- 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. Mailer Diablo 02:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Riverbend Mall
I would like to propose this defunct mall for deletion. Apparently there has been in the past some disagreement on whether malls are in general notable. Consider this negligible mall, which operated for about 15 years, and not in Times Square, either, if you catch my drift. Does it deserve an article? I say it's non-notable. Then consider "Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States" (18 entries) and "Category:Shopping malls in the United States" (hundreds). How big is big enough for mall notability? In opining on this page, I ask you to not only decide the fate of Riverbend, but broaden the discussion, so that we could set a meaningful well-argued precedent for the future of malls on WP. DELETE. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep A good article. I'm an inclusionist in most cases. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep The article was written by the same person who wrote it on deadmalls.com with a personal knowledge of the center. Enclosed malls are not a dime a dozen and if they had major anchors and served a whole city count as legitimate. This mall was also notable in that it contained the only Georgia store for several major, now defunct chains.
- Weak Delete Malls are a dime a dousin, surely a defunct shopping mall that was neither the first or greatest in anything, doesn't assert much notability. Eivind speak! 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this nn mall. No comment for now on the others. JoshuaZ 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- weak delete questionably notable and very poorly written. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn and WP:V. I think a lot of the defunct mall stuff unnecessarily mirrors http://www.deadmalls.com . It's possible there are other sources for this article, but actually no sources are identified even though http://www.deadmalls.com/malls/riverbend_mall.html was probably a major one. Esquizombi 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, an ordinary, non-notable, defunct mall. Not a bad article, though. Lord Bob 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Good article and makes no difference to me whether the mall is operating now or not. It played a role in its economy and thus has historical interest and a story to be told. --
JJay 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally, my great-grandpappy used to run a tobacco and snuff business off a horse-drawn cart. He stimulated growth in the local lung cancer treatment center economy, and reduced horse unemployment. Should he have an article too, under Cat:Defunct Solo Proprietorships? lol
the.crazy.russian
(T)
(C)
(E) 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do the article and then we can talk about it. Otherwise, I fail to see why you think removing information from this site is some kind of joke. --
JJay 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's no more or less a joke than the assertion that this article on a mall which is indistinguishable from thousands of others is worth keeping. Building on a flood plain isn't too bright, but if we want an article telling us that people are stupid, this is not it. D e nni ☯ 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do the article and then we can talk about it. Otherwise, I fail to see why you think removing information from this site is some kind of joke. --
JJay 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally, my great-grandpappy used to run a tobacco and snuff business off a horse-drawn cart. He stimulated growth in the local lung cancer treatment center economy, and reduced horse unemployment. Should he have an article too, under Cat:Defunct Solo Proprietorships? lol
the.crazy.russian
(T)
(C)
(E) 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. Weatherman90 01:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay, although it should be cleaned up to make it more encyclopedic. BryanG 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There are literally hundreds of thousands of non-notable shopping centers, and even more failed ones, in the world. One could spend a lifetime cataloging them. If it has some historical significance aside from being flooded in the 90s and the site of a kidnapping in the early 80s, I may be persuaded to change my mind, but I just don't see that in the article. - Dawson 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn mall. -- Ter e nc e Ong 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think malls should be included unless they are the first/greatest/most of something (biggest, most visitors, first in a state, etc.) Grandmasterka File:Blend Flag.jpg Impart wisdom 03:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for now. I tend to think that there should be a centralized discussion on what makes a mall notable. Otherwise, I fear a string of no consensus votes on the horizon.
Also, I find the mall to be as notable and well-referenced as most of the high schools that have articles here, so yeah, keep. youngamerican ( talk) 03:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)- There's another problem area... I blithely tried to AfD one or two recently... Lack of experience. It turns out, high schools are notable by virtue of existence.
the.crazy.russian
(T)
(C)
(E) 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I struck the part of my vote that was meant to show frustration with school inclusionism, since some people misunderstood what I was saying. But, yeah, keep for now (although it would need cleanup and verify tags), have a centralized discussion and a policy in place, then delete this if it fails to meet the guidelines. youngamerican ( talk) 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- There's another problem area... I blithely tried to AfD one or two recently... Lack of experience. It turns out, high schools are notable by virtue of existence.
the.crazy.russian
(T)
(C)
(E) 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per crazy ruuskie
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC) - Comment maybe I'm missing something here but if we had a corporation that owned the mall, even owned a few malls we would probably delete it by
WP:CORP. So I have trouble understanding how when the malls are separated they should be kept.
JoshuaZ 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think some people tend to view malls as objects of geographical notability. E.g., the
Mall of America, a profoundly notable thing, is run by the
"Ghermezian Organization", a profoundly NN CorpMelvin Simon and Associates.Not that that should detract from the "delete" for this one.the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Well, there goes that one. You prob. get my point tho. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think some people tend to view malls as objects of geographical notability. E.g., the
Mall of America, a profoundly notable thing, is run by the
- Comment Are there any statistics regarding malls? Any rankings per country? This would give us a better clue as to notability. Also did it contain any notable stores? Did it leave an impact on the area or did it simply vanish without a trace? Did it have any attributable economic/social impact on the area? I believe these are things to consider. Joelito 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete after failing to see notability. Joelito 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Perhaps a Shopping mall wikiproject? - Scaife
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep If schools are considered notable enough, why not malls? -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just because there is currently an odd attitude towards schools among some editors(which is being reworked btw) doesn't mean we need to start applying the same logic to other areas. JoshuaZ 06:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep; I tend to support the idea of a wikiproject.
ProhibitOnions 10:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm mis-understanding, but does this mean that you support keeping any article that's part of a Wikiproject? If I started Wikiproject People's Left Shoes, would you vote to keep Lord Bob's left shoe because it was in a Wikiproject? I realize this is a very absurd example but, honestly, that was the first thing that came to mind when I read your comment. I'd just like to know where the line comes in. Lord Bob 15:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. A wikiproject isn't really what is needed here. There needs to be a centralized discussion, leading to a policy proposal, so we can sort out what, if anything, makes a given mall notable. youngamerican ( talk) 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Articles such as this are important as they show an example of a general economic trend. The article could do for some citiations of sources, if those sources arent from first hand observations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.80.147 ( talk • contribs)
- Weak Keep What, are we running low on space? Why not? I mean, it's a place, no? --
негіднийлють (
Reply|
Spam Me!
*|
RfS) 10:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- So is my garden. So is the McDonalds' down the road from me. Should they have articles? Please, could you explain your reasoning, I'm concerned that I'm missing something, here.
Proto||
type 16:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's a place that has had a large cultural and economic impact on an area, and was visited by, and known to, tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people. So, unless you have a really popular garden, the distinction is clear. McDonald's is a chain, and no different than most other ones, unlike malls and schools, which have unique characteristics to them. Plus, the latter two have a far greater economic impact on area than a single restauarant does. Turnstep 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- So is my garden. So is the McDonalds' down the road from me. Should they have articles? Please, could you explain your reasoning, I'm concerned that I'm missing something, here.
Proto||
type 16:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete malls aren't notable unless there is a clear reason why they are. In my opinion, schools notability should not be automatic. MLA 12:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A standard mall is a lot less important than a standard school. Scranchuse 14:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable (per MLA). Kuzaar 15:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as non-notable and of strictly local interest. Adolescents may find shopping malls to be interesting subject matter, but this article is deadly dull, and I had to make a real effort to finish it. I doubt this mall has significantly affected anyone who hasn't shopped there or otherwise seen it. Brian G. Crawford 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, and no doubt a slap on my wrist for daring to expect some kind of quality control to be applied to Wikipedia. WP:NOT a memorial, and that should apply to buildings even more so than people. Was the mall notable in its time? Nope. Therefore, it is not now. The arguments to keep this 'article' are exceptionally flimsy (along the lines of 'keep because it should be kept'. Proto|| type 16:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; large buildings are "notable". -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. Question though (which has nothing directly to do with this AfD, sorry). If Schools are automatically notable, and malls are becoming so, why are churches not?
Jcuk 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- comment if this isn't an indication of the general absurdity of the inclusion of all malls and schools, I don't know what is. JoshuaZ 17:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've given up on trying to figure things like this out. The beliefs of some Wikipedians make my brain hurt. So I just don't worry about it and try to pretend they don't exist. It's remarkably effective. Lord Bob 18:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as an important part of the local economy and something that has affected thousands of people. I've also cleaned up the article a bit - if people have further complaints or suggestions on it, please leave a note on the article's talk page. Turnstep 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and a shout into the wind. It's a mall, dead and buried. It wasn't even around for a particularly long time for a mall. It wasn't particularly significant, unless being the only Bon-Ton in Georgia is something that's particularly notable. That said, it lacks
verifiability, which is the final shot to the head of this dead horse. We don't need to mirror deadmalls.com.
