categorize. ~ trialsanderrors 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment for this user. Please clarify the meaning of the word categorize You cannot categorize deleted articles. Georgia guy 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- It means create categories for TV stations by channel rather than put them in a list, if that serves any purpose. Come to think of it, probably not. ~ trialsanderrors 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment for this user. Please clarify the meaning of the word categorize You cannot categorize deleted articles. Georgia guy 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Entirely useless list. Tevildo 18:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as indiscriminate info... and cablecruft? Anand(talk) 19:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Good heavens. I've seen a lot of lists nominated, but these ones take the prize. Tony Fox (speak) 19:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. I helped add to one of them and would hate to see work lost. Besides, if we removed it, certain other links would have to be axed, like Channel 4 (disambiguation). That has some problems. You have to go through 4 (disambiguation) to Channel Four, then to the disambiguation there to the list. But yet, I also say Speedy delete because it is discrimination. We could not merge this with world lists, because the only lists that could be used are VHF and UHF.That is discrimination. -Tracker <sup>([[User talk:TrackerTV|>talk)</sup>]] 19:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- No offense, but these pages meet neither speedy keep nor speedy deletion criteria. -- Kicking222 03:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Tony Fox. Vizjim 20:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The nominator wishes to state that I think the lists are accurate, represent hard work, and were created in good faith. If the result of the debate is delete, the main contributor of each should be offered the option of having the articles userfied, in case they wish to rework the material into something different. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a random collection of useless trivia. User:Angr 21:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep in mind there are other TV stations lists too. So if we delete these, then those would have to be deleted too. CoolKatt number 99999 21:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Lists of stations in states or markets, or of network affiliates, are more notable because the bond between those stations is stronger (competition and being "sister stations" respectively) than just being on a random channel. Kirjtc2 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- So what? They are all still lists of TV stations. CoolKatt number 99999 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The difference is that a list of stations by affiliation or market means a lot more than just listing them by channel number. Would you call a list of stations with female news anchors whose last name begins with S "still a list of TV stations"? We've got to draw the line somewhere. Kirjtc2 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Still, these lists are useful because channel numbers are an important aspect of the station. CoolKatt number 99999 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- The difference is that a list of stations by affiliation or market means a lot more than just listing them by channel number. Would you call a list of stations with female news anchors whose last name begins with S "still a list of TV stations"? We've got to draw the line somewhere. Kirjtc2 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- So what? They are all still lists of TV stations. CoolKatt number 99999 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Lists of stations in states or markets, or of network affiliates, are more notable because the bond between those stations is stronger (competition and being "sister stations" respectively) than just being on a random channel. Kirjtc2 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all and Userfy(move all lists to CoolKatt number 99999's user space) as per Georgia guy's solution. Bwithh 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Trivial at best, I'm sure people can identify the name of their local TV stations on their own. tmopkisn tlka 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Categorize, if enough articles on the TV stations themselves exist to make categories worthwhile. --zenohockey 02:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. These lists seem to be completely pointless and an indiscriminate collection of information. This is much different than a list of stations in a state or owned by a certain company or something like that. Channel number is, I believe, mostly arbitrary and I see no reason why stations should be sorted that way (who would care?) Grandmasterka 06:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete there is nothing here that can't be conveyed just as well (or better) with a category. That is, to the extant that there is anything here at all. Eluchil404 10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. Vegaswikian 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How about we redirect the pages to categories? CoolKatt number 99999 17:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- We don't do that. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Vote was to DELETE. Anonymous votes have been excluded due to strong suspicions of sock/meatpuppetry. ChrisO 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Mayall
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
Delete - another vanity article from the Monday Club set. Nothing in the article about why Mayall is notable as a pediatrician. Other than that he's a failed political candidate. Homey 03:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
- Users should note that this is yet another deletion nomination by the User above who has an obvious agenda against those on the British Conservative Right-Wing. 195.194.75.209 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. As a two-time Tory candidate, he's notable enough for a stub entry on a list page ... but not for his own article. CJCurrie 03:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Coredesat 10:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I think his notability is above threshold. The article is not NPOV, however, that could be fixed. While there is some effort at secondary sourcing, I don't think the sources quoted are reliable. With effort at editing and sourcing, this could be acceptable IMO, but as it is, two strikes cause me to vote delete. snug 13:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Why arn't the sources reliable? 195.194.75.209 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. More notable than an average defeated candidate due to his activities in campaigning outside of elections. David | Talk 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC).
- Keep: Many candidates have to fight seemingly unwinnable seats. But his writings on Scotland and Toryism are important. He was also Chairman of the Conservative Monday Club, at the time the most important UK Tory pressure-group with over 50 members of both houses of parliament as members. He is also a leading children's doctor. An all-round minor notable. 195.194.75.209 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- above is from an unregistered anon IP. Homey 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Mayall was well-known, a good example of a minor notable who needs a modest biography. He has a good entry in The Medical Register. These delete nominations, all by the same person, are disgraceful. 81.129.155.181 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- above is from an unregistered anon IP. Homey 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator, failing WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Sufficiently notable. Well-known ex-Chairman of the Conservative Monday Club; prominent paediatrician. 86.139.185.202 11:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- above is from an unregistered anon IP. Homey 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Homey may not like "the Monday Club set", but in my opinion English neo-fascism is notable. Fred Bauder 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability; I've not found any press coverage of this individual at all. With regard to Fred's comment above, a subject is not made notable merely by virtue of holding certain political views; the subject actually has to do something notable. WP:BIO sets out clear criteria, none of which are met by this person. -- ChrisO 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- So is that the ultimate criteria for a Wikipedia entry? "Press Coverage"? My God! He appears in numerous newspapers articles (one is mentioned in the article) in relation to his two parliamentary candidatures, the Territorial Army, and also in relation to the Conservative Monday Club. He also appears here: http://www.nuffieldhospitals.org.uk/az_showconathosp.asp?cid=7881&hid=40&sid=876&backto=cons
- I suggest he more than meets Wikipedia's requirements unless you want him to climb Mt.Everest? 213.122.47.42 14:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Although the vote was narrowly in favour of deletion I am, exceptionally, putting this aside in the light of the article being rewritten and the nomination withdrawn following the submission of most of the votes below. ChrisO 22:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] John R. Pinniger
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
Delete as non-notable. Another vanity article from the Monday Club set. AFD nomination withdrawn as per ChrisO below. Homey 04:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If he can't even win election to an internal Monday Club position, he isn't notable. CJCurrie 04:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above two compatriots have been consistant attackers of the UK Conservative Right-wing for at least 7 months. I would argue their bias is so pronounced as to be unacceptable. 81.131.65.236 07:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I have noted that too. 195.194.75.209 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- In every election there must be a winner and a loser. Monday Club National Elections involved thousands of people. Losing the occasional election reflects little. At least he stood! 81.129.155.181 21:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Clear campaign by the nominator against articles on the British Tory Right. 86.139.185.202 11:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- In every election there must be a winner and a loser. Monday Club National Elections involved thousands of people. Losing the occasional election reflects little. At least he stood! 81.129.155.181 21:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tychocat 08:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 10:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete UK borough councillors/lobby group members are ten-a-penny and, I would say, unnotable unless they assert something to the contrary. --DaveG12345 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC).
-
- Bet you wouldn't say that if he were a Fabian or a socialist, Dave, eh? 81.129.155.181 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Notable in several fields as a UK Conservatve Party activist, councillor in one of London's more volatile boroughs. May be a minor notable, but probably far more notable than anyone voting here! 81.131.65.236 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- anon user. Homey 06:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
-
- No different to you, then?81.129.155.181 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: agree with User:81.131. Contributions from numeric users should be just as valid as those from Homey, about whom, in reality, we know nothing. 195.194.75.209 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Above is an anon IP who has not registered. Homey 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- And? Who are you? An anonymous user who no-one can identify. 81.129.155.181 21:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Pinniger was a live wire in the Conservative Party (UK) and in the Conservative Monday Club. It took guts for someone like him to stand and be elected to council in Lambeth. Should all Wikipedia biographies just be about people like Napoleon? Don't minor notables get a stub? 81.129.155.181 21:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Unregistered anon user. Homey 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- No more "anon" than you, I suggest. 86.139.185.202 11:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as per above entries- but perhaps a merge with the Monday Club article? EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Notable in his own way, which is what a bio should be about. It is short and to the point. 86.139.185.202 11:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I've found a series of Times articles about JRP, who appears to have sparked a major schism in the Monday Club in 1984 after he resigned from it and publicly accused it of harbouring "extremists and racists" (wonder who he was referring to?). The Monday Club retaliated by accusing him and a number of other members of trying to mount an internal coup. The news coverage, which is very likely to be in more than just the Times, clearly meets the WP:BIO standard that "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I do have to wonder in passing why the article's author(s) hasn't mentioned JRP's resignation and accusations against the Monday Club... -- ChrisO 18:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment - fair enough, can you integrate your findings into the article? Homey 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'll do what I can with what I have. I've only got access to the Times database here, but I should be able to do a Lexis-Nexis search at the weekend and hopefully pull out some more stories. -- ChrisO 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - fair enough, can you integrate your findings into the article? Homey 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Vote was to DELETE. Anonymous votes have been excluded due to strong suspicions of sock/meatpuppetry. ChrisO 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A.V.R. Smith
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
Delete. Another non-notable vanity article from the Monday Club set. Went to some dinners and edited a club magazine. Homey 04:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- From a quick tour on Wiki I see that the nominator has been attacking the UK Right-Wing for months on end, relentlessly. Users should be aware of his agenda. 195.194.75.209 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, too right. How can it be a vanity article if AVR didn't write it? 81.129.155.181 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's vanity for those associated with the Monday Club/CDA set making their members look more important then they are, thus making the whole set look more important than it is. Homey 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, too right. How can it be a vanity article if AVR didn't write it? 81.129.155.181 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Think you've exposed an obvious agenda of your own here. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tychocat 08:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly an icky individual, but seems to have some reference value. Wikipedia is not just for nice people. Wikipedia should have documentation on UK apologists for apartheid. WIthin that context, some Monday Club people may be more notable than others. TruthbringerToronto 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: a pivotal figure on the UK ultra-conservative right-wing in the years up to 1992. Wiki has countless articles on Reds; why not bios of The Right? 195.194.75.209 16:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Above is by an unregistered anon contributor.Homey 22:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- So what? I'd vote that his opinion is equal to/better than yours. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: how can anyone say that AVR Smith was not notable? 81.129.155.181 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Above is by an unregistered anon contributor.Homey 22:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. Just as "anon" as you. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: AVR Smith was a mover and a shaker and is a well-known personality in Tory circles. Just read both his article and the two articles on Western Goals (UK) and Western Goals Institute and decide for yourselves. 86.139.185.202 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- above is from an unregistered anon IP. Homey 18:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability; I've not found any press coverage of this individual at all. Attending dinners is not a notable activity! -- ChrisO 18:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. seems like delete arguments stem from political ideology. im not on the far right myself, but he seems to pass notability test. article rambles a lot and needs to be cleaned up. Joan-of-arc 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Above contributor has made less than 50 edits, most of them are on AFDs. Homey 20:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think this vote should be discounted - the user's edit history doesn't suggest a connection to the Monday Club / GLF cabal. However, I'm entirely of the opinion that the anonymous votes above and in the related AFDs on John Pinniger and Mark Mayall should be discounted on the grounds of suspected sock/meatpuppetry. -- ChrisO 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Above contributor has made less than 50 edits, most of them are on AFDs. Homey 20:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joed
|
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding |
Neologism, NFT. Daniel Case 04:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ---Charles 05:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment.