RasputinAXP
c
21:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete nn mall, nn concept, nn category. 204.69.40.7 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have to say Delete. I see no reason why a defunct shopping centre is notable. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 23:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep please it has a historical interest the wiki is not paper Yuckfoo 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable, and information duplicated at DeadMalls.com. Mhking 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable defunct mall Cursive 02:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I've added some info on the Millican kidnapping and murder- the subject of books, plays and Oprah. In fact, malls are not just cultural and economic centres for their areas, the village squares of our times. Besides being fun places to shop and buy ice cream, they are often the scene of real confrontation between good and evil and a microcosm of society. I think that is part of the reason why we should be talking about them here. -- JJay 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Basketball courts are also scenes of "real confrontation between good and evil and a microcosm of society" but should we have articles about every basketball court? Joelito 15:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- If that is where serial killers prey because of the easy access to young girls, yes. -- JJay 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The killers are notable but the site where the killing occurs is not necessarily notable. Furthermore the killing didn't even take place in the mall. Joelito 15:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Combined with all the other aspects Riverbend clearly deserves a place here. Its connection with this notorious crime means that its memory lives on and it should not be forgotten. Millican would be alive had she not gone to the mall or gotten separated from her group. She would also be alive if the Neeleys had not seen Riverbend as an easy place to grab vics. The question is why are malls breeding grounds for these kind of events? Telling the story of individual malls helps shed light on the issue.-- JJay 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but I fail to see other aspects which establish notability. Also I doubt that telling the story of individual malls help shed light on the issue. Finally deadmalls.com clearly states that "the mall is now merely a memory". Joelito 16:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The deadmalls page is a blog post by one user...but thanks for sharing your opinion --
JJay 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- AAAAAHHH - the pain! The murdered Lisa Ann Millican doesn't even have her own article! If her murder is notable, it should be on her page, not the mall's! For crying out loud, people! the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay and Turnstep. Zagalejo 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep Look folks. I wrote the article for deadmalls.com and I did duplicate it here, but wrote it much better than on deadmalls.com. I have wanted to sever ties with that site and have been publishing NOTABLE malls and major store chain histories for the state of Georgia on wiki. I especially like to note the vacant or demolished ones because these are places that people made memories that they might like to look back and find information on. Rich's? The Rich's at Greenbriar? I remember Greenbriar from 20 years ago, I'd like to hear what they had to say about it (see the point?).
There are approximately 40 noteworthy malls in Georgia with major department store anchors: that is it. I am talking traditional, general enclosed malls that featured at least one major department store anchor. This one had three. Malls are disappearing at a rapid rate nationwide. These malls were significant, including some that were short-lived. Some successful malls die young. If an earthquake destroyed the world's largest mall five years after it opened, it would still be significant. Also, most of these descriptions consist of maybe two paragraphs with no photographs, logos or anything. I think Wiki wouldn't crash over that. This information is enjoyed by a surprisingly large amount of people and represents a time when malls were like cities themselves. People made memories in these places and they were known by thousands, maybe millions of people. The fact that they are dying this soon represents a major shift in American society. Riverbend Mall had a very large shopping area drawing people from upwards of three states and caused downtown Rome to lose its two major department stores and completely killed it for years. The mall also stood for actually 24 years though its period of actual success was only 15. And yes, this information came from memory and research of the various regional department store chains. I also remember seeing them report the flooding of the mall on the Atlanta news that year. I knew Hess's, Belk Rhodes and JCPenney (three major anchors) were all there and saw them with my own eyes. I do not need to quote that...I saw it for myself. And yes, this was a successful mall that died young because of a natural disaster (albeit poor planning). The location where it stood is still the major commercial strip of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.147.54 ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 19 March 2006 moved down here for chronology sake. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E)
- Thank you anon user for clearly establishing this as original research and lacking verifiability. Joelito 16:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. There is a huge difference between writing something from memory and OR. All the store changes, flooding, etc. are verifiable right out of the newspapers. -- JJay 16:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Right. I was there. I saw the anchors, remember when it happened. I saw the banner in front of the Belk Rhodes that read "Outlet Store" a year after Mount Berry opened. I saw the very seedy looking Bon-Ton there with the cheap looking sign. That was strictly from memory and I remember the year well. I was going to Little River Canyon that day and noticed it. I ate in the Morrison's Cafeteria and shopped in the Reed/Big B/Revco/CVS drug store there. I spent much time in that old Belk Rhodes as a kid with my mom and even took a photograph in 2002 of the store just before the wrecking ball finished it off. I can also see a Chick Fil A employee handing out samples along that ramped part of the mall up to the food court around 1991 or so. We used to shop there a lot from about 1985-1992 or so.
- Delete as this mall lacks particular significance or notability, and malls are not inherently notable.
The murder does not affect this — it had no geographic resonance; a tragedy that could have been located in thousands of other non-notable malls.Sliggy 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)- Strikeout as issue not relevant now a separate article has been created. Sliggy 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: due to the recent rash of "if it exists, we need an article about it" folks showing up at Afd, I raised the question of notability of buildings at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of buildings. Malls and dorms seem to be the most common buildings that we get articles about. We have standards for businesses, see WP:CORP. I don't see how an individual property is more "notable" than the business than owns it, so I don't think being a mall is sufficient reason for inclusion. There are hundreds of thousands of them, they pretty much all do the same thing. For this article my opinion is delete (not that it matters), but I've no prejudice against someone making an article about the kidnapping incident. That seems to be the most significant thing about this mall. Friday (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; WP:N Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. In the AfD for List of dead and distressed shopping malls, we already determined that dead malls are notable, and determined to keep the list. Articles about dead malls, this one included, are notable. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 11:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:I have removed the Lisa Ann Millican murder into its own article. That was the only potentially notable thing about this mall. To the admin who closes this: please disregard that rationale.- the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 17:15, 21 March 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. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina
This article was originally moved from the Storm history of Hurricane Katrina, and after that, the section was greatly condensed from this article. Most of the important details on this article are already on Hurricane Katrina, and everything else is excessive detail which can be obtained from the official source given on the article. Since there really isn't anything to merge, it should be deleted. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Reyk 00:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if there is nothing to merge. Note that the article "History of Hurricane Katrina" redirects to this one. If this is deleted, so should that, or redirected to Hurricane Katrina. Carlo 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I can't accept deleting an article based on a claim of "excessive detail". Who is to say what is excessive and what is not? The material was spun out from the main article, and while I'm not opposed to merging it back, I see no point in reducing our coverage of this event. Furthermore, what kind of argument is it to say that there are better sources available elsewhere? In that case, why should we bother working on articles in the first place since there are great pages, fan sites, official sites etc. for just about everything. Or to put it another way, maybe we should devise a template that blanks pages and provides a link to the better sources available on the internet. --
JJay 01:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see nothing at all wrong with that argument. If it has been done better elsewhere, where is the crime in redirecting people to another site. There is no reason information must be physically stored in one bank of servers. The only reason I can think of for wanting to keep information on Wikipedia's servers is because of the dreaded 404 Not Found error when an external link goes down.
D
e
nni
☯ 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just about everything has been done better and in greater detail elsewhere. For example, witness Vegreville, Alberta a little town of no consequence that no one has ever heard of. Our article is six lines, some statistics and a bad photo of an easter egg. What is the point of having editors try to maintain that inconsequential bit of villagecruft when the good folks at www.vegreville.com already provide such incredible detail and a halfway decent picture of the same egg? Why not just link directly to that site, since god knows we will never do it better than the people condemned to worship that egg 365 days a year? Of course, I'll fight for the right of the editors who think they can outdo vegreville right here at wikipedia. I just wish you would join me... -- JJay 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see nothing at all wrong with that argument. If it has been done better elsewhere, where is the crime in redirecting people to another site. There is no reason information must be physically stored in one bank of servers. The only reason I can think of for wanting to keep information on Wikipedia's servers is because of the dreaded 404 Not Found error when an external link goes down.