Just what, exactly, is this thing below? It was added by an anonymous user whose intentions seem highly questionable.Ok, it's gone now. ---Charles 05:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment.
- Keep It is used by many in a game called Eve-online. --Murmus 05:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The term is used by many people in the MMO Eve-online refering to an incident that happend to one of the players Joe of Omega Corp. The incident happend as described within the article. Due to this it can hardly be considered meaningless. Note Sure it may be considered a new word. But refering to Leeroy Jenkins at this point which is widely used within the MMO World of Warcraft. This incident is an equal if not a greater screwup. --Assur 05:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Some has deleted the articled from an anonymous source. 05:23, 25 June 2006 141.153.232.194 as posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joed&action=history --Assur 05:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Textbook case of a neologism. There is no evidence that it exists outside of its narrow online world. No reliable sources exist, so for all we know this could be made up. --Hetar 05:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete use of a word by many a) does not mean it is not a neologism, merely that it may not be a protologism and b) does not justify the creation of a page that is essentially a dicdef. Jammo (SM247) 05:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete neologism from a game that hasn't spread beyond that community, and no way to know how prevalent it is there. Discussion page pretty much says it all. Fan1967 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Neologism that isn't used at all widely, article has little to no chance of expanding into something encyclopaedic. GassyGuy 06:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Neologism. I'm sure everyone at Eve Online uses the word as stated, but that says it all. Tychocat 08:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. nn neologism. *sigh*. It depresses me that the message at the top of this AfD listing is required. Batmanand | Talk 09:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment Hate to tell you Batmanand. But no links are posted for this wiki anywhere. Only ones who have posted are Myself and Murmus who have both been working on editing this wiki. So I'm sorry to inform you that any attempt to slander the authors of this wiki are pointless. --Assur 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure you understand what I mean. I was refering to the template at the top of this AfD - the big one that says that AfD is not a vote, that if you have been sent here as a friend then please do not vote-stuff etc. I was making no reference to you or any other editor. Batmanand | Talk 19:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, as neologism. Ifnord 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, fails WP:NEO, not a dictionary. --DaveG12345 20:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom... and pretty much every other delete vote. tmopkisn tlka 23:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the neologism. --Starionwolf 04:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and comments above. Yamaguchi先生 08:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete after ignoring new users. Jaranda wat's sup 03:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shefa Network
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
Not Notable, 89 google hits for "Shefa Network" with many of the links being for a different organization. [14] PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is misleading to use bad Google searches to deny that a subject has many webpages on Google. The following accurate Google search shows thousands of hits for the Shefa group connected with Conservative Judaism. Check it out yourself. (Obviously most of these may not be a valid hit, but that is of course true for all Google searches. Do not apply a criteria to this one article alone that is applied to no other article! ) Look, I have no problem with people saying "Delete because it isn't notable", but then I do insist that this policy be applied to all groups, and not to this group alone. [15] RK
- Doing a modified search to remove the occurence of the word shefa not related to this organization leads to fare fewer results [16] just "SHERI SHEFA" was 95% of your results and she is a writer for the Canadian Jewish News. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not true that "many" links are for a different organization: when I Google "Shefa Network" only 1 out of the top 31 is for any other group. (And before someone points it out, yes, this is among my first edits--we all have to start somewhere!--but hardly my first use of Wikipedia; I look forward to learning...)--BeccaB 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- BeccaB, When you do your search only the 89 links show up mainly duplicates (See comment by Fan1967 below), which proves my point that it is not notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Doing a modified search to remove the occurence of the word shefa not related to this organization leads to fare fewer results [16] just "SHERI SHEFA" was 95% of your results and she is a writer for the Canadian Jewish News. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Bad faith deletion of new article on Shefa
-
- Huh? Why are people trying to delete an article on a very real group? The claim made on the Shefa Network page is false. The Shefa Network is a real group within Conservative Judaism, and in fact is already larger than many organizations that Wikipedia already has many articles on. The Shefa Network already has:
- Several hundred members
- A journal
- An official website and e-mail listserv
- They have sponsored two major conferences
- More activities are planned for the immediate future (Shefa Israel Mission over the Winter break this coming year, and tentative plans for a high profile musical event)
- The development of two new websites designed to be part of a unified gateway into Conservative Judaism.
- Sadly, the two people attempting to delete this entry refuse to even discuss the issue on the article discussion page. They have made no attempt to even research the issue. Note the timestamps; they tried to delete the article within minutes of its creation. Attempting to delete a page without even trying to ascertain the facts is against Wikipedia policy.
- If someone somehow still doubts that this organization exists, I can arrange for an interview with its founder, or its journal editor, webmaster, and members of this organization who have been to Shefa's academic conferences. RK 14:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? Why are people trying to delete an article on a very real group? The claim made on the Shefa Network page is false. The Shefa Network is a real group within Conservative Judaism, and in fact is already larger than many organizations that Wikipedia already has many articles on. The Shefa Network already has:
- Delete. Promotional, nonencylopedic article written in the first person by someone obviously extremely involved in the group. This individual is obviously unaware of Wikipedia's editorial policy, and has been extremely confrontational, defensive, and combative. He or she is also obviously puffing the importance and notability of the group and its "academic journal." If it is in fact notable, it should be rewritten from scratch, probably by someone not as emotionally invested in the organization. NTK 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- NTK is saying untruths. No one here has made any statements about the importance of Shefa;s journal. He has simply made a string of ad homenim and false attacks, none of which have anything to do with the actual article. He is trying to delete the article because he dislikes me, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. RK
StrongStrong Keep. The article does require more work in order to assert the notability of the organisation and would benefit from additional references. Conservative Judaism is a large movement worldwide. Any sub-group that has been in existence since 2004 in a global, Jewish movement is itself notable. Some that have existed for a shorter time are notable anyway. I'm concerned that the AfD nomination came so quickly after the article was ceated. Generally that implies bad faith to me. There is enough notability about this organisatiomn to warrant an article. This article is notable as an article, but I re-emphasise that it requires further work. However, it is only a couple of hours old. Don't we normally give peole time to create serious articles? Fiddle Faddle 15:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have diluted my vote from "strong". The creator seems to be content with it the way it is. I view it as requiring expansion Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Reinstated "strong". There is work being done on the article to prove it is notable. Ravnet discussions are not easily accessible, and regrettably one will have to take those for granted (I was gooing to say "As gospel, and only just restrained myself). The involvement of JTS personnel is in itself notable. Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle came in after RK canvassed six users and a Wikiproject page complaining of persecution. A rapid nomination for deletion is hardly bad faith when the article is of such low quality, obvious bias and exaggerations, and given the author's past history. It did not take me more than a few minutes to find that this "group" is nonexistent on the web and that its "journal" is not present in major university libraries. 20K website hits goes more to show obscurity than to show notability. NTK 15:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It's kind of you to wave some sort of accusation at me. However the fact that I came here after I had my attention drawn to the article has no bearing on my views. I see nothing wrong with RK's drawing my attention to the article. I had no need to take any action - I could have ignored his note entirely. I am sure he felt I might be interested. I was. And I have placed my thoughts here. I have also placed thoughts in the article's talk page. I looked at the author's past history. A 12 month thing in April 2005 expired, surely? So raking that up now seems to me to be rhetoric. Please stick to the article, not the personalities. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I accused you of nothing, I only pointed out the fact that you were canvassed—you on the other hand accused me of bad faith. And yes, it is considered problematic for users to spam talk pages in order to "save" their articles from deletion. I personally avoid voting on nominations I have found out through canvassing, especially when it is the author or the nominator who is canvassing. As to the parole issue, you will note that 12-month period is reset every time it is violated, and in any event personal attacks are never permissible. ArbCom rulings are hardly irrelevant, especially given that this user has previously been banned from editing Judaism-related articles for an entire year. To ignore that would be to make ArbCom toothless, and ArbCom is the one tool, if sometimes ineffectual, to protect WP from persistently abusive editors. NTK 15:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nonetheless, whatever route I came here by, my opinion is my opinion. The matter in hand is the article. Please stick to discussing that. It is not rhetoric that keeps or deletes articles. Fiddle Faddle 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree, however the whole purpose of AfD is to determine the consensus of Wikipedia editors. When an editor attempts to subvert this process by canvassing "votes" from people he believes to be sympathetic, these opinions must be taken in that context. I was not attacking you, I was providing that context. NTK 16:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I disagree with you. "providing context" means stating that "Several people have been cavassed for their opinions. It does not means stating "this perosn came here becuase he was canvassed" As you will also see the cancassing has drawn at least one "delete" opinion. These things tend to work out in the end and the correct consensus is reached. It doesn't matter whetehr we agree with the consensus. What matters is that the article is viewed on its merits and only on those. This discussion was moved to the talk page. It wouls be far more useful to keep it there. Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
KeepDelete. Organization too new (4 months?), Links/Refs are still too weak (though I myself added one) and name is too confusing.Notable enough per links,reasonably NPOV. The main problem is the name - Google finds at least 2 other 'Shefa Networks', one for Moslem hospitals, one for Jewish hospitals, and other similar apparently unrelated organizations. I would definitely encourage a name change, DAB can only do so much, and only for WP proper. Crum375 15:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- CommentOn name: should not be a problem, since those other organizations are not called the "Shefa Network" (1st=Shefa Healthcare Fund 2nd=Shefa Fund--Jewish social justice, not hospitals, and being phased out of independent existence to become part of Jewish Funds for Justice--BeccaB 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I carefully searched for the term 'network' also, and both other organizations use it. The Moslem UAE based Hospital fund one specifically uses the term "Shefa Network" in the article I cited above, and the Jewish charity fund uses "Shefa's Jewish Shareholder Engagement Network". I think part of notability is distinguishability, which is rather weak here. Crum375 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- If distinguishability is the issue, surely a disambiguation page will take care of that. I don't think we've had serious distinguishability issue before that have not been simple to resolve inthis manner. Fiddle Faddle 07:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mean distinguishability within WP - then DAB will take care of it. My point is that in this case of a newly formed organization of marginal notability, confusion with a name that is used by others with somewhat similar missions (religion related charity organizations), and some from fairly different religions like Islam and Judaism, does not help the case for establishing notability of this specific entry. Crum375 12:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- If distinguishability is the issue, surely a disambiguation page will take care of that. I don't think we've had serious distinguishability issue before that have not been simple to resolve inthis manner. Fiddle Faddle 07:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I carefully searched for the term 'network' also, and both other organizations use it. The Moslem UAE based Hospital fund one specifically uses the term "Shefa Network" in the article I cited above, and the Jewish charity fund uses "Shefa's Jewish Shareholder Engagement Network". I think part of notability is distinguishability, which is rather weak here. Crum375 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Nesher 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. This organization is simply not notable enough yet - it gets 0 (zero) hits for "Shefa Network" or "Shefa" in a multi-decade Factiva database search of US and world local, national and international newspapers, magazines, press releases and presswires. Conservative Judaism is of course a major religious movement, but it is not logical to say that every subgroup or local activist chapter within it is automatically of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 16:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- False. What you write above 'is not a factor in deciding whether or not Wikipedia articles should exist or not, even for religious groups. Are you just making this up? Also, you know full well that many other articles on religious groups and even individuals exist here on Wikipedia, yet you apply this non-existent standard to this one group only. That is voting for deletion in bad faith. RK