D
e
nni
☯ 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wiki is not paper, but it should still summarize history rather than describe it in excruciating detail. Merge anything crucial to Hurricane Katrina. Deizio 02:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Conditionally only if the article contains info not already in other articles. Weatherman90 02:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The detail is excessive because this amount of detail is available in the tropical cyclone reports of every Atlantic hurricane. Do we need a detailed storm history article of every Atlantic hurricane? No, because it does not meet notability criteria. If anything, the TCRs should be added to wikisource. This is text I cut out of the Katrina article because it became too long, and the article itself has thus become a rather poor copy of the TCR (which is very interesting reading, by the way). — jdorje ( talk) 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to this: Do we need a detailed storm history article of every Atlantic hurricane? No we don't. Was Katrina just another Atlantic hurricane? No, it wasn't. Which is perhaps why we have 107 articles in our
Category:Hurricane Katrina. The community seems to have decided that detail is required for this storm. --
JJay 02:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that having such a large amount of information for one storm makes it extremely difficult to manage and improve the article. As Jdorje said, this information is already available somewhere else in Wikipedia, and to have detail to the amount you're indicating, it should be added to Wikisource instead of here. Katrina may be a remarkable storm due to its impact, but the majority of the editors who actually maintain this article want it gone, as it is completely redundant. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- There is no problem managing or improving the material since it was spun out from the main article. Deleting will certainly not help editors to improve it. Also, jdorje has not said that the material is available elsewhere in wikipedia. A simple comparison of this with Hurricane Katrina shows that the material is not covered there to this extent. Finally, please do not speak for the "majority" of editors here. -- JJay 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to this: Do we need a detailed storm history article of every Atlantic hurricane? No we don't. Was Katrina just another Atlantic hurricane? No, it wasn't. Which is perhaps why we have 107 articles in our
Category:Hurricane Katrina. The community seems to have decided that detail is required for this storm. --
JJay 02:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ter e nc e Ong 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep So long as there is any new material, it needs to be kept.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Khoikhoi 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. Given the impact Katrina had, I don't think this article offers excessive detail. David Sneek 10:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Major issue. This amount of detail is useful, given the controversy surrounding the failure to evacuate on time. Some of the detail from the main article can be offloaded onto this if there's duplication. ProhibitOnions 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per ProhibitOnions — important aspect of a major event. Feezo (Talk) 14:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Do people even read the article being AfD'd and the explanations? All information is in other articles, this article is unnecessary. Everything else is available via the external link. Proto|| type 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Who said that "all information is in other articles"? David Sneek 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm not aware of the servers nearing capacity..... Jcuk 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a valid sub-page, along with all of the others for HK. "...available via the external link." is a terrible argument. This is Wikipedia, not Google. Turnstep 19:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid subtopic. mikka (t) 21:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and it's an interesting article. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- clean it up and keep it! Sparsefarce 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Argh. This might have been better dealt with as a redirect to avoid this discussion. I'd normally defer to the nominator, especially when one looks at the histories of the pages and sees whom the major contributors are. However the "keep and cleanup without ever editing the page" bloc appears to have spoken, so I'll say "delete but barring that merge (oh wait that's already done and oh, but this isn't a useful redirect) so bugger." - brenneman {L} 02:23, 21 March 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. Mailer Diablo 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Cashville Records
I seen Cashville Records website and looked at it clearly. I believe that it's possible for it to true, but there is no official word from Interscope Records. Interscope has the say in that matter. To me, personally, it looks like a fan site devoted to Young Buck. The B.G. is in talks with G-Unit, but not a signed member of the group or an artist established to any label other than Chopper City Records, his own established label. I doubt B.G. would be a part of any label after Cash Money cheated him out of money. Not saying G-Unit would, but it's more likely he wouldn't. LILVOKA.
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 14:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This nom seems more about the content of the article rather than that it exists. Cashville records seems notable enough on a quick google test. The content about lil-scrappy conflicts with other sources though. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, don't really see a reason to delete this. Stifle 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Is there a real question about its accuracy? "I don't think B.G. would do that" is really not much to go on. Carlo 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I see no assertion of notability in the article. 3 recording artists without a sigificant release between them does not an notable record label make. Who are these people? Why are they notable? Deizio 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Um, Young buck is one of the more popular modern gangsta rappers out there. I don't particularly like him, but HIGHLY notable: his singles have plenty of radio airtime
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems notable enough. Asked my 23 year old son as well and he indicated that he had heard of them.
- Keep, I have no knowledge of anything about the music industry, but after hearing the above arguments, it seems its notable enough -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 06:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Young Buck is notable but that doesn't mean Cashville Records are. MLA 12:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. nn. mikka (t) 21:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Right now I'm listening to a song called "Straight out of Ca$hville" released on Cashville records, by Young Buck, Ludacris, and the Game. If that's not notable (the 3 arguably hottest currently producing names in hip-hop) then I don't know what is. Young Buck is a rap star. Not just an average rapper, but a star. His label, therefore is also notable. Also, it's a derivative from G-Unit/Interscope Records, what anyone would consider a highly notable group.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but cleanup and expand. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but fix accuracy to align with G-Unit / Interscope Records. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; Alexa rank of web site is >600,000. WP:N [1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:10, 21 March 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. W.marsh 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
GOLD
Not notable parsing SDK ... aa: talk 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I looked around for mentions of this. I found the article via a random crawl. The only pages internally which link to this are self-referential. Looking through google finds some promotional links, and a large percentage of these are actually linked from one site. It does seem to be a non-notable SDK. My initial vote is to delete, of course. If somebody can come up with something showing that this is more notable, I'm open to it, naturally. ... aa: talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete. as nom. ... aa: talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep Non-notable as it may seem to you, it is a VERY notable parser - possibly the best, most flexible etc. I started this article when I tried to find out more about GOLD and was surprised to find no article about it. Just because people aren't contributing to the article doesn't mean it's non-notable. It is notable. Because it's not commercial it doesn't have a strong marketing arm to make people more aware of it I guess. To those of you who are voting on the AFD, please don't just say "delete" because you haven't heard of GOLD.
Donama 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Can you verifiably explain the claim to fame per
WP:SOFTWARE?
Weregerbil 12:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if GOLD would pass the
WP:SOFTWARE popularity contest, though I don't have access to information on all those points - the development team is not numbering into the thousands yet though - < 400 - so Wikipedia will have to wait a few years to have this article. In light of this
Spirit Parser Framework should probably also be in AFD.
Donama 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not helpful to say "well if this should be deleted so should so-and-so." If that's the case, list that for AfD. But it's not germaine to this discussion. ...
aa:
talk 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Allow me to rephrase: Spirit Parser Framework is considered notable enough to deserve and article. GOLD as an analogous topic therefore deserves one too. Donama 08:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not helpful to say "well if this should be deleted so should so-and-so." If that's the case, list that for AfD. But it's not germaine to this discussion. ...
aa:
talk 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if GOLD would pass the
WP:SOFTWARE popularity contest, though I don't have access to information on all those points - the development team is not numbering into the thousands yet though - < 400 - so Wikipedia will have to wait a few years to have this article. In light of this
Spirit Parser Framework should probably also be in AFD.
Donama 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Can you verifiably explain the claim to fame per
WP:SOFTWARE?
Weregerbil 12:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I have no evidence of course, but asserting that GOLD has at least 5000 users seems safe (gets referenced consistently up to page 10 in google) MadCow257 02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If there's a dispute over its notability, it probably doesn't deserve to be here
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. -- Ter e nc e Ong 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. I can't understand this: 9 words (counted is, an also) in article and at least few lines in AfD. -- MaNeMeBasat 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. Redirect to Gold to dissuade from recreation. Proto|| type 13:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kuzaar 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE and redirect to Gold (disambiguation) 132.205.45.110 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, if the parser is notable, it should have its own article and be linked to from Gold (disambiguation). Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unless someone can come up with a notable project using it.
Haikupoet 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Confusingly, someone has changed this page without using the move tool so it's a disambig and the article in contention is at GOLD (parser). At the same time they've done a good job of adding content to the article about GOLD the parser. It might need to be relisted to really ensure a consensus on this one. I still say Keep. It's notable in my world, but may just be a well-kept secret in the parsing development community. Donama 08:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete asserting an arbitrary and unsourced amount of users does not make GOLD notable. All an unverifiable claim to notability accomplishes is an AfD discussion rather than a speedy. savidan (talk) (e@) 01:08, 26 March 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. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Contested Expression
I had listed this to go to Wiktionary, but a new edit shows the word was coined only last year, and this is a memorial to a neologism and its creator. Per WP:NOT, this is not a memorial, a dictionary, a place for original inventions, and this also comes close to Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Harr o 5 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The term "Contested Expression" is an excellent way to describe the activities of graffiti, street art, skateboarding and etc. Simply because respect was shown to the person who coined the phrase is not sufficient reason to remove it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintergoddess ( talk • contribs)
- Delete NN. The phrase doesn't seem to google at all, except as cases where the two words just appear consecutively in a sentence. The phrase returns 0 Ghits when combined with the name of the person who supposedly coined the phrase. Fan1967 03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete having skated, and grown up around taggers, highly non-notable. Not for things you made up in school one day.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the article even says it's a protologism; even if it is truly by a college instructor, WP:NFT seems to apply here. -- Kinu t/ c 06:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable neologism -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 07:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, self-admitted protologism. JIP | Talk 07:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Nice try, but no Google. ProhibitOnions
- Delete. A neologism with an inherent POV problem. Smerdis of Tlön 15:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism. -- Ter e nc e Ong 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above.-- Ugur Basak 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not for things your teacher made up in school one day. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:08, 18 March 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
This Could Work Records
Prod contested, seems like an AFD was attempted but never got closed and the AFD was removed from the article. Fails WP:CORP, WP:Music. NN. Delete Dbchip 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Non-notable record label with no media coverage. The only Google hits are to MySpace or Wikipedia. PROD contested. FCYTravis 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as
non-notable corporation.nn unincorporated entity. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- This Could Work Records is not organized as a corporation and should not be considered under the corporate notability guidelines. -- AlexWCovington ( talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- The subject matter is highly relevant to the North Dakota cultural scene, which has suffered from poor media coverage due to
systemic biases that overlook smaller communities. Artists booked to the label will be completing tours in the
United States this month, making them notable under
WP:MUSIC; the label is similarly notable.