- Um... wild accusations will get you nowhere. No, I am not making this up nor am I doing it in bad faith. I'm sure your organization knows people at universities. All or most US universities will have Factiva or something similar so your contacts can confirm my result. In fact, someone below ran a LexisNexis search and got a similar result. Notability is part of the standard Wikipedia afd nomination discussion. Wikipedia is a not a web directory or a free noticeboard for any organization. See my comment below too that a higher bar of entry should apply for societies of the more prominent faiths in developed countries, especially the US. Bwithh 01:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- False. What you write above 'is not a factor in deciding whether or not Wikipedia articles should exist or not, even for religious groups. Are you just making this up? Also, you know full well that many other articles on religious groups and even individuals exist here on Wikipedia, yet you apply this non-existent standard to this one group only. That is voting for deletion in bad faith. RK
- Delete per NTK. Beyond the notability issue, Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for promoting an organziation or a point of view. Thanks to RK for bringing this to my attention by spamming people's talk pages, by the way. :) · rodii · 16:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Very limited exposure (I get 27 unique Ghits) says that this organization has not achieved notability yet. Wikipedia is not to promote little-known organizations, no matter how noble their purpose. Fan1967 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- First off, you used the wrong Google search! Secondly, in the real world most inter-organizational work is done "in the real world", i.e. not on the internet. The proceedings of the two Shefa conferences are simply not on the internet. We may not use Google searches as a reason to delete articles; that simply means we are too lazy to actually do any real research! In any case, why refuse the offer for an interview? RK
- Delete per nom.TheRingess 17:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Searched a few lexus nexus DBs and worldcat. Nothing. If I also assume what Bwithh said is true, there's little in the way of group-type notability for this organization/movement. Note that there is a health care group that uses the name shefa, as well as a Shefa Institute for Adv. Studies in Judaism, but it was publishing a journal around 1980, not 2004. Kevin_b_er 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete on the basis of notability alone. This is not a disparagement of the group nor its activities, simply that it is not noteworthy enough for an inclusion in an encyclopedia. Ifnord 17:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, at least pending further evidence. We should be careful to maintain consistent notability criteria across ideological lines to avoid potential for ideological bias. Wikipedia has numerous entries for individual synagogues and small institutions which arguably have modest external notabibility (Lithuanian School of Kabbalah The organization claims to have the support of major Conservative figures. The article could use some work -- I can't quite tell whether its purpose is to move CJ in a particular ideological direction, improve its 'marketing', or improve ruach. If the article is deleted, perhaps its content could be moved into a section on Conservative responses to recent concerns, e.g. internal disputes and demographic contraction. --Shirahadasha 17:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment If the movement this organization belonged to was more obscure, I'd agree with your comment. However, it belongs to a major, internationally prominent religious movement and is based in one of the most densely populated areas of a country which dominates global media and has a strong local press tradition which is better covered by internet/library/database sources than any other country. And it still scores zero on a news and magazine database run. Bwithh 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - does this "grass-roots movement" do anything? Having a website and even a few conferences does not make it notable. Trying to influence the Conservative movement's thought process is only notable if it has already had influence - not if it hopes to (someday). I do not see it as bad faith to nominate the article soon after its creation, as the article itself does not assert notability. Jon513 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Huh? This organization has already done more than many other groups that Wikipedia already has articles on. Why are you insisting on a standard that no other article is being held up to? And I note that you refused my offer to have an interview with the members. Why do you refuse? Just apply the same standard to all groups, ok? RK
- Keep - I have no involvement with the group, and this is the first I've heard of it. But the named members count more than a tiny cabal; they play an active and prominent role within Conservative Judaism, and they should get the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to comment on the bad faith accusation, but this does seem like a knee-jerk nomination. --Leifern 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per notability guidelines. --Coredesat 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nonnotable. User:Angr 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Angr, you cannot make things up, and then state them as if they are facts. Did you actually ask anyone on the Conservative movement's Committee on Jewish an d Standards, or someone from the Rabbinical Assembly? If not, then aren't you simply making things up? You can't delete articles based on one's made up beliefs. Are you saying that you still refuse to take up the offer of an interview? RK
- Delete it may have potential, but at current it appears way NN. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. NN. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is a real organization of significance. I attended the conference in NYC and it had serious content and attended by many rabbis and committed lay people. Rabjeff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rabjeff (talk • contribs).
- This is this user's first edit. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is a real organization of significance. It includes many young and future leaders of the Conservative movement including rabbis, cantors, lay people, and educators. Many of the people in this organization spend their entire career promoting and teaching about Conservative Judaism. Yes, it is a young organization, but a growing one which is having an impact on the movement. The conference in NYC had outstanding speakers including 2 members of the JTS faculty. Davidr 07:21 26 June 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.155.136.27 (talk • contribs).
- This is this user's first edit. Crum375 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Shefa, founded by a working Rabbi, generates 10+ mass emails a day to its subscribers...FROM its subscribers. It truly is a grass-roots organization, recongnized by both the outgoing and incoming chancellors from the JTS as well as the leadership of the Rabbinical Assembly. This is not a tiny regional group. Many read the digests of the conversations online and as such don't show up in some statistics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ParrotSquawk (talk • contribs).
- Strongest possible KEEP per NTK, PinchasC and ParrotSquawk. More in-depth explanations available upon non-trollish request. Judge of who is/n't a troll, Tomertalk 05:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Uh... how passive aggressive. sheesh. Bwithh 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please keep I am a member of this organization which is one of the most refreshing organizations in the Jewish world. 131.229.207.147 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)ravbruce@gmail.com
-
- 'Refreshing' is not a WP inclusion criterion. Reliably sourced proof of notability is. If you really want this entry included, please supply such proof, not pleadings or irrelevant comments. Crum375 14:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
CommentDelete. The group is pretty marginal; there don't seem to be many reliable third-party sources on it. It might one day become notable, but right now it appears to mostly be a website, blog, and discussion board. Jayjg (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to delete, I still can't see any evidence of real notability. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)- Comment/Question. The Shefa Network was the subject of an article in The New York Jewish Week on 3/31/06. Do Factiva and/or Lexis-Nexis searches capture ethnic/religious press? Is mention in the secular press the standard for notability? jshawnl 02:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because although Conservative Judaism is a big movement, this group is not and therefore wikipedia can not have articles on every single group of people that decide to form a group. It should be started as part of the Conservative Judaism article and if it becomes important which only time will tell if they will, then they should have their own article. DY1963 22:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. There are certainly enough people who have heard of Shefa Network, or might stumble across it, or a reference to it in the print media or on another web site, that it would be a public benefit to information on the organization on Wikipedia. I suspect most of those arguing to delete the entry are coming from a place of opposition to the organizations religious views. Reb Barry 75.13.41.137 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note: This is this user's only edit. Crum375 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment to 'Reb Barry':
- You have several mistakes in your statement.
- WP inclusion criteria are strictly reliably sourced notability.
- You have several mistakes in your statement.
- Comment to 'Reb Barry':
-
-
-
- Your claim is disingenuous. We have offered to give you the most reliable sources possible; actual interviews with the organizers. The refusal of you and other editors to even look at such sources proves that you are not following Wikipedia protocol. RK
- I will assume that you are new to WP and are not aware that we are supposed to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks, because labeling my statement above, where I am simply stating WP's policy, as 'disingenuous' is illogical. As I have stated elsewhere on this page, if you have a reliable source that proves notability of this organization, please let us have it here. If you suspect that I have some kind of hidden agenda, please check the article's history and see who supplied this link. All I want, as do all true wikipedian editors, is to determine if there is reliable evidence of notability for this organization. Please supply your proof right below my signature if you have a good reference or link to it. Thanks, Crum375 02:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your claim is disingenuous. We have offered to give you the most reliable sources possible; actual interviews with the organizers. The refusal of you and other editors to even look at such sources proves that you are not following Wikipedia protocol. RK
-
-
-
-
-
- The possible use of entries to help someone looking for information is incidental, not a primary criterion for inclusion.
- Your allegation that most 'delete' proponents are opponents to the organization's religious views is casting suspicion on other editors's motivation which is contrary to assume good faith and can be viewed as un-civil behavior.
- Thanks, Crum375 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I already have been told to my face by a couple of people on this page that they are trying to delete this article because they do not like me, as a person. That is uncivil behavior, but I see that you have no problem with that? For shame. RK
- My teachers and parents told me long ago that two wrongs don't make a right. Please see my comments below. Crum375 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I already have been told to my face by a couple of people on this page that they are trying to delete this article because they do not like me, as a person. That is uncivil behavior, but I see that you have no problem with that? For shame. RK
-
-
- Comment. I find it difficult to argue for either keeping or deleting, using the "high-school" test for notability: Vanity edits are not notable, but individual high schools are notable to some populations: their students and teachers (and perhaps people in the vicinity). I simply don't know enough about Shefa Network online to know whether this article was a vanity article promoting someone's small operation or an article giving information about a phenomenon people would be interested in as third parties. If Shefa Network wants itself known on Wikipedia, try to do some groundwork on the Internet and publicizing the Shefa Network first. (I had a few qualms about the notability of Judeo-Paganism after starting that article, but I had seen more than one website about it (although many of the sites that I've found recently were copies sporked off of the Wikipedia article; "Jewish Pagan" seems to get more unique results than other items, but such item on Google could refer to a list including Jewish people and Pagan people), I had also noticed that people had linked to it and sporked it to pagan-oriented online encyclopediae, and I notice now that there have been newspaper articles about Judeo-Paganism - and thus I have little difficulty in concluding that Judeo-Paganism is notable. I don't quite see the same amount of notability in the Shefa Network - make yourself heard more, then you'd get noticed and become notable.) — Rickyrab | Talk 13:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reasons to keep this article
I have repeatedly offered to set up interviews between Wikipedia editors and people at the Shefa Network. Tellingly, not a single person trying to delete the article has accepted this offer. They also refuse to read the sources that were given. Why? It is especialy bizarre that while people who know nothing about this group are trying to delete its article, members of all of Conservative Judaism's organizations are now working with Shefa. At this point it is no longer a matter of personal opinion. It is a now a fact that:
-
- Members of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards are contributors to Shefa
- Members of the faculty at the movement's rabbinic seminary (Jewish Theological Seminary of America) are contributors.
- A growing number of rabbis from the Rabbinical Assembly are contributors
- Faculty from Conservative Judaism's Solomon Schechter schools are working with Shefa.
- Shefa Newtork has already held two conferences, and two more events are already being planned, as well as yet another journal.
- At this very moment people from the Rabbinical Assembly are preparing for a tele-conference with multiple people from Shefa about the new Shefa websites, and coordinating with the new Conservative Judaism websites.
It seems that zero of the people trying to delete this article were aware of any of these facts. Since they now know these facts, one would imagine that they would change their mind. Let's note that the Shefa Network is more influential than dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other groups that currently have articles on Wikipedia.
Note that the history of the delete attempt is even more telling: A handful of people started an attempt to delete this article within minutes of its creation. They are not applying that normal Wikipedia standards that we apply to all of our other articles. Worse, they refuse to even obtain any facts, sources, or talk to the many people involved. Isn't it obvious that some people are trying to delete this article despite its merits for inclusion? RK 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- RK, I think you may have some misunderstanding regarding WP, on several fronts. First, you seem to be trying to cast suspicion on other contributors. It doesn't in the least matter if your suspicions are 'well founded' or not. The WP policy is that we accept good faith, as long as we want to be civil and to edit here, and that means we must not cast suspicions or worse, attack the integrity or judgment of others. And let me say that the speed of the PROD or AfD's appearance is not an issue - lots of new articles come up for deletion as soon as they are born. The motivation for the deletion nomination of such articles is immaterial - only the facts relative to WP inclusion policy matter. Assuming you want to push for inclusion of this article, which is a legitimate aspiration, you should move away from attacking others (again regardless of the merits), and focus instead on the WP criteria for inclusion. Now you raise some points above that to you seem like they 'justify' inclusion. But again you are off target. WP is not an institution that 'interviews' potential inclusion candidates. WP is an encyclopedia, that bases inclusion criteria on published reliable notability of the article subjects. Either there is reliably sourced notability or not. Being 'influential' or 'important' is not a WP criterion - being proven notable per reliable sources is. So what you should do, is look for verifiable reliable neutral published sources that prove that the article is notable. Thanks, Crum375 14:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would add to that. Despite believing that notability is proven, I see no real attempt to enhance this article to prove that notability beyond the slightest doubt. Knowing that somethng is notable is not the same as proving it. I understand RK's belief that the deletion attempt was remarkably fast, and that it might be sectarian inspired and I can see how assuming good faith is hard in view of what could easily be viewed as "aggressive edits" to place what seems to me to be a disproportionately great number of banners at the head of the article by the same editor. However, the banners are designed to be helpful. And it woudl behove knowledgable editors to edit the article to enance it, thus seeking to guarantee its place here. The energy spent on rehetoric woudl be better spent on research, and assertion of notability. Wikipedia os not an exercise in oratory. It is an exercise in researching and citing facts. Fiddle Faddle 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Given what's been said, I don't see the harm in allowing the article to remain and be improved (I'm just a newbie, but I'd like to learn what I can & work on various Wiki articles, including this one: already fixed a few minor inaccuracies). And given that notability "is not an actual policy or guideline" and that understandings of what would prove this group "notable" or not vary, I hope that the article will not be deleted. Since Wiki is not paper, there's plenty of room; the Shefa Network article is not cluttering the Conservative Judaism category, for which there are only 16 pages--there are 36 for the category of Orthodox Judaism, including organizations like Shema Yisrael Torah Network, where the objections that have been raised here would also be relevant--I certainly have no objection to articles on both! --BeccaB 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note this is this editor's 7th edit with 5 of them being on this page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete After looking at the article I see various issues with it including:
- Massively undersourced
- No real attempt to establish notability
- Reads like a propaganda piece
- Not wikified
Most of these are peripheral but the lack of establishment of notability for inclusion and the fact that it reads like a prop piece for the group are what sways me, if this article is cleaned up though I'd be more than willing to revisit this and I may try to do some cleanup myself later if I get a chance. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where do you see RK's vote above? I do see lots of comments by him, but not an actual vote by him. Also, he has yet to respond for my request for proof of reliably sourced notability. Crum375 02:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think one has to accept that RK feels his vote has been cast, and as a strong keep. I would far rather he had devoted his energies to improving the article than to the rhetoric he has used here and elsewhere, and to replying to you (and, indeed, to me), but it is "clear" that he probably feels his oratory is equivalent to a strong keep. Fiddle Faddle 09:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have just spent some time tidying some aspects of this article. I have cited references to the items on the Shefa Network which appear in the media, and have also made the link to the new (and by no means yet notable) conservative judaism website. While that site is not yet notable it is also very new. While my opinion is alredy clearly stated that I already believe this article asserts sufficient notability, I feel these edits remove some other people's arguments against notability, though I appreciate that others will hold a different view. I believe we must apply a uniform yardstick to notability. I feel sufficient work has been done already, but do not dispute that more work can be done. Fiddle Faddle 11:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - it seems to me that the main argument against this article is that the organization is considered non-notable. But since Wikipedia isn't paper, and articles like this don't take away space or attention, even the most ardent deletionists accept a pretty low threshold for notability. The policy asks that there are independent sources that confirm the existence of groups such as this, and it's pretty clear to me that this is a real thing. I guess my question to those of you who voted delete, is this: What evidence, specifically, would you require to see before you accepted that this organization is notable, i.e., that you'd change your mind? And please be as specific as possible. --Leifern 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I personally would like to see it cited and described in some respectable neutral publication. Since I myself supplied one of the links in the article, I would know 'respectable' and 'neutral' when I see them, but anyone can judge for him/herself, of course. But your thrust is correct, because that's exactly what's needed here - real proof of published notability, not a lot of hand waving. Crum375 03:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Kjkolb 06:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joe Eigo
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
Completing Afd by anon IP. Nominated by 81.179.95.130 (talk • contribs). No vote. Fan1967 16:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable.
- Delete - Not notable. - 81.179.95.130 17:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. His IMDB credits sound notable to me. TruthbringerToronto 18:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. He seems to have many enemies, based on the edits to the article and the votes here. That's probably a further argument in favour of his notability. TruthbringerToronto 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable, contains false info - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.220.253 (talk • contribs).
- Delete - Not notable, horrible scam artist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.67.133.55 (talk • contribs).
- Delete. I see no evidence that the article contains false info or that he is a scam artist, but on the other hand I'm not convinced that he is notable merely for being a stuntman. --Metropolitan90 19:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Utterly nonnotable IMDB credits Bwithh 19:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think this is a hoax, but I also don't think the subject merits an article. GassyGuy 20:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Very notable. This artist is extremely popular in certain communitys devoted for martial arts and tricking, as well as in 'video communitys' such as youtube, ebaum etc. Also created a worl-wide web-based community 'multilevelmoves' that is gaining popularity and is already well-known. Artist has notable IMDB credits too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.249.241.129 (talk • contribs).
- Hi Joe. - 81.179.95.130 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- And although this is just my POV, it should probably be noted that Eigo is more commonly know for his hubris and comparative lack of ability in the tricking community more than anything. - 81.179.95.130 22:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. "Internet popularity on YouTube" just ins't going to cut it for me. tmopkisn tlka 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above, nn. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with tmopkisn Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - HE does the same stuff over and over and is not worth an article on this thing. Also he loves the Noni, far too much.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.25.215 (talk • contribs).
- Comment - I am not convinced that this makes him notable so I will not vote. But just pointing out some things to consider: He has independent bios here and here. And his videos are quite widespread on free video sites. He has also starred in a major movie with Jackie Chan and has an IMDB entry (also with an independent bio). He has been mentioned on the cover of Jackie Chan's magazine.--Konstable 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- (It is also worth noting that I only found out about this page due to vandalism that I reverted here by one of the voting IP users, only to receive vandalism on my user page by the nominating IP user. So admins when counting votes you may want to disregard half of the above IPs as sockpuppets.)--Konstable 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Vandal != sockpuppet. Any vandalism is probably due to the fact that several people (myself included) were made aware of this article through a forum. - 85.210.176.196 02:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Eigo didn't star in a major movie with Jackie Chan. He was a stuntman in a major movie with Jackie Chan. There is a difference. --Metropolitan90 04:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Vandal != sockpuppet. Any vandalism is probably due to the fact that several people (myself included) were made aware of this article through a forum. - 85.210.176.196 02:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- (It is also worth noting that I only found out about this page due to vandalism that I reverted here by one of the voting IP users, only to receive vandalism on my user page by the nominating IP user. So admins when counting votes you may want to disregard half of the above IPs as sockpuppets.)--Konstable 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Appears vanity and NN. Zos 03:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. After discounting newer editors (100 edits or less), I see four commenters for keep versus eleven for deletion. The established Wikipedians who argued for the inclusion of this article said relatively little in so doing -- this may yet other case where outside vote solicitation was ultimately self-defeating, as the dialogue was muddied by editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia. The arguments laid out in the nomination and concurrences were never fully rebutted. Xoloz 17:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Okashina Okashi
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, & WP:AB
WEB: Google test -wikipedia -forums =~598 entries (Most of the sites are fansites and discussion forums not caught in the -forum.)
The article fails to meed WP:WEB.
1)The site has not been the subject of multi non-trivial published works.
- In addition the site does not even include a trivial link mentioned in a Lexis-Nexis search of US newspapers for the last two years.
2)The site has won no major/recognized awards.
3)This content is not distro'd via an independant online publisher.
The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
4) If any of these criteria exist the article does not provide proof via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Furthermore, this article cites a "large forum" per the guidelines: Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.
COPYVIO:The article contains The text: Information quoted verbatim from the Okashina Okashi Character page with the comment: <!--This was submitted to Wikipedia by comic author ([[User:Xuanwu]]) and is NOT a copyright violation.-->.
However the page from which they are copied states that "Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy is ©2001-2005 by Emily Snodgrass, Allison Brownlow, Karen Olympia, and John Lee Baird and is hosted on Comic Genesis, a free webhosting and site automation service for webcomics." This is a probable violation of the Wikipedia GFDL.
Additional factors:
AB, NPOV, & VANITY:
The article is heavily edited by the writers of the comic.
NOR:
Finally, no original research. Nothing other than primary sources were cited for this page.