The MySpace hits should not be discounted, but instead taken for what they are, an indication that This Could Work Records is slowly growing in relevance to social circles, enough so that Lonegunmun decided to register a Wikipedia account to start an article on it. -- AlexWCovington ( talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- The systemic bias of ignoring a "record label" with 13 MySpace hits? Maybe you could point to a mention in any one of these media sources in South Dakota? A college newspaper, even? You're telling me there's a systemic bias at the University of North Dakota journalism department? Puh-leeze. FCYTravis 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN. An organization, company, unincorporated entity, whatever, that generates a grand total of 13 hits on myspace and none anywhere else is about as unnoteable as you can get. Fan1967 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Fan1967. Come back when you've signed some notable bands. Stifle 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I have nothing against this article. This label seems to be gaining in prominence and I think it is unfortunate to see users so eager to delete articles which do have something informative to offer. -- Matth e wUND( talk) 10:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Systemic bias argument is ridiculous, this is nn record label. Bluelinked "projects" in article also suspicious. Deizio 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn record label. JoshuaZ 02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete North Dakota HAS a cultural scene? j/k, but still non-notable
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. -- Ter e nc e Ong 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I try to look sympathetically on "alternative" music ventures, they can be notable without selling truckloads of records. This one, however, seems to have hardly got started and is right now thoroughly nn. -- kingboyk 09:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, regrettably. Startup label, no product except for a sampler LP. That makes it NN. ProhibitOnions 11:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MatthewUND. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a startup without any releases of note. Eivind t @ c 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. mikka (t) 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, weakly. Non-notable. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment and reaffirmed Keep. There are at least a dozen record labels in
Category:2005 establishments, all with invariably small discographies. If
Silvery Moon Records can have an article, there's no reason why This Could Work Records should not either.
I must also express concern over the bias against North Dakota expressed by certain editors in this AFD. Diminishing the cultural achievements of a part of the world does not further the goals of an objective, comprehensive encyclopedia. -- AlexWCovington ( talk) 22:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just because other companies that are similarly unqualified for an article on WP haven't been deleted yet doesn't justify this one. Dbchip 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see any such bias. Could you please point it out?
JoshuaZ 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Response SWATJester has made it readily obvious he does not take this to be serious subject matter. FCYTravis has also made many uninformed allegations against this article; He confuses North and South Dakota and is apparently unaware of the fact that the University of North Dakota has no accredited journalism department and the campus newspaper is about as focused on Minot happenings as the Chicago Tribune is on Milwaukee. --
AlexWCovington (
talk) 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Swatjester made one comment which he noted was a joke, given that and you claim that bias was expressed by "editors" plural, I have trouble seeing that. Your other comments, i.e. not being aware of the nature of the local newspaper and confusing N and S hardly constitute evidence of bias. Now, there specific conditions for
WP:MUSIC. Instead of claiming bias, your best bet to get the article kept is to show that it fits those conditions.
JoshuaZ 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- My claim that the article should remain based upon the fact that artists on the label have completed national tours in the United States has yet to be disputed. I would also maintain that This Could Work Records Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city, as Minot, North Dakota has no other indie/punk record labels. --
AlexWCovington (
talk) 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It would be helpful if you could give us a citation for their completion of national tours. JoshuaZ 06:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- My claim that the article should remain based upon the fact that artists on the label have completed national tours in the United States has yet to be disputed. I would also maintain that This Could Work Records Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city, as Minot, North Dakota has no other indie/punk record labels. --
AlexWCovington (
talk) 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Swatjester made one comment which he noted was a joke, given that and you claim that bias was expressed by "editors" plural, I have trouble seeing that. Your other comments, i.e. not being aware of the nature of the local newspaper and confusing N and S hardly constitute evidence of bias. Now, there specific conditions for
WP:MUSIC. Instead of claiming bias, your best bet to get the article kept is to show that it fits those conditions.
JoshuaZ 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Response SWATJester has made it readily obvious he does not take this to be serious subject matter. FCYTravis has also made many uninformed allegations against this article; He confuses North and South Dakota and is apparently unaware of the fact that the University of North Dakota has no accredited journalism department and the campus newspaper is about as focused on Minot happenings as the Chicago Tribune is on Milwaukee. --
AlexWCovington (
talk) 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see any such bias. Could you please point it out?
JoshuaZ 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails
WP:CORP, red link cruft.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
06:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete. Cruft^{cruft}. -- Deville ( Talk) 06:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Maybe you can find a North Dakota wiki and add it there? Or if that doesn't exist, start one at Wikicities. cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 10:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hasn't been mentioned in any ND newspaper, or anywhere for that matter. Ashibaka tock 13:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN company. Or even a NNND company. Marcus22 15:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - nn. Eusebeus 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:56, 25 March 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. Mailer Diablo 03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The Works Of Mika Feldy
An article about some short stories by the author, whose self-bio down the bottom would be CSD A7 if separated, with no hint of them being notable. I'd say this is blatant self-promotion, going against Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Harr o 5 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete apparent vanity. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- CommentI the writer of this article claim that I am not useing this for self promotion but am simply useing this for those interested in extra information about my compilation of short stories or for those wanting to know more. If I wanted to promote myself, the article would probably give you a seisure as I have a habit of overdoing my advertisements. Please do not delete my article, it is form informative, not advertising, purposes. What can I change or add to make it seem more informative? Mika Feldy
- Delete - nn, vanity. >> Hi Mika? Wikipedia has sets of criteria and guidelines for what is and isn't suitable for inclusion. It may be that your page isn't a keeper, please check out WP:BIO (especially the line: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more") for info regarding authors and WP:DEL for general deletion policy info. Deizio 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
That policy is a bit strict. What if a writer didn't have an audience of 5,000? We just leave them out and call them "unimportant"? Take a hint, everybody deserves a bit of recognition in today's day and age. Who cares if the audience is 3 or 3,000,000? You're singling people out Wiki... - Midnight
- Comment Wikipedia has guidelines and policies for exactly this kind of case. Who cares if it has a readership of 3? An encyclopedia should damn well care. Wikipedia is not a weblog or personal page. If Wikipedia is guilty of "singling out" completely unnotable writers then count me in. WP:DEL. If it is going to be published then cross your fingers and WP:CHILL in the meantime. Deizio 03:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity, nn author. 14 Ghits (as Mika Haruhara (Feldy)) [2], all of which appear to be his own postings on sites like geocities and invisionfree. Fan1967 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Whoops, sorry. I got the gender wrong. I've previously run into "Mika" as a man's name (Finnish) and didn't read carefully enough. My apologies. Fan1967 14:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This topic is informative, and I actually didn't know some of these things until I read this article. It's informative, and it varifies certain information. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to do right? From what I can tell, its in threat of being deleted because not enough people look at it. Have you even given it time? Or a chance? You can't expect people to linch onto something in five minutes. People might want this in the future. Don't delete. - Maki
- Delete. Per nom. --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- CommentI would also like to note that this was put up for deletion BEFORE the articlewas finished. The article is now finished completley. Mika Feldy
- Delete even with complete version above still stands. JoshuaZ 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 06:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
is very informative, because i've read the article and I see that this writer Mika has quite potential to become a good artist. I think this shouldn't be deleted because if more people find this article and see the works of Mika then she could grow out to quite a succes. Give Mika a chance, im sure she will get more viewers and that this article will grow out with importantence. -[Z0diac]
- Delete. Non-notable per WP:BIO, impossible to satisfy WP:V, and is likely WP:VSCA. -- Kinu t/ c 07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete notable self-promotion -- MaNeMeBasat 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn-bio, unverifiable, self promotion. -- Ter e nc e Ong 09:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, as this might have attained notability in Japan, something I am unable to verify. Even so, it's a vanity piece that would be better organized under an article about the author. ProhibitOnions 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per all of the above. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete,per the original nom. Kuru talk 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Because I'm as impatient as hell, I have e-mailed Wikipedia about the deletion of this article. They claim that the descision to delete it is not determined by requests but by the editing comity, so are any of you from the eidting comity? The e-mail says "Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia written by its readers. The subjects for our articles are chosen by the editing community rather than by request." Meaning that if anything we should wait for the eidting community to stop by here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika Feldy ( talk • contribs)
- Yes, we are all part of the editing community. Everyone at wikipedia is an editor. You may want to look at the Wikipedia intro page and related pages. JoshuaZ 20:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Be aware that the choice to delete is not based on any judgement on the quality of your work. Rather, it is the intent of Wikipedia to document well-known people, not provide exposure for those who wish to become well-known. The policy is described in WP:BIO. Postings by people attempting to publicize themselves are generally subject to heavy scrutiny, but if someone else had created this article I doubt the response would be any different. By the way, you can sign your comments by adding four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your post. Fan1967 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
How long do I have to wait before it is "decided"? When can I get rid of this delete message? Mika Feldy 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- For more details on the AfD process, you may want to see the relevant page linked here: WP:AFD. JoshuaZ 05:33, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Super Monkey Poop Fight
A Flash game created some time this year found here. Is it notable? Are there respectable sources concerning this game? I don't think so, just one of the many non-notable newgrounds quality flash out there. - Hahnchen 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I thought it's
high google score would allow it to stay on Wikipedia. --
Nintendude 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, you removed the PROD earlier because of this. I had a look on Google, and it just looks like the flash has been pasted all over various Flash mirrors. I couldn't find any strong fan following like say Salad Fingers or critical reaction from established sources like EPIC 2014. - Hahnchen 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete nn Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Del. Czar Dragon 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - as original PROD'er. -- light darkness ( talk) 01:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn and they're apes not monkeys. Eivind t @ c 03:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Relatively notable, as I've played it before seeing this
⇒
SWATJester
Ready Aim Fire! 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn software. Feezo (Talk) 03:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn software, its nothing more than an advertisement really, oh and the game sucks i tried it.
Mike (
T
C)
05:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete tried the game, loved it, esp. the baby dropping part. My wife was terrified though :) :) the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, just another Flash game = non-notable per software guidelines. -- Kinu t/ c 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable flash game -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 06:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn game. -- Ter e nc e Ong 10:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 11:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure whether or not to put this up or not, but since someone else did I'd say DELETED! -- gakon5 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, completely non-notable flash game.
Jud
e (
talk,
contribs,
email) 00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- How can SMPF retain nn status when it's google score goes above 1,000? -- Nintendude 10:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have noticed that the alexa rating for the official website is not in the top 100,000, but despite that, I am still baffled by why 1000+ google hits dosen't merit notability on the game. -- Nintendude 00:30, 21 March 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. Mailer Diablo 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Chandre Dharma-wardana
Seems like he is a good scientist, but I don't see how he passes the professor test. There are many Principal Research Officers (looks equivalent to full professor) at NRC Canada
[3], and even I was in Who's Who Canada. For what it's worth, 52 unique Ghits
[4]. "Ceylon Leather Products and Tannery" gives no hits. There are many more notable academics, don't think he meets
WP:BIO or the professor test
Samir
(the scope) 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nom --
Samir
(the scope) 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC) - keep passes notability Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I can't see it doing any harm, seems fairly notable. Weatherman90 01:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, current article does not assert compliance with WP:BIO or professor test. Deizio 02:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, solid credentials, decent publication record, appears to be viewed as notable to those in his narrow but important field. And even if the "professor test" was ever more than a proposed guideline, a Cambridge PhD in quantum physics is usually pretty notable. Monicasdude 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep has many publications, some in prestigious journals: [5]. JoshuaZ 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep pending verification that he is indeed a professor
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, looks notable. -- Ter e nc e Ong 10:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — passes the professor test. Feezo (Talk) 11:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable but you wouldn't know it from this weak bio. ProhibitOnions 11:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Monicasdude. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no, there are a tonne of no name academics like him. His publications are all in minor journals (mainly impact factor <2). He's one of many researchers in solid state physics, and he doesn't stand out among the crowd. He's working at a lesser institution in Canada (NRC, not even an academic institution) and he's an adjunct professor at Montreal. I think that it was a page made by one of his post docs. Monicadude, Cambridge solid state physics = 15 PhD's per year, I can't see how that alone makes you notable. Barry Zuckerkorn 18:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Very weak keep, as per the above. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:15, 18 March 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. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Daniel halperin
Non-notable bio written by User:Dhalperin. Some claim to notability in founding United Consumer Finance Network (11 google hits) and United Consumer Mortgage (4 google hits). Contested speedy, and talk page says, Who are you to say that I am not notable? I have been published in trade journals and my biography is relevant. Deletion is unncessary. Clearly doesn't mean WP:BIO. Delete. bikeable (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable and redundant, since it's largely a reprint of his User page. Perhaps he had intended it as a User Page, and made a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfortunato ( talk • contribs)
- Delete (I think the talk page rules out the possibility of it being a mistake, but that's neither here nor there). -- DMG413 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- The edit history by (aeropagitica) says, Article has been userfied and deleted twice already. bikeable (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete nn Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and Protect if he keeps recreating it. NN Fan1967 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and Protect per Fan1967. JoshuaZ 02:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know; one day one plays in the "Midwest Suburban Baseball League" and the next day he/she is a household name. In all seriousness, delete and protect per Fan. Joe 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and Protect per above
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and {{deletedpage}} per above. Already deleted once via AfD at [6] as well. -- Kinu t/ c 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and protect per above -- Khoikhoi 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and protect as recreated text, nn. -- Ter e nc e Ong 10:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and {{ deletedpage}}. User has had sufficient time to read links related to biographical articles. (aeropagitica) 12:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and protect: vanity and advertising. Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete and deletedpage, per Kinu. Kuzaar 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and {{ deletedpage}}. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and deletedpage -- Ugur Basak 01:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, per above - recreated article. Kuru talk 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:20, 21 March 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. Mailer Diablo 03:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Simone Holcomb
Delete - the subject was briefly in the news almost 3 years ago. There have been many, many cases of soldiers returning to the US then refusing to go back. This individual decided to tell the media. It's self generated "notability." Nothing more was written about this after she was reassigned to Fort Carson, and probably nothing else ever will be. Nobunaga24 01:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
~Delete per nom. Weatherman90 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Del. Czar Dragon 01:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. "Self-generated notability" is notability, and is the norm rather than the exception. She fought the law, and the law lost, and isn't that notable enough, too? Monicasdude 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not that notable, but notable enough. -- DMG413 03:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Will anyone care about this person in 100 years? 100 minutes? Does anyone care now? I doubt it. dbtfz talk 05:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Dbtfz... couldn't have put it better myself. -- Kinu t/ c 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep marginally notable in the greater scheme of things. ProhibitOnions 11:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep although article could be cleaned/expaned. It may be a precedent of some small significance. Bondegezou 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as someone featured by major news sources. Turnstep 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. If we're going to delete people who are self-notable, let's start with Angelyne. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep more news articles about him than there are about me. Sparsefarce 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, borders on notable. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, might have some historical interest, but no context is provided in the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:23, 21 March 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. Mailer Diablo 03:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The People United
Fails to meet WP:WEB. SupahDupah 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as outrageous FanCruft, ForumCruft & WebCruft. "Since its creation in 2004, it has grown abrubtly". Thats just wonderful. Oh, another: "Katie and Jeffy of A-F Records, Spaz, and chris#2 are all active members." Remarkable. Deizio 02:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. "Grown abruptly"? What an odd thing to say. Anyway, does not even come close to satisfying WP:WEB. Reyk 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete vanity cruft nonsense
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Alexa rank of around 1.5 million. — TKD:: Talk 05:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. -- Kinu t/ c 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, above. ProhibitOnions 11:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity fancruft. Possibly deserves a mention on Anti-Flag's external links. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above -- Ugur Basak 01:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Mr. Deizio above. No WP:WEB. Kuru talk 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - sorry, spaz and chris#2, it's nothing personal. -- phh 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete However I will link on
Anti-Flag external links.
Nigelthefish 17:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Or not, it's already there. Nigelthefish 17:51, 21 March 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. Mailer Diablo 04:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
LordTrox
I came across this while sorting stubs for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force. It reads like an advertisement, has no references, no Wikilinks, and hasn't improved since November. No assertion of notability either - so it might qualify for a speedy as a vanity entry. I'll list it here since I'm not sure role-playing games can be speedied. Durova 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Seems to be a mislabeled article on some RPG that I can't even find anywhere. Fan1967 02:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense, vanity, nn-club. Is it an ad for some kind of RPG? I don't know. Kiss it goodbye Deizio 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like an ad for somebody's home-grown MUD. Durova 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- Goodness me. How has this survived for so long? Reyk 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - idiotic Nobunaga24 02:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per deizio
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. At best it's an advert for a non-notable RPG. PJM 03:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - copy-and-paste job from the non-notable Medieval Times MUD page, which was hosted at Lord Trox.com (now redirects to Times Mud.com). Green Giant 04:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Get medieval on this article and delete it. -- E lkman - (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete per all Bucketsofg 04:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, utter WP:VSCA garbage. -- Kinu t/ c 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons given above. ProhibitOnions 11:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Non-notable, vanity, advertisement, and copyvio, considering it's a cut and paste job. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete How could something this stupid survive so long. Didn't anyone see it sooner? Tobyk777 05:50, 21 March 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 speedy delete as a group with no claim to notability. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Reggie_Hittler
Delete -- this group is not notable Steve 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - CSD A7, non notable group, tagged. -- light darkness ( talk) 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per Darkness. JoshuaZ 02:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per lightdarkness
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, A7, as tagged. PJM 03:28, 17 March 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. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
GatorAider
Non-notable new student orientation organization at SFSU. Delete. DMG413 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn student org. And one would think that University students would be able to write better. JoshuaZ 02:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, patently non-notable. -- Kinu t/ c 06:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's one of those days. ProhibitOnions 11:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as quickly as possible. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Triage 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nigelthefish 17:06, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 04:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Goanet
Hi - this comes across as a promotional article without any encyclopedic value. Rama's Arrow 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhhh head hurts. Damn, it really has a go at convincing you, doesn't it? Umm.. gee... (damn).. Neutral as a long established and popular board used worldwide it approaches the bar but it's totally one sided and I would have to see a convincing media coverage link. Deizio 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable Alexa ranking of 1,604,204. Green Giant 04:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, doesn't seem very notable per above. -- Kinu t/ c 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If someone can get a sociological paper published in a peerreviewed journal on it we can have an article on it. Gomes, Alberto G. (2001) ‘Going Goan on the Goa-Net: Computer-mediated Communication and Goan Diaspora’. Social Analysis 45 (1), pp.53-66. Google scholar finds two citations of it. Certainly could use POV cleanup though. kotepho 19:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep after major cleanup. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep after major cleanup. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:30, 21 March 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 speedy deletion, CSD A7, by DakotaKahn. — TheKMan talk 06:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Southover Bonfire Society
nn organization Wh e re (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 03:38, 17 March 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 Move to Shed Hunting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Clinting
Neologism. Can find no references to "clint" or "clinting". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Forgot to add that in the external link provided at Hunting it is called "Shed Hunting" and not clinting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete shed hunting is also known as Clinting.