For the above reasons, this article should be removed (or heavily trimmed, or the copyright owners should put the things they want to include in GFDL license.) -- Kunzite 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- To any who read this: please note that I am currently working with the above member on fixing these points that have been raised. Please refrain from voting on this until modifications to the article have been made. Thank you. Xuanwu 22:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Update: copyright text has been removed and replaced with wholly original text. So WP:COPYVIO is no longer relevant to this case. I'll let the nominator remove the above tag. I'll work on taking care of NOR next. Xuanwu 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Update 2: a reference has been added for the Strange English Project. As for Hess's own information, that can be found in the Hess article also on Wiki which has the Hess main page. This means what the project is and how many kids it influenced can both be verified using the links and references provided in the article and are therefore not original research. Because of this, I think the comic passes the notability requirement due to its influence on the English education of several thousands of students. So my vote is Keep. Xuanwu 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- WP:WEB is the major issue. The reference is more for Hess Educational Organization than Okashina Okashi. --Kunzite 00:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifiable vanity article which amounts to advertising. -- Dragonfiend 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 01:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Digging through the Google listings, the best link I could find was this obligatory passing mention in Ghastly's blog, over a year ago. No convention listings, no evidence of any noteworthy traffic, no awards, nothing. Regarding the Strange English project, I would make this observation: Commissions for small side projects are neither rare nor particularly notable. Penny Arcade has done over a dozen of them, but that's not why they have an article. Nifboy 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Strange English project was not a commission. It was an idea I came up with at Hess and implemented at my local branch. When the main office learned of it, they thought it was a great concept and spread it internationally via their curriculum publications (which, in addition to being "in house" are also sold globally), putting OO comics into classrooms around Asia. I'm aware of PA's school activities (as well as the one time use of Dinosaur Comics in a Japanese classroom), however, this is on a much larger scale, which is why I argue it qualifies as notable. It's a case of a webcomic being officially adopted by an educational organization for the purpose of instructing students of various levels. As far as I know, this is the first instance of a webcomic being endorsed in such a way and on an multinational scale. At the very least, it is an important event, since Hess has over 60,000 students (according to them), all of whom are affected by the curriculum created by the main office. Sorry if this wasn't clear in the article. And you don't have to take my word for it: check Hess's website and Taiwan business listings to see how large they are; Hess is not a small company. Xuanwu 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was very much not referring or comparing to PA's school activities (which aren't even mentioned in their article). I am referring to projects like their involvement with the ESRB, and the multitude of mini-comics they've done for a number of different companies, one of which by itself (which, I feel, is comparable to OO's volunteer work) would not even come close to giving PA their own article. That you posted a call to action on the front page does nothing to help me believe it deserves an article on its own merits. Nifboy 10:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- My understanding is that it's quite normal to do a "call to action" when a comic's respective Wiki page is up for AfD (many non-comic pages have had similar "rallies"). It helps notify people who may not otherwise be paying attention that something is happening, since not everyone is on Wiki as frequently as others. I think your comparison of OO's work and PA's work with the ESRB and others is a bit off. To me, an educational institution is significantly different from marketing (which is the general category the ESRB example falls under). I won't go into it too much here to avoid clutter, but one way they're different: marketing is very short term in its scope and effect, while a school curriculum has a much more lasting impact on those who experience it. That's why I compared OO's Hess involvement with Tycho and Gabe's visits to schools, since it's at least in the same field. Wiki has many articles on types of curriculums and education developments, because they are notable due to their impact. I think it's arguable that the number of notable marketing campaigns is far fewer in number (at least, those notable in the sense of having a lasting impact on society beyond simply inserting a phrase into the public awareness for a time). So, for me, having had OO contribute to the curriculum development of a school that teaches thousands is a more significant achievement than if OO had, for example, drawn some art for an organization to use for ads. You seem to disagree on this point, which is fine. But I hope you understand my reasoning on this matter. Xuanwu 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- A note on convention listings: according to Emi-chan, she's been invited to host a couple webcomics panels at Ushicon in the past. Unfortunately, the main Ushicon site seems to be a bare bones since they closed the con down in 2006. However, I found an independent verification of one of her appearances in 2003 via an anime fansite: Ushicon 2003 Panel. There's probably some more on 2001 or 2002 if you hunt for it. Xuanwu 01:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was very much not referring or comparing to PA's school activities (which aren't even mentioned in their article). I am referring to projects like their involvement with the ESRB, and the multitude of mini-comics they've done for a number of different companies, one of which by itself (which, I feel, is comparable to OO's volunteer work) would not even come close to giving PA their own article. That you posted a call to action on the front page does nothing to help me believe it deserves an article on its own merits. Nifboy 10:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Strange English project was not a commission. It was an idea I came up with at Hess and implemented at my local branch. When the main office learned of it, they thought it was a great concept and spread it internationally via their curriculum publications (which, in addition to being "in house" are also sold globally), putting OO comics into classrooms around Asia. I'm aware of PA's school activities (as well as the one time use of Dinosaur Comics in a Japanese classroom), however, this is on a much larger scale, which is why I argue it qualifies as notable. It's a case of a webcomic being officially adopted by an educational organization for the purpose of instructing students of various levels. As far as I know, this is the first instance of a webcomic being endorsed in such a way and on an multinational scale. At the very least, it is an important event, since Hess has over 60,000 students (according to them), all of whom are affected by the curriculum created by the main office. Sorry if this wasn't clear in the article. And you don't have to take my word for it: check Hess's website and Taiwan business listings to see how large they are; Hess is not a small company. Xuanwu 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No vote. WP:WEB feels like a bad way of deciding these matters in general, but there's no obvious reason not to follow it in this case. Not voting because I like the webcomic, and am therefore biased</ - many of the references in other articles definitely need to go, though, and it is essentially (as far as I can tell) one of a fairly large number of moderately popular but in no way significant webcomics.makomk 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)- Weak keep. It's not one of the really big-name webcomics, but it certainly seems to be fairly well-known online, as far as I can tell. By the way, I can't follow the reason for WP:NOR being mentioned - it doesn't seem to contain original research (it seems to be pretty much the same as the other webcomic articles in terms of sources used, AFAICT) - could someone please explain? makomk 11:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Saying it's not notable enough for wikipedia is ridiculous. Information is what wikipedia is for, whether it's that notable or not shouldn't be a factor. It's not your place to judge what is notable or not. Neopets R God 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It isn't uncommon for "notable" achievements to go under the radar at times, so it's perhaps a bit short-sighted to limit it to what is on searchable venues. The vanity is an addressable issue. I haven't read the comic, but the issues brought up can be taken care of without deletion.Yansen 07:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, though it would probably be wise to address the vanity issues. I would first point out that by some people's definitions, no web comic is very notable in some sense ( with this coming down to how many internet users are even aware of web comics, to which I don't really know ). Granted I really don't have a good idea of which web comics are "notable" ( in the sense of web comics, assuming that some fair number are to be judged notable despite my first remark ), though apparently a large number are given a glance at the WP's webcomics project page. So while it is of concern that a lot of the editing was done by one of the web comic's authors, this can be remedied ( and in the meantime a marker could be added ). My keep rating is weak both due to the fact that I really don't know what "notable" for a web comic would be, and because I admittedly read the comic ( I'll let you all pick which reason's more important... :) ) DAG 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I am apalled by the double standards applied here. How does basic, unbiased information suddenly become advertisement just because the authors entered it and not a casual observer, who might not have nearly as much to say on the subject? By such standards, any encyclopedic work which contains more than a passing mention on a subject is advertisement. It's also a comic with a large following, so you can't say it's not in any way notable. Even if I hadn't been a fan, I would raise these objections in the interest of fairness. Kajiki 10:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have added the warning template above as the OO page currently has a request (Xuanwu's news section dated 18 June) that people come and comment. This tends to cause a large number of newer users to comment, which the closing admin needs to be aware of. To those newer users, we're glad you are here. Please consider contributing constructively to other parts of the encylopedia and building experience with our policies... ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- This webcomic passes my test for notability, it is well known enough within webcomic circles to be one of the ones kept. I'm not sure I buy the "and it needs to be trimmed back a lot" argument. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC) (over 5K edits in case there was any question :) )
- Keep I find it interesting that newer forms of media, electronically produced and published for mass distribution are considered unencyclopedic while obscure punk bands from the 80's that I listened to in high school, that never had a following more than a few thousand are considered 'worthy' of being wiki'd. This isn't some kid's vanity page, it's a serious long running comic strip. If this is deleted then the slope becomes slippery, who decides if 'Dominic Deegan' or even Sluggy Freelance is worthy of wiki? for the record- I was pointed to this page, I am an avid reader of web-comics, I *don't* read or keep up with this comic, and I am an active wikipedian. Jonathan888 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, just to verify another editor's 'google' test - I show 57K hits on google - that's significant.198.50.4.4 16:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep because it is notable:it is ranked as 108/6705 in The Web Comic List (Info and current place at TWCL) -Solarius 21:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Citing the primary source is not original research. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: To the newcomers I'll point out that "Wikipedia:Verifiability [is] non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. ... Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." -- Dragonfiend 01:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Assuming by "primary source" you mean the comic itself, the article has at least two reputable third party sources: the Hess activity book, which I have given publishing details for, and the site that shows Emi-chan was invited to host a webcomics panel at a major convention. So the third-party requirement is fulfilled to the extent possible (I would not expect any webcomic to have as many third party sources as, for example, a historical or current events article). If you have a different view on primary vs. third party sources, please state them so they can be addressed. Xuanwu 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- By "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," we mean things like articles in mainstream newspapers, magazines or academic journals, not webcomics fan blogs and the like. Our standards for sourcing and accuracy in an encyclopedia article need to be as least as high as that of a junior high school research paper. If this topic is not covered by multiple, non-trivial, reliable, reputable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then we should delete this article, because we are not working on building an encyclopedia full of unreliable, error-riddled trivia. -- Dragonfiend 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm... okay. If I'm reading what you and WP:Verifiability are saying correctly, there may be a slight problem. I don't think it's possible to write a useful article on even as widely-known a webcomic as Megatokyo whilst meeting these requirements, though I could be proved wrong. (The current Megatoyko article definitely appears to have verifiability and WP:NOR problems, but at least some are down to carelessness). Of course, it's possible to get some of the information from "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but I'm not convinced you'd get a significant amount of information that way. - makomk 00:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think I understand what you mean, Dragonfiend. From the guidelines: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." Since this is a webcomic, summaries of the comic itself are allowed to use the comic as a "reliable source." So I think we can all agree the character and plot summaries that make the bulk of the article all satisfy verifiability since it is possible to read the comic and confirm what's stated (i.e. the summaries refer to a published primary source). The claim about the forum size is also verifiable simply by going to said forum. The Strange English Project already cites a reference published by a "reputable publisher" (i.e. Hess, whose credentials are quite good in the field of educational publications). And the comments made concerning OO's staff changes are based on statements made by the creative team themselves; publicly viewable direct quotes satisfy the verifiability requirement, especially since I used the ones that were archived (this is as opposed to direct quotes that are not publicly