- Delete per nom.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. [11]. PJM 03:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete I believe that the article should not be deleted as I live in Prescott, Arizona and have heard the reference numerous times.
"Don't delete" I I believe that the article should not be deleted as I live in Carlsbad, California and I have heard the refrence before. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.180.4.74 ( talk • contribs) .
- Changed opinion Move to Shed hunting as per this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:38, 17 March 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. Mailer Diablo 04:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Marripalem
Hi - this one-liner's topic is totally undefined. Rama's Arrow 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 03:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete but only b/c I cannot find it on the
city map. If somebody produces another map which shows this neighborhood, I'll change my vote.
the.crazy.russian
(T)
(C)
(E) 04:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, I clarified the stub. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 05:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing to assert the notability of this "neighborhood," and Google tells me nothing, so all I can assume is that it's a collection of houses, as the term would imply. -- Kinu t/ c 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete reluctantly, as notability might far exceed implications of Google results. However, creating a new one-line article won't be difficult. ProhibitOnions 11:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Visakhapatnam, then redirect. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:25, 18 March 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. Shanel 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Alicia Simmons
This article about a non-notable "guitar technician" has reappeared after being deleted after the following discussion: [16].
- Delete again. Wickethewok 04:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it again, hurry, she's got a gun. -- Lockley 05:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, again. -- Kinu t/ c 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep Her guitar tech'ing is nn. However, she was a member, albeit briefly, of a band that has its own entry ( From First to Last) and band members of notable bands are notable. She's also engaged to someone with their own entry, a member of My Chemical Romance. That seems just about enough cumulative notability to me. Bondegezou 14:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, a short mention on the band / boyfriend page will be more than enough. Deizio 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete notability is not contagious. Dlyons493 Talk 16:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO and page protect against further recreation.-- Isotope23 17:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if she was a member of a notable band. Jcuk 17:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and protect, recreation of previous deleted article. Content is identical to what it was when it was deleted. From First to Last lists her as Alicia Simmons: Touring Bassist. I can't see anything on their website listing her as ever being an official member of the band, either. Image:Gun2.jpg appears to have been taken of her MySpace. Did Alicia Simmons upload it, and hence have irrevocably released all rights? Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 00:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (Changed to Delete and protect 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
- Strong delete - nn. Delete and protect. Megapixie 14:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above deletes.
V
i
r
tual
Steve 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC) - Comment. Has been deleted four times previous. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 04:06, 20 March 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. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 14:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
List of ethnic slurs
Previous nominations:
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary:
- A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate. For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary.
The list currently has approximately 1462 entries with new words being added every day. Of those, only about 108 (0.7%) (7.6%) are sourced, mostly from a few old slang dictionaries and one unreferenced website. This article is inherently unverifiable, because it includes contemporary street slang and foreign words that are not included in any reliable sources, With no modern sources available it is impossible to be sure that the descriptions of usage are correct and NPOV. Many, if not most, entries are derived from original research, and some are possibly made-up by users, or at least neologisms. So it irredeemably violates
WP:NPOV,
WP:V, and
WP:NOR. And the article itself is a direct contradiction to
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
For those who vote to "Keep" this article I'd ask them to try to answer these questions: "How can we source this?" and "How many of the entries will you take responsibility for sourcing?" - Will Beback 05:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Will Beback 05:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleteper WP is not a dictionary or Lists of such definitions, WP:V, and WP:NOR. I note that the prior AfDs had people voting to keep but wanting the article sourced, which has not been addressed. A number of people voted to keep because the list is "useful," but without it being sourced, it simply is not useful or reliable. Transwiki would be an option if the material were sourced, but it isn't. It's also 200 kb! WP:SIZE. Esquizombi 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Though proper citation may be difficult, the article should be kept. Fans of linguistics/etymology will probably agree. Some of these words are not even offensive/used any more("Tojo", "3/5er"), but the history of how and why they came into use is still important/interesting. If the article is deleted, consider moving these historical entries someplace else or creating new entries for them. Also, how important are credible sources for slang, the origins of which cannot always be easily traced? -- Soulburglar 05:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- About 115 of the entries in the list have sources. I have been adding sources for over two months now because Will Beback insisted on it.-- Primetime 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons given above. -- Hoary 06:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. joturner 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Khoikhoi 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, ditto. WarpstarRider 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator. Guettarda 06:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I have been working on this article for months, adding citations from printed dictionaries because Will Beback asked me to. Right now, there are about 115 citations in the article, and that number is growing rapidly.
This list is a remarkable work, comprising over 1400 entries written since June 2003. Deleting them will do more harm than good, possibly creating hundreds of disgruntled vandals and sowing ill will throughout the world. It would also be deleting possibly the most comprehensive and up-to-date list of ethnic slurs available. Further, it sets a bad precedent, threatening to change Wikipedia from the largest encyclopedia ever written into one of the smallest. The current insistence on verifiability was instituted after many of these definitions were written. This discourages others from writing articles in the future for fear that a future policy will result in their contributions being deleted.
If anyone here thinks the list should be in Wiktionary, they should move it there before nominating it for deletion. I would be much less reluctant to support this deletion if these entries were in Wiktionary, formatted (theirs is much more complex than our own), and accepted by the prudish administrators there. I certainly don’t mind that it is on Wikipedia right now, though, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The word encyclopedia comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education," or "well-rounded education." In a general reference book with almost no size constraints, almost anything can be included. Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged defines an encyclopedia as "a work that treats comprehensively all the various branches of knowledge and that is usually composed of individual articles arranged alphabetically". Stroll by a library reference section and you will find encyclopedias of agriculture, of computing, of bullfighting, and so on. Another example I always like to give is the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana. It contains embedded French, Italian, English, German, Portuguese, Catalan, and Esperanto dictionaries. At 119 volumes, it is almost as large as Wikipedia.
I also want to say that I enjoy reading and editing this list because I find the strange idiomatic expressions in it to be fascinating. English slang is one of the most unusual things in the world. I think that the social effects of a list of words can be easily overemphasized, as these simply show others the degree to which racism exists, rather than encourage it. Deleting articles such as these really helps hide the problem, which could make it worse.-- Primetime 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That Wikipedia is not a dictionary or lists of definitions has existed since 2002.
[17] As for whether the list could be judged "remarkable" or "the most comprehensive," that really depends on how reliable it is, and 0.7% isn't very reliable at all.
Esquizombi 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Reply. I have six printed slang dictionaries at my house that I checked out from a library, so trust me when I say that the vast majority (about 75%) is verifiable. I also have access to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. The OED is the largest dictionary of English ever created and M-W is the second largest. Also: 108 is 7.4% of 1462--not 0.7%.--
Primetime 07:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment My apologies, I merely copied and pasted the percentage; I'll round you up to 8% and that still isn't very good. The list has no reliability as a whole at present, and whatever value it gains will be the result of your admirable efforts. It just doesn't belong here, and that has nothing to do with "social effects" and everything to do with policy. Transwiki might be a good case, they're awfully short over there on
wiktionary:Category:Ethnic slurs.
Esquizombi 08:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Reply. No worries. I would be much happier, though, if it were moved via transwiki rather than just deleted. I edit on Wiktionary often. The editors there are a bit
prudish, and their formatting is dramatically different from ours--but it's worth a shot if it means saving the list.--
Primetime 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching the decimal placement error. I appreciate your efforts on this list. I would vote for moving it to Wiktionary. - Will Beback 08:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary per Primetime, and remind them Wiktionary is not censored for the 'protection of minors' (content-rated). Esquizombi 08:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Reply. No worries. I would be much happier, though, if it were moved via transwiki rather than just deleted. I edit on Wiktionary often. The editors there are a bit
prudish, and their formatting is dramatically different from ours--but it's worth a shot if it means saving the list.--
Primetime 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment My apologies, I merely copied and pasted the percentage; I'll round you up to 8% and that still isn't very good. The list has no reliability as a whole at present, and whatever value it gains will be the result of your admirable efforts. It just doesn't belong here, and that has nothing to do with "social effects" and everything to do with policy. Transwiki might be a good case, they're awfully short over there on
wiktionary:Category:Ethnic slurs.
Esquizombi 08:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Reply. I have six printed slang dictionaries at my house that I checked out from a library, so trust me when I say that the vast majority (about 75%) is verifiable. I also have access to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. The OED is the largest dictionary of English ever created and M-W is the second largest. Also: 108 is 7.4% of 1462--not 0.7%.--
Primetime 07:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That Wikipedia is not a dictionary or lists of definitions has existed since 2002.
[17] As for whether the list could be judged "remarkable" or "the most comprehensive," that really depends on how reliable it is, and 0.7% isn't very reliable at all.
Esquizombi 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary. If Primetime is willing to handle the move then more power to him. I'll help with the formatting. - Will Beback 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, listcruft. -- Ter e nc e Ong 12:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per good faith in Primetime's efforts MLA 12:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Dictionaries don't sort entries in this way. Scranchuse 14:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a list of made up and unreferenced dictionary definitions. Particularly as new unreferenced / unsourced 'words' are being added far quicker than Primetime can reference them (and Wikipedia is not Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana). Category:Ethnic slurs collates all those slurs that have articles of their own, and those are the only ones that are sourced and referenced, and encyclopaedic. If an ethnic slur doesn't warrant an article of its own, then it should be on Wiktionary. Proto|| type 15:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. Gazpacho 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or transwiki. Good information. Perhaps not in the right place, but deleting this in no way improves Wikipedia. -- L33tminion | (talk)
- Keep. This is the type of list that makes us great. We don't hide from real life like other encyclopedias. We face it head on and deal with it in an encyclopedic manner. Ethnic slurs exist in all cultures. There is no reason they can not be documented and listed here. -- JJay 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. -- TM 19:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Don't waste the work effort. Maybe move into Wikitonary or clean up, but don't remove. ( See also Wiki(pedia) Recycle Bin proposal. As implemented, it might help in resolving some borderline AfD cases ) -- Easyas12c 19:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If unsourced material is truly overwhelming the sourced material, simply remove the unsourced material. There's no point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --
Dante Alighieri |
Talk 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Incidently, there's no reason not to throw out EVERY unsourced word at the moment. The truly unsourceable should go, but ones that have at least a decent circulation should stay, because they CAN be sourced, even if they currently are not. --
Dante Alighieri |
Talk 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Given the fight against sourcing last time, I wish you luck in your endeavour. Guettarda 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Incidently, there's no reason not to throw out EVERY unsourced word at the moment. The truly unsourceable should go, but ones that have at least a decent circulation should stay, because they CAN be sourced, even if they currently are not. --
Dante Alighieri |
Talk 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Primetime, Scranchuse, JJay and Dante Alighieri, and this: that it's encyclopedic as an extension and elaboration of our coverage of racism, human race and ethnicity in culture, etc. Delete it and it will surely reoccur again organically, someday not too soon, at someone else's hand as a spin off of some other article. Samaritan 22:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Czar Yah 22:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep obscure and unsourced items could be removed. APL 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep What about these: Offensive terms per nationality, List of ethnic group names used as insults, List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or 'not one of us', List of common phrases based on stereotypes, List of sexual slurs, and List of political epithets. -- Zondor 05:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I appreciate all the people who have signed up (as per the nom) to do the work of bringing the article up to standard. Guettarda 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I am not convinced this is Wiki-worthy, especially given the italicized quotation at the top. Hyphen5 07:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't dispute that conscientious people have put a lot of work into this. Yes, its disappearance would be rather a pity. Well, let it be offered for transwikiing. Also, those keenest to retain it may note that it is GFDLed, so they may take it wherever they wish. Yes indeed it's an extension of WP's coverage of racism, etc, etc., as claimed above; and in a similar way that a list of, say, Hebrew words glossed in English would be an extension of WP's coverage of Hebrew -- which would not make the list encyclopedic. And what about
Offensive terms per nationality etc etc, we are asked. They too are not encyclopedic (just as
Flattering terms per nationality would not be encyclopedic). Dictionary entries aren't encyclopedic, and congeries (or thematic lists) of dictionary entries aren't encyclopedic. As for the notion that if this is deleted it will surely reoccur; well, that argument could be used to justify inaction in the face of all sorts of behavior on WP: spamming, the insertion of untruths, vandalism, etc. --
Hoary 08:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- But see List of glossaries, Category:Glossaries, and Category:Lists of terms. Samaritan 09:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't appropriate, indeed. But people by popular demand just want to keep it because its useful and interesting just like what happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YTMND fads. Anyway, dictionaries contain separate dictionary entries whereas a list is more encyclopaedic. Does Wiktionary support this type of page? -- Zondor 09:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleting the list of slurs won't rid the world of racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.203.70 ( talk • contribs)
- Comment Nobody said deleting it would rid the world of racism, so that's a straw man. Esquizombi 01:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or transwiki. This is useful information. I ended up here to find out what 'Wop' meant, and this was exactly what I was looking for. As far as being unreliable - certainly, as with a large number of articles, more information and checking against other sources is useful, but I would suspect this to be by and large accurate already. Wisher 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as the information is useful, and we have several other similar lists, like List of sexual slurs and List of political epithets. Carioca 02:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as was said before, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. Furthermore, some of these entries are laughable, and could go on forever. There are billions of people in this world, and everyone could potentially be offended by some word or expression. I use words like "Navajo", "Apache", "Negro", and "Good ol' Boy" every day and nobody seems to find any of it offensive. If this article stays, it should be highly edited to include only the most common ethnic slurs, otherwise this article will become a circus, with people including ludicrous expressions that most people have or never will hear before.
- Delete, As an undergrad student, I wouldn't use the vast majority of this information in a paper for fear of it being erroneous. Either delete the information that is not sourced, find a source for it, or get it off of wikipedia.
- Keep Move all unverifiable slurs to a subpage of the talk page, and place a notice at the top of the talk page that people should try to find sources for them. JeffBurdges 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Anybody who is offended by these terms should rent a copy of Eddie Murphy's "Raw," anything by Richard Pryor, and watch "Blazing Saddles," and get over it. Grow up and stop being so easliy offended already, you poosty molignons.
- Keep. This is a useful list (one of the few on Wikipedia) and, as has been pointed out, both interesting and valuable from an entymological point of view. Being offensive is not grounds for deletion. If you find it offensive, have whoever is forcing you to load the page put in jail. Oh, no one is? Well, then...
Hiddekel 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It was not nominated because it is offensive to anyone. It was nominated because it is not verifiable, and because it violates WP:NOT. Are you willing to take a "letter" and verify all the entries in it? - Will Beback 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Delete the neologisms and consider transwiki. --
Scaife
(Talk)
07:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete The terms themselves and the explanations of their origins should be moved to the corresponding "anti" page for the ethnicity in question... since it now seems like every conceivable group has some sort of discrimination page. Cyclopean typewriter 11:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep very informative, I have used it to look words up. Dolive21 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As has been established, the article violates WP:NOT so I don't see a debate here. Unless WP:NOT is going to be bent and twisted to allow this through, in which case, knock yourselves out. Barryvalder 12:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. Angr/ talk 14:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep we have lists of all sorts of language related items: Rail terminology, List of US railfan jargon, List of UK railfan jargon (the last 2 of which survived AfDs recently), just to name a few. Carlossuarez46 00:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Though in light of numerous other lists.... Angrynight 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please Keep Because it's useful. I'm not a contributor to wikipedia, nor do I usually share my opinions in these kinds of debates. I do, however, turn to wikipedia first when I'm looking for a quick and dirty explanation of something, which is how I got here. We users are *not* that naive: we know that a page like this will be a troll magnet, and we know the information contained in it is not verifiable. Its utility to this user was in no way hampered by its aforementioned shortcomings. -- 68.51.197.129 03:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Conditional keep -- filter out the junk, stick to sourcable terms with historical significance. jdb ❋ ( talk) 07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep- lack of sources is reason for cleanup, not deletion. Loom91 13:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep~ Eventually they will branch off into their own articles. Keep it. ~ regruBgniK ....posted at 01:43, 24 March 2006 by 67.35.157.81
- Keep per Loom91; and consider comparable sections in Henry Louis Mencken's American Language. I deny that it violates WP:NOT: it's a discriminate collection of information. Septentrionalis 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Wikipedia's list is an invaluable source of information, especially considering the regional nature of most epithets. Web readers should not be forced to troll the internet searching random, nefarious web sites in search of racial understanding. -- 68.192.188.254 03:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Wikipedia was never meant to become a plethora of lists. Regardles of how useful it is, it doesn't mean it belongs on wikipedia. A how to on Calligraphy was deleted from the main article regardless of its usefullness for this reason. Please consider this when voting. Angrynight
- Transwiki. As a list of terms (rather than articles), this does not belong on Wikipedia. However, it should be preserved and moved to Wiktionary. Bhumiya/ Talk 09:21, 26 March 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 SPEEDY DELETE per circumstances listed below.
Mohammed's sexual orientation
This article's information does not even match the title. The article is simply a list of quotes describing the age of Aisha, and thus uses that to decide whether the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a pedophile. joturner 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. joturner 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Or else, get one about Jesus hanging out with twelve men. Dahn 05:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and as a fork. Pepsidrinka 05:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: as nonsense. -- Hetar 06:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hmm. - Eagle talk 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Inflamatory and nonsense. --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor 06:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I'm speedying... for a few reasons... firstly... it's forked content from Aisha that only is showing one side. It's also from a troller (See adding "dog" to Korean Cuisine and "Wikiproject:No Israel"). It doesn't cover orientation so much... I mean... he married Khadija and, it'd need discussion of that to be a good article... but, just because it's content copy from a troller I am deleting... Note, that it's possible there could be decently done work on this maybe... but, this is not that and it's not fit for cleanup since it's forked and ignores previous debates over at Aisha. gren グレン 06:05, 17 March 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 Both speedily deleted by Xezbeth - CSD1 & T7. Proto|| type 16:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Aryth Empire, Maxite
Wheel of Time fanfic, nothing on Google. Non-encyclopaedic. Sandstein 05:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fancruft. --
Rory 0 9606:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC) - Speedy Delete, nonsense. - Eagle talk 06:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per eagle -- Khoikhoi 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- TBC ??? ??? ??? 06:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense. Would have been a speedy {{d}} but article author keeps reverting. --
OscarTheCat
talk
09:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete, non-notable fancruft. I've had some discussions with the author about suitability for this project, and I think he's either left or understands now. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, nonsense. I'll try and tag them as such again. Proto|| type 15:44, 17 March 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 iDelete. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
IPod Midget
Even the maker of the page agrees that this page should be deleted. It also may infringe on Apple's copyright of "iPod" ASG1022 23:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Contested {{prod}} -- TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 15:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- SAVE This article contains many contriversial subject matter in it:
1. Most pictures made of the Midget HAD TO HAVE COME FROM APPLE ADS, they were pre-construction idea pictures.
2. Everyone seems to think Apple is considering this product, which they are really not. It has only come to their attention through multiple letters.