viewable, such as through email, or those that are not archived, like forum threads which can be deleted at any time, which are not verifiable). For example, if John Kerry published an opinion on his blog, said opinion could be added to his Wiki article since it's a publicly viewable direct quote from him that can therefore be referenced in the future (but only in its archived form, so it doesn't disappear). The same type of citation is made here. Not every article requires the same type of references in order to be reliable and accurate; in this case, since there are only a few claims beyond plot summaries, the amount of references is few, though their quality - and associated notability - is high. So the purpose of the verifiability requirement, making sure articles aren't "error-riddled," has been satisfied, since no errors are present in the article and it is possible to prove so with the references contained therein. Xuanwu 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, actually what we mean by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," are things like articles in mainstream newspapers, magazines or academic journals. Things like webcomics or blogs or online forums, on the other hand, generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or credibility. -- Dragonfiend 05:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- In that case the article satisfies the requirement to the extent necessary, since it has a reference in the Hess book, which could count loosely as an "academic journal." The book underwent a process of peer review and editing, which is the important feature of a third-party source (in contrast, a non-peer reviewed academic journal would not satisfy the verifiability requirement). I don't think there are any webcomic articles that use third party sources for plot and character summaries (since using the primary source of the comic itself is superior to a third party source for that info). So, the verifiability requirement has been met for this particular article. When OO does other notable things, I'll be sure to watch out that editors reference "credible, third-party sources" to verify it as has been done already. Xuanwu 14:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, your only claim of a credible third-party source is a single clasroom exercise that you created with your webcomics? According to your vanity article, "The Strange English Project began in July 2005. Xuanwu, then an English teacher in the Republic of China (ROC) working for Hess Educational Organization, took OO comics and blotted out the dialogue. ... The Strange English Project itself has become adopted by Hess and is now part of its recommended games and activities..." I'm not convinced that classroom games and activities found in a single book are notable, or that you creating a game about your webcomic is a very good third-party claim of notability. Also, your promise to continue your vanity edits to your vanity article don't give me much hope for this article. Let's delete this unverifiable vanity article. -- Dragonfiend 17:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I recommend you re-read my earlier posts, as I make clear why a "single classroom activity" is important when said activity is then applied on an international scale. If you disagree with this, that's fine, but I think you understand why I view a book published by Taiwan's largest English education curriculum provider as a good third-party source. On another note, your RfA made it clear you're supposed to behave with civility, not engage in bad faith comments by using the word "vanity" like a slur. Please be more polite to your fellow editors. A civil AfD discussion is best for everyone involved. :) Xuanwu 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourself with WP:VANITY. I believe you will find that "vanity" is not a "slur", but instead an accurate description of many of the problems with this article you have written about your webcomic. -- Dragonfiend 22:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just as a side comment: I find this whole conversation very interesting indeed. I recently completed an MLIS degree, and the one thing which every last professor who even mentioned Wikipedia said was "Wikipedia does not, under any circumstances, constitute a valid source for research, but it does tend to have articles which cover subjects which would not be listed in standard reference books and therefore can be useful." I find it tremendously interesting that there are Wikipedia editors who want to pursue academic respectability -- which they will probably never achieve -- at the expense of the one thing which undeniably makes the whole enterprise worthwhile from an outside standpoint. -- An anonymous Wombat
- Please familiarize yourself with WP:VANITY. I believe you will find that "vanity" is not a "slur", but instead an accurate description of many of the problems with this article you have written about your webcomic. -- Dragonfiend 22:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I recommend you re-read my earlier posts, as I make clear why a "single classroom activity" is important when said activity is then applied on an international scale. If you disagree with this, that's fine, but I think you understand why I view a book published by Taiwan's largest English education curriculum provider as a good third-party source. On another note, your RfA made it clear you're supposed to behave with civility, not engage in bad faith comments by using the word "vanity" like a slur. Please be more polite to your fellow editors. A civil AfD discussion is best for everyone involved. :) Xuanwu 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, your only claim of a credible third-party source is a single clasroom exercise that you created with your webcomics? According to your vanity article, "The Strange English Project began in July 2005. Xuanwu, then an English teacher in the Republic of China (ROC) working for Hess Educational Organization, took OO comics and blotted out the dialogue. ... The Strange English Project itself has become adopted by Hess and is now part of its recommended games and activities..." I'm not convinced that classroom games and activities found in a single book are notable, or that you creating a game about your webcomic is a very good third-party claim of notability. Also, your promise to continue your vanity edits to your vanity article don't give me much hope for this article. Let's delete this unverifiable vanity article. -- Dragonfiend 17:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- In that case the article satisfies the requirement to the extent necessary, since it has a reference in the Hess book, which could count loosely as an "academic journal." The book underwent a process of peer review and editing, which is the important feature of a third-party source (in contrast, a non-peer reviewed academic journal would not satisfy the verifiability requirement). I don't think there are any webcomic articles that use third party sources for plot and character summaries (since using the primary source of the comic itself is superior to a third party source for that info). So, the verifiability requirement has been met for this particular article. When OO does other notable things, I'll be sure to watch out that editors reference "credible, third-party sources" to verify it as has been done already. Xuanwu 14:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, actually what we mean by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," are things like articles in mainstream newspapers, magazines or academic journals. Things like webcomics or blogs or online forums, on the other hand, generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or credibility. -- Dragonfiend 05:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- By "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," we mean things like articles in mainstream newspapers, magazines or academic journals, not webcomics fan blogs and the like. Our standards for sourcing and accuracy in an encyclopedia article need to be as least as high as that of a junior high school research paper. If this topic is not covered by multiple, non-trivial, reliable, reputable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then we should delete this article, because we are not working on building an encyclopedia full of unreliable, error-riddled trivia. -- Dragonfiend 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Assuming by "primary source" you mean the comic itself, the article has at least two reputable third party sources: the Hess activity book, which I have given publishing details for, and the site that shows Emi-chan was invited to host a webcomics panel at a major convention. So the third-party requirement is fulfilled to the extent possible (I would not expect any webcomic to have as many third party sources as, for example, a historical or current events article). If you have a different view on primary vs. third party sources, please state them so they can be addressed. Xuanwu 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: It is hosted (as is plainly visible) on ComicGenesis (neé Keenspace) which is one of the best-known independent online publishers of smaller webcomics; that ought to satisfy #3 of WP:WEB. 81.2.97.157 07:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- If that argument were true then every site hosted on geocities would satisfy #3 of WP:WEB. Choice of hosting company does not make a website notable. --Kunzite 11:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comicgenesis is not Geocities. It's an online publisher of webcomics, not a free website host. It does have some quality control, and it is essentially the 'amateur wing' of Keenspot. "Strange Candy" (Okashina Okashi) is well-known, with links from Megatokyo at one time; it's one of the more established comics on Comicgenesis/Keenspace. If you felt OO didn't satisfy WP:WEB, then neither would almost any other Keenspace/Comicgenesis comic, as webcomics are rarely referenced or reviewed in print and therefore do not usually satisfy #1, except for those that have won awards (#2); what is your criterion for keeping the entries of any of the others? Do you feel they are also not notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia? I still say keep; I feel that deleting their already-existing entries is contentiously and arbitarily destroying valuable reference material for which Wikipedia is well known. Of course, you're the editors, it's your wiki, it doesn't aim to be complete, and you are of course free to disagree. 81.2.97.157 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Give me a list of others. I'll evaluate the notability and put those up who do not meet WP:WEB as well. I'm not discriminating against this one comic.
- The problem is that just because it is published by a publisher with some standards for content acceptance DOES NOT MEANT THAT IT IS NOTABLE. We certainly do not have an article for every scientific book put out by Elsevier, we don't have an article for every science fiction book put out by Tor, or even every history book put out by Random House. We also do not create an article for every single dissertation made the post-graduate students at the University of Michigan. These are places that publish works which more-likely-than not are more notable and contain more important subjects than this web comic. Why don't we have articles for these things? Because notability is not determined by the publisher or the fact that something has been published. Notability is not determined by who links to the site.
- If a webcomic is notable it should be listed. You mention Megatokyo which has won national awards and has been published by a non-vanity press, and is listed as one of the top manga-style publications sold in the country by a third party record keeper. It deserves its own article. I hate to put this comic down, as it seems the author has worked hard on his this article, but it's just not notable and it shouldn't get a free ride Megatokyo's or Keenspace's coattails into the notability column. --Kunzite 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Dude, I have a Comic Genesis strip [18]. I can very much say that it does not deserve its own article on that basis alone. Nifboy 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Kunzite and Nifboy on this: simply being on Keenspace does not grant notability (this was a point I agreed with when I helped craft WP:WEB). My argument for notability, however, is not based on who it is published by. So pointing out that publisher and notability are not causally related does nothing to weaken my own arguments for OO's notability. :) Xuanwu 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comicgenesis is not Geocities. It's an online publisher of webcomics, not a free website host. It does have some quality control, and it is essentially the 'amateur wing' of Keenspot. "Strange Candy" (Okashina Okashi) is well-known, with links from Megatokyo at one time; it's one of the more established comics on Comicgenesis/Keenspace. If you felt OO didn't satisfy WP:WEB, then neither would almost any other Keenspace/Comicgenesis comic, as webcomics are rarely referenced or reviewed in print and therefore do not usually satisfy #1, except for those that have won awards (#2); what is your criterion for keeping the entries of any of the others? Do you feel they are also not notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia? I still say keep; I feel that deleting their already-existing entries is contentiously and arbitarily destroying valuable reference material for which Wikipedia is well known. Of course, you're the editors, it's your wiki, it doesn't aim to be complete, and you are of course free to disagree. 81.2.97.157 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep just because I like the comic and it's well-known enough to have its own article. --Passerby Cat talk cat 16:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- How is it well known enough to have it's own article? Your goodwill towards the publications it does not make the notability claim. --Kunzite 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- 60-some thousand school kids in Taiwan and Singapore know about OO (the templates used all had OO's name and URL on them) thanks to the Strange English project. I think that satisfies a claim of being "well known." Xuanwu 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- And... This does not meet notability.
-
-
- X-number of people "knowing" about something or using it in a academic setting is not the stuff of notability. Does the math textbook that they use have an entry on wikipedia? Should a class assignment on diagraming sentences that uses cartoons drawn by a student-teacher in Fargo, North Dakota use them? I assisted a librarian in creating a set of library instruction handouts that have been used by 8,000 incoming college freshmen students at a major urban university for the past few years. It has used by several tens-of-thousands of students. My hometown newspaper has a circulation of over 70,000 and the advertisment for the locally owned Super-Jiffy-Quick Tire Shop that runs the same "$10.50 off the next tire rotation" coupon every week also doesn't meet notability.
- Secondly, the citation in "Language Learning Games and Activities" vol. 3(?)[19] is a self citation. The book hasn't even been cataloged by a single library in OCLC. How many places use it outside of Hess? How many copies has the book sold? How many were outside of a Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) suggests that we could always add to something like the main webcomics or the Hess page as a trivia item: "Note that if a professor [i.e. educator] is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, or event, it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page." Perhaps this is the route that we should take with the information presented here.
- An IMBD reference to an appearance on a cable-access style show also doesn't connotate notability. We just recently deleted one for a similar-style show in Alaska called Stupid and contagious.
- Could I get the rational for using pseudonyms in the article? It makes this article read like forumcruft. --Kunzite 21:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Kunzite. Creating a single exercise in a text book is a trivial rather than a notable accomplishment. -- Dragonfiend 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I use an alias instead of my real name from personal preference. And I did not intend for the IMDB link to be proof of notability; I put it in there simply as a "fun fact." It's why I did not bring it to the AfD discussion. And see above for my contrasting of marketing vs. education in terms of notability. Xuanwu 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- "marketing is very short term in its scope and effect, while a school curriculum has a much more lasting impact on those who experience it." Personal philosphy on the value of (one?) education assignment is still not a reason to establish notability for an encyclopedia article. (As per my comparison to library instruction handouts.) --Kunzite 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 17:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Discount votes from "editors" without edit counts unrelated to this AfD. Ifnord 17:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. --Kunzite 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete First one to use my T&E:510 rule on, and it fails. ~ trialsanderrors 18:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom or Transwiki to the webcomics wiki, whatever its calledBwithh 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This was closed. It was closed Keep - no consensus. It was then reopened and relisted. I believe that relist was incorrect and I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 24. I previously commented that I believed the relist was incorrect but Dragonfiend refactored that comment to the talk page. I believe that refactor was also inappropriate. Please do not refactor this comment. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I initially closed it, but then Dragonfiend raised a concern about whether verifiability had been properly addressed. I felt that it had not, so I relisted it. There is an open discussion at WP:DRV about whether my decision to relist was correct - but, for now, the discussion is relisted and any new comments are welcome. Cheers TigerShark 23:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Notable only to those heavily into the subject. Most keep votes seem to carry a bias. tmopkisn tlka 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Doesn't quite seem notable enough within the webcomic community. WP:V arguments are silly in this case though, what's to verify? Applying WP:V to a webcomic is like applying WP:BIO to the battle of the bulge. - Wickning1 15:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Point 1 - This webcomic fluctuates between 3rd most popular and 15th most popular comic on ComicGenesis Top 50, ranked by pages served(Ghastly omitted) . Point 2 - Wikipedia editors tend to flag all webcomic entries as Vanity, due to the webcomic owners over-editing the pages for correctness. Point 3 - You can verify it's popularity from the third party stat tracker. Point 4 - You can verify it's popularity from it's own links to top webcomics (ranked 101 out of 6500, that makes in the top 1%),Point 5 - Wikipedia should no more be used as a staple of content's popularity than google. It's not the end of the world if Wikipedia does delete an entry, but by deleting everything that "isn't popular enough" to an objective value to be included creates a barrier to entry that discourages people from contributing anything in the first place. - User:Kisai 00:47, 26 June 2006 (PDT)
- Comment: 1) Being about the 10th most popular webcomic on a particular free webhosting site is rather trivial when you consider the tens of thousands which are not on that site. If being number 10 on this website were that big of a deal then their would be plenty of reliable sources writing about this webcomic and the creator of this webcomic probably wouldn't have to write an article about themselves. 2) This is not flagged for WP:VANITY because the webcomic's author simply corrected some errors in the article. It is flagged for vanity because the webcomic's author created the article and has edited it heavily ever since. Check out the history [20] which clearly shows the webcomic author creating the article and making about 60 edits to it, more than all other editors combined. Check out this diff [21] which shows the webcomics author making 14 consecutive edits to the article over the course of several months in which they add 20-some odd paragraphs of completely new content. This is the furthest possible thing from someone simply correcting mistakes in an article about themselves; this is the absolute definition of WP:VANITY where someone creates a lengthy encyclopedia article about themselves. 3) We don't have inclusion standards for web sites based on their traffic. If an extremely low traffic site has a huge impact on culture that is verifiable through reliable sources (it's written about in the New York Times and Wired Magazine, for example) then we might write an article about it. If a high traffic site is unverifiable through reliable sources, then we can't have an article, because we're building a reliable encyclopedia. 4) Simlar to your first point, being just outside the top 100 on a site that measures a fraction of all webcomics is rather meaningless and trivial. 5) This isn't up for deletion because it "isn't popular enough." it's up for deletion because it violates a large number of guidelines and official wikipedia polices, from Wikipedia:No original research to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to Wikipedia:Verifiability and beyond. Finally, are you the same "Kisai" that's listed as being one of the two "folks behind Comic Genesis"? [22] If so, that would be a good thing to disclose in order to minimize any conflict of interest issues inherent in telling people how notable the webcomics hosted on your site are. If not, sorry for the mix-up. -- Dragonfiend 06:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per above; Google is not the only search engine in the world, nor is it an absolute authority on notability. Plus, this article might be vanity, but it will definitely not be that way in the future after the article is given time to stabilize. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and thus we must work on articles to bring them to an acceptable level of quality. I believe a lot of people forget that sometimes and would rather take the easy way out. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per discussions above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:AB, WP:VERIFY & WP:RS per nom and others. Discount votes from ballot-stuffing/sockpuppetry/new "editors" per Ifnord. HotWings 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kisai. I have been watching this debate for awhile, now, and I find Kisai's reasoning valid enough to keep the article. JimmyBlackwing 19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I know that Wikipedia has alot of difficulty with Webcomics, but I belive this one is notable enough for it to be maintained. Jack Cain 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Additionaly, I belive that the majority of problems seen with this article are driven by badly misguided good intentions. I mean, we have articles with more serious problems that need the attention of serious editors, like List of misleading food names. Jack Cain 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus.. Jaranda wat's sup 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anne Frank's cats
Consensus for article to be merged but main editor has renamed it instead. Neuropean 19:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- User:neuropean's vote is not qualified: his first ever edit was deletion notice for this article. `'mikka (t) 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thank you - at last someone is seeing through what the nominatoir is up to. Misuse of WP to make a point. Not only shoudl his vote not count but the AfD should be thrown out. Robertsteadman 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Strong Keep - it hasn't merely been merged it has been extended, other ediotors have added stuff and it is a worthwhile article with plenty of references to famous writings. This is a bad faith nomination by someone out to make a point and should simply get a speedy close. Please look at user: Neuropean's contributions - a clear sockpuppet out to cause trouble and, quite possibly, following a vendetta. Once you look at his/her contributions it is mpossible to assume good faith.Robertsteadman 19:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Just because Neuropean disagrees with you doesn't mean he/she is a sockpuppet. (And Neuropean's edit history looks sizable enough to me.) Vote speedy keep by all means... but please try a bit harder to be nice. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's not the size of the history (a new user immediately AfDing articles) but the content - [23] - if you look at his/her behaviour and comments it is almosty impossible to assume good faith - this is a sock puppet out to make a point, probablyt continuing a vendetta. It's that simple. Nothing to do with subject matter or disagreemnts on that. Robertsteadman 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Vendentta, against what? Cats?? Please Don't shoot the messenger. Comment on content, and merit of the article please. Thanks. --Ragib 03:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment:'As a teacher I know that there are children who have asked about Anne Frank's cats - this is why the article is valid. Robertsteadman 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: You teach music don't you - in a secondary school? What do they ask? Did Anne Frank's cats play the piano? There is, however, a strong possibility that Moortje was used to string one of the violins in your music room, so I see why you have sucah an interestNeuropean 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Odd that you would know that isn't it. Yes I do, and, as a composer, I have written pieces about Anne Frank which have been used in school workshops and the children discuss things and ask questions.... and I know FOR FACT that her cats have often been asked about. Robertsteadman 09:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment: You teach music don't you - in a secondary school? What do they ask? Did Anne Frank's cats play the piano? There is, however, a strong possibility that Moortje was used to string one of the violins in your music room, so I see why you have sucah an interestNeuropean 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:'As a teacher I know that there are children who have asked about Anne Frank's cats - this is why the article is valid. Robertsteadman 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Vendentta, against what? Cats?? Please Don't shoot the messenger. Comment on content, and merit of the article please. Thanks. --Ragib 03:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's not the size of the history (a new user immediately AfDing articles) but the content - [23] - if you look at his/her behaviour and comments it is almosty impossible to assume good faith - this is a sock puppet out to make a point, probablyt continuing a vendetta. It's that simple. Nothing to do with subject matter or disagreemnts on that. Robertsteadman 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I am not the first editor to suggest that this article be referred. Please AGF and stop throwing accusations of 'bad faith nominations' around. This article was to be merged and your lack of willingness to abide by consensus on this or other articles is causing disruption.Neuropean 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Cut down and Merge with Anne Frank I don't understand what the rationale for an expanded separate article on the cats is, and none had been offered. Are we to have articles on the pets of every famous person? Bwithh 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Close this AfD and bring it to mediation The opposing parties ought to listen to each other, not accuse each other (no offense to either side, I'm not familiar with the entire history). AfD isn't the proper outlet for dispute resolution. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment:' - I agree - this is a vendetta being persued - this nomination is bad faith and is by a sockpuppet. This AfD should have been stopped ages ago. Robertsteadman 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Putting aside the clear hypocricy of RobertSteadman complaining about others violating WP:POINT or resorting to sockpuppetry, the article itself is informative, even if the cats have absolutely no notability other than being owned by Anne Frank at one time or another. At the very worst, the article should be merged with Diary of Anne Frank or People associated with Anne Frank. Resolute 00:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Cats of a semi-famous person, nonsense. Is it a hoax? Medico80 10:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - "Semi-famous" - you consider Anne Frank to be semi-famous? She wrote one of the best-selling books of all time - to suggest Anne Frank is semi-famous is a nonsense. Robertsteadman 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'd say merge into List of historical cats but that article already has an appropriate entry. If I was asked to list famous cats: only after 20 or so fictional cats (and mostly cartoon at that), would I get to 2 that actually existed :Socks and Kitty (?) the cat that was owned by CoCo the signing gorilla. Why? Because real cats seldom impact culture and generally become "famous" only by association with their owner. Ditto for dogs. I read the book 15 years ago and of all the things I remember from it: that fact that Anne missed a cat she left behind was not one of them. If this AFD actually closes with a firm result (Keep, Delete, or Merge) instead of a wishywashy "discuss a merger (?) REF: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_21#Moortje, I will honor it and say nothing more. I'm done, there's no need for more redundant rebuttal, I won't respond. And I'm not associated w/ neo. ccwaters 11:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, and then redirect Moortje to Anne Frank, but delete the renamed "Anne Frank's cats. Under no circumstances is this to be taken as a keep vote; the cat only has relevance in relation to its former owner, and can be covered there sufficiently. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: This article (redirecting Moortje to Anne Frank as per Nae'blis.). --Ragib 03:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge & delete title per Nae'blis. Inner Earth 15:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- CommentI believe for GFDL reasons, we'd have to move this back to Moortje to preserve the edit history, then delete the redirect this has become, and finally redirect the cat's actual name to the main article. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'm with Medico80. BTW, I only came to this page via references on another disputed article. I believe that Rob considers the nominator and I to be socks of each other, but I may be wrong. Strong hints, but not enough for WP:NPA. But this will allow an WP:RFCU to be done using vote-stacking as the reason, if Rob does suspect us, which will solve matters and may reduce the accusations being bandied around. Can I just clarify that we are not socks of each other. HTH. Frelke 06:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - so along with Medico you consider Anne Frank toonly be semi-famous? I think that suggests a misunderstanding of the subjecy totally - one of the best-selling books of all time (I think only outsold by The Bible), studied in most schools..... come off it - to suggest Anne Frank is semi-famous is a nonsense. Robertsteadman 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: - astonishing how many of the above comments and votes have been cast by members/linked editors to the Ice hockey wikiproject who have been upset that I AfDed an article due to its non-notability Thunder Bay Northern Hawks - this is a bad faith nomination by a sock puppet and several of those who have supported it are out to make a point and settle a score. This should be thrown out. user: Neuropean needs to be looked into. Robertsteadman 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop launching personal attacks just because people are voting against you. Ad hominem attacks are bad, please comment on content. If you have any issues with any particular user, add a note to Administrator's noticeboard or start an Request for comments. Thank you. --Ragib 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- These are not personal attacks - these are factual. Neuropean is a sockpuppet and it is surprising how many of the Hockey lads are making a point - astonishing how interested they all are in this article. I tried to AGF but it is not possible when there is clear getting their own back going on. It has nothing to do with the way people are voting (but don;t forget AfD is not a vote ebeven though some don;'t get that) - this is people playing sily buggers. Robertsteadman 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- All two of them. one keep, one delete. ccwaters 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- LOL, yeah, I was going to mention that. But you know, CC, that every delete vote on this page is just another sockpuppet. Robert will tell you that himself. ;o) Resolute 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If we can have an article on Data's cat from Star Trek, we can certainly have one on Anne Frank's. - SimonP 11:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- A bad article if ever I saw one. Two wrongs don't make a right. Rossrs 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - if the entire content is to go I would be in favour of it. If, however, the compromise is to merge, then I feel even more strongly against this, and would rather see this article kept than merged. Rossrs 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep. Wikipedia is not paper. The topic is notable by association. About merge proposal: In wikipedia things work in such a way that big articles are split not merged. About trimming: in wikipedia articles are grown basing on verifiable sources, not trimmed basing on tastes of editors. `'mikka (t) 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
--Tachyon01 01:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Why not? There's sources, it's about a real topic... —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 16:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Anne Frank. Not enough to merit its own article, but the content is certainly worth keeping. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the information. There is no doubt whatsoever that Anne Frank is a famous person, yearly over 900,000 people visit the house she lived in [24] and her bestselling diary is translated into at least 23 languages [25]. Still, the cats don't play a crucial role in the diary and are only famous (if they even are) in relation to Anne Frank, so merging them could be a good solution to dissolve the dispute about this particular article. But there is no good reason why there can be several articles about Harry Potter magic and not just one about Anne Frank's cats. I consider the remarks about the names of the cats and their translation as the most interesting and encyclopedic information, I hope that this will be preserved. - Ilse@ 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see how her cats are notable. Perhaps this info could be merged into the Ann Frank article, otherwise I see no use for it. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I agree with the notions about the Star Trek cat and Harry Potter magic arguments stated above. Shamrox 23:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Anne Frank. I fail to see how her cats are notable enough to warrant their own article. They seem to be only relevant within her diary. --Tachyon01 01:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Anne Frank. Hopefully she did not have any other pets. —Centrx→talk • 06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And I'd see no problems with that. If something is famous/natable then it should have an article. Just as these cats should. Robertsteadman 09:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Weak keep : This seems to be on the edge of notability for me, but worth the benefit of the doubt.
- Merge her cats do not warrant their own article, per above hoopydinkConas tá tú? 14:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
Moved comments to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Anne Frank's cats --Ragib 20:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. Robertsteadman 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 21:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flip'n'tuck
|
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding |
Possible original research, google search returns nothing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naconkantari (talk • contribs).
- Delete as nonsense. TheRingess 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP It's not original research. I know because my friends use this and I saw it used on an episode of "Surreal Life" 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs).
- Delete as ridiculousness. Also WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Fan1967 20:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as utter nonsense. --DarkAudit 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless a non-fictional reference is found. (Good luck!) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
keepI asked a bunch of people if they knew what flip'n'tuck was...and I got a bunch of no's, until i asked this person:ImNickManning: do you know what the flip'n'tuck method is?
ImNickManning: YO ANSWER ME
Gottaluvme250: yes
ImNickManning: thank you
also...why would anyone have a website with the word "flip'n'tuck"...its more of an underground thing
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs) 20:23, June 25, 2006 (UTC)
- However, you need to find a reference from a reliable source. This doesn't include random people you poll. Sorry. But good luck! (Also, please don't try to vote more than once, you might confuse the closing admin into thinking one side has more support than it does. Instead, write coment if you have more to say. I struck out your second vote for you.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as entirely original research. Molerat 20:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per a random neologism, especially if its unverifiable by normal methodsm, which appears to be the case. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 20:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifiable neologism. Fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 21:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete sorry, but the "verification" above just makes me laugh. Danny Lilithborne 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Lots of people have heard of it, and lots of people use it. Maybe not specifically as "flip'n'tuck", but some variation of that. If baseball euphemism is an article, this should be as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.217.179.168 (talk • contribs).
keepthere are a lot of other articles on this site that have made me laugh at the stupidity of them. this isn't one of the more ridiculous ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.217.179.168 (talk • contribs) 22:30, June 25, 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not vote twice, you might confuse the closing administrator (who determines the outcome) into thinking one side has more support than it does. If you want to write more, use comment instead. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: 66's only edits are on this topic. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- BJ-ify ~ trialsanderrors 23:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
comment IT WASNT A JOKE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs).
- That just makes it funnier. Danny Lilithborne 01:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sweet hell, please just delete this now. Do we really need to wait 5-to-7 days? Is this not obvious? -- Kicking222 03:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete nonsense and possible neologism. Aritle may not be in an encyclopædic tone. --Starionwolf 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn neologism, and the plural of penis is penes or penises not penii. --Eivindt@c 10:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NEO, not a dictionary. --DaveG12345 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not to assume bad faith or anyting, but I am seriously skeptical of any contribution made by one Nickmanning214, the man who has brought us "wenis" and other garbage. Someone needs to keep an eye on him. ---Charles 18:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- The wenis is a legitimate part of the body and I am appaled that it was deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs).
- It is no more legitimate than any of your other "contributions," and if anything is appalling it's the fact that you have not yet been blocked. ---Charles 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- My friend put it in their xanga, and look at the responses recieved:
-
- I actually have been around bad Flip'n Tuck experiences, just like those described in the article.... ><;Posted 6/25/2006 at 11:04 PM by deutschgirl90 - delete - block user
-
- that technique got me through jr. high unscathed Posted 6/27/2006 at 8:12 PM by sitgilichit - delete - block user
-
- got me through elementary school, got me through jr high, now its getting me tyhrough highschool Posted 6/27/2006 at 8:59 PM by nickmanning214 - delete
-
- yeah thats one of my various methods Posted 6/28/2006 at 10:53 AM by Frodoanderson - delete - block user
-
- its on my xanga http://www.xanga.com/nickmanning214 (i didnt put it on, my friend who has my password did)
-
- Comment A Xanga page (especially your own Xanga page) is not remotely considered a reliable source. Fan1967 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I DONT HAVE A REALIABLE SOURCE! Is a reliable source really necessary for an article like this one? I mean, all I did was take a legitimate thing, and call it a fairly unknown name. Cmon guys...youv'e all flipped and tucked, haven't you? Don't you think it deserves some attention on this site?
-
- No. Fan1967 18:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, probably made up or a local term. Royalbroil 04:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dollzone
Blatant advertising Matticus78 20:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
- Speedy A7. No assertion of notability. Tevildo 20:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD:A7 - no assertion of notability. --Coredesat 21:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per above, adspam from self-confessed unnotable company (mainly sells on eBay - I mean, come on...). --DaveG12345 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keepi made this because there are more than Super Dollfies out there and some people don't know. there has been a lot of controversy surrounding this company and causing flame wars and misunderstanding. A group of us from Den of Angels put this together so others can get the whole story and history behind these dolls, while also giving information about them. thanks--Amarazyxxie 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This company is totally legit right now and this article has as much right to be here as any other article. If this article isn't allowed the Super Dollfie article should be deleted too! It's very informative about a fledgeling BJD company! The company is totally notable. There is an entire thread 60+ pages long on Den of Angels the largest english BJD forum on the web. Where threads rarely get over 10 pages. Doll Zone Supporters Alliance If a BJD comapny can get that much attention on DOA then they are certainly worth mentioning. The reason they are mostly bought on eBay is because the Chinese site only sells the dolls within China. This is a very common practice in Asia where you have to live in a country A to order something from a company located in country A. It's very hard for people to make a site in a language that they are not completly fluent in. So it's just easier for them to sell through a rep who prefers eBay. There are thousands of totally legitimate companies selling on eBay. Jerrysugarav 07:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I've just recently learend of Dollzone's BJDs and I'm completly in love with them. I was looking up bjds in wikipedia and I'm saddened that this one might be removed. I enjoy learning from wikipedia and I go there for all of my encyclopedia needs. I was very excited to find a few articles on dollfies here and it would be a shame to see this one go.--Mandypandy 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'm a ABJD fan, but this company isn't really world-culture important, other than perhaps a mention on the main ABJD page. I don't think listing all 25 or so abjd companies on here is important, considering how small these companies are. There is a whole BJD wiki for detailed info on BJDs, only general info is really relavent to this Wikipedia. Denaar 01:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Edit: Note the above three votes are from users who have only worked on the Dollzone article and aren't regular contributers to wikipedia Denaar 01:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- As Danaar pointed out i am not a regular because this is my first article the other two people i don't think helped out on this article but as you just said i am new. so just like you i would like to note that you are as well so does that mean we shouldn't listen to your vote too? i think everyone has the right to vote and be heard.Amarazyxxie 02:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, There is no vote! The administrator will take into account what people say, but can make either determination. (And, I have nearly 500 edits over several subjects, mainly art and japanese subject matter). People with few votes, or who have vested interest in the article, usually aren't given as much consideration. Mythdoll simply isn't notable, they haven't had books (or other articles in news and media) written about them or their products, their stock isn't used to calculate stock market indecies. You can read up on the requirements for a Company article here: WP:Corp Denaar 03:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- sorry love this isn't mythdollAmarazyxxie 03:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per DaveG12345. --Merovingian {T C @} 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. An internationally known company from China. The article should be tagged as needing cleanup, because the POV is apparent. I see good potential in this article after cleanup. Royalbroil 04:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as this seems to be mainly something discussed on ebay and web forums, with little or no apparent press coverage, I'm not entirely certain that it meets our verifiability requirements. I believe it would also likely fail wp:CORP. It's also worth noting that there is a wiki all about ball-jointed dolls, and this company doesn't even have a page there yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Winston Bulldogs
blatant spam Trysha (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advert -- Samir
(the scope) धर्म 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC) - SPEEDILY DELETE this shouting. -- RHaworth 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn shouting.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I had tagged it with prod, but the author removed it. Wkdewey 03:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. My eyes! The goggles do nothing! Fagstein 03:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