3. Verifiability and citation is impossible, as Alegoo92 previously stated.
- Speedy delete Product is proposed to Apple by anonymous blogger, no evidence Apple is considering building it. Fails verifiability and crystal ball. Thatcher131 16:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Now that I've read Wikipedia:Verifiability the article fails under the "verifiability, not truth" clause. -- TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 16:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifiable. Save the content on your hard drive locally and repost it should apple announce they're going to produce it Alegoo92. -- W( t) 16:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is no crystal ball (see WP:NOT). Secondly as rumour/speculation it automatically has problems with verifiability (see WP:V).-- Blue520 16:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Apple never considers outside proposals for products like this. This user is kidding himself if he believes otherwise (I'm an former Apple employee). Apple will not produce this product. This article is clear nonsense, non-notable and non-verifiable. Gwernol 16:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment All his images are copy-vio Apple advertising for existing iPod products (mainly the Nano). No information is given in the article about his alleged "proposed improvements" to existing Apple products. The only content of this article is paranoid ramblings by ASG and his sockpuppet. Gwernol 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete This is an extension of some blogger's fantasies, and it needs to be cleaned up way too much. -- Walter Görlitz 16:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete crystal-ballism. Bucketsofg 17:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete is there a WP:Complete crystal bollocks? Eivind t @ c 18:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete "This product can be considered 'imaginary', because it has yet to be invented! " ... that's some funny stuff. — Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 19:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete If only there was an option faster than speedy delete... AlistairMcMillan 20:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this goes beyond crystal ballism. I don't think Apple would call a product the 'Midget' anyway. -- Mithent 20:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleteDelete UV unfortunately, it doesn't meet the speedy criteria, so just plain delete -- rogerd 20:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)- This was nominated for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. However, the classification of patent nonsense in WP:CSD requires the article to be unintelligible. I nominated it as a Prod. I vote to delete as unverifiable original research. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP is WP:NOT a crystal ball.
Mike (
T
C)
00:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- TERMINATE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE - This is an attempt to hijack wikipedia for the purpose of reinforcing a potential future lawsuit. Apple will at some point produce a smaller ipod. At that point 'ASG' will claim the idea & design are his, and sue Apple. The article could then be used as potential evidence of his activities in submitting his ideas and designs to Apple. Delete and block any recreation. exolon 01:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not worthy of comment. Deizio 01:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for being delusional and unverifable. Much speculation, some of it probably defamatory towards Apple. -- Midnighttonight 02:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - adios. -- Khoikhoi 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Capitalistroadster. -- Hyphen5 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and block user per Exolon/Djbrianuk - Paulus89 17:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wiki is not a crystal ball...or a magic 8 ball for that matter. Nigelthefish 19:11, 20 March 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 disambig moved on top of Bright. The original content was moved to Bright (philosophy), which now redirects to Brights movement. Do note that the decision to move the original content is not binding, and may be undone if necessary or consensus wills it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Bright
Delete contested prod. Admitted neologism whose author wishes to promote.The Brights movement appears notable and it may be that this neologism is gaining traction so AFD discussion is worthwhile -- Porturology 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak deleteIt's a protologism by Richard Dawkins, and a protologism that has by itself been the focus of substantial media coverage, eg in the Guardian. This in itself might make the word notable. Otherwise, redirect to Dawkins. Sandstein 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict after nomination was expanded) Then by all means redirect to Brights movement. Sandstein 22:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect as per Sandstein. This term has gained some traction and is a likely search term (where brights movement is less likely) so redirect to the main article. Gwernol 23:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect It stops being a neologism when it's in common use, and Dawkins has enough people using it that it probably qualifies. I agree that the parent article about the movement seems to be the correct place for this to get linked to and there don't need to be two separate articles. Georgewilliamherbert 00:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
*Redirect per above..
JoshuaZ 01:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Keep per GrahamN.
JoshuaZ 18:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect. As someone who might be considered almost a "bright", I actually find the term somewhat offensive and presumptuous, and I think a lot of "brights" have backed off the use of the term for that reason. That said, it is a somewhat notable term. Haikupoet 04:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how finding a term offensive is a reason not to have an article on the topic? (or to have an article only on the movement)? Mikker ... 19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per above. Esquizombi 01:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Users arguing against my proposal to move brights movement (or bright (movement) as it was then called) to bright pointed out, correctly, that "the article is about the movement for the word "bright", not about the concept it describes". So where is the article about the concept it describes? You can't have it both ways. It would be a nonsense to redirect one to the other. If you lot are really determined for some obscure reason to prevent an article about the concept of "bright" from existing under the title "bright", then how about moving it to bright (person) something like that? Whatever the result of this vote, the need remains for two separate articles about the two separate subjects, bright (the concept) and brights movement (the lobbying organisation). It makes as much sense to redirect bright to brights movement as to redirect gay to Stonewall. GrahamN 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- "So where is the article about the concept it describes?" - Naturalism (philosophy). This article, bright, is the definition of redundant.
- Please cite a source for your assertion. GrahamN 13:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- "It would be a nonsense to redirect one to the other." - Is "nonsense" the new word for "common sense"? The term and the movement are intimately linked. They should be merged into a single article covering both the movement and the neologism the movement seeks to propagate (an agenda Wikipedia editors are attempting to further with this unnecessary page-division).
- This argument would be reasonable if The Brights restricted themselves to promoting the use of the word "bright". But they don't. They have launched lobbying campaigns on quite a variety of tangential "rights" issues. I wish they wouldn't. GrahamN 13:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- "as to redirect gay to Stonewall." - Faulty analogy. Stonewall (UK) neither invented nor popularized the term "gay". "Gay" is not a neologism being propagated by an organization called "the Gays". If it was, "gay" and the organization based on it would certainly merit a single article together until "gay" became noteworthy enough for its own article. Even this analogy, however, is problematic because "gay" sometimes means "male homosexual", making it a non-exact synonym for homosexuality. Bright is thus much closer to naturalism (philosophy) than "gay" is to its earlier synonyms. - Silence 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously. Well, that, or redirect philosophy to Plato, Christianity to Jesus Christ and Islam to Muhammad. Note also: Daniel Dennett uses "bright" (in the sense of the concept bright) prominently in his recent book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" (Amazon.com Sales Rank of 96 in Books [34]). Mikker ... 19:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fundamentally false analogies, much worse than the one provided by Graham above. The example of the term being used in a recent book establishes enough notability for there to be one article on the matter (as opposed to none whatsoever), not for there to be two. The concept/word "bright" is to the movement "Bright" as the concept/word "Christianity" is to the movement "Christianity". Arguing that "bright" is to "Bright" as "Christianity" is to "Jesus" is patently absurd, both in the figurative and literal sense. In the literal sense, Bright is not a person. In the figurative sense, Bright and bright are not clearly-distinct (they're only distinguished by a technicality) nor clearly-noteworthy (both are very borderline). Your examples are rhetoric, not reason. - Silence 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I was responding to JoshuaZ's suggestion that bright be redirected to Richard Dawkins. And, ummm, the correct analogy is: bright is to bright (movement) as Christianity is to organisations that promote Christianity (e.g. churches of various types, missionary organisations etc.). So if you insist on being positively Talmudic, I'll rephrase: "Keep Obviously. Well, that, or turn Christianity into a disamb page linking to (among other things) Roman Catholic, Protestantism etc." The facts are these: there is an organisation that promotes the use of the term "bright". We should have an article on that. Then there is the CONCEPT of being a bright (which, despite your unsourced assertion) DOESN'T simply mean naturalism (philosophy). We should have an article about this as well. Whether we name the article bright (philosophy) and turn bright into a disambig or keep the status quo, I don't care. Mikker ... 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps your latter suggestion is the best. Rather than keep bright as it is, in it's confusing state as to what "bright" really describes, we should rename the current "Bright" article to become a bright (philosophy) and make bright a disambiguation. At that instance, it would compromise by ensuring an article about both the movement and actual philosophy, but still be able to differentiate between it and other forms of bright. I think Silence makes a pretty good justification why the word "bright" needs to be the front disambiguation page below. Would there be any objections to this? Oscabat 03:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Replace with a disambiguation page: Bright (disambiguation) should be moved to Bright because there are so many potential pages someone could be looking for by searching for "Bright", and none of them are clearly noteworthy enough to merit being the "main page" for the word (the only real candidate, brightness, is already at a different page, so just moving the disambig page to the default is what will probably benefit the vast majority of readers the most). In lieu of that, strong delete and merge into bright movement. The concept of bright is not noteworthy because it's a neologism (no appearance in any established dictionaries, and barely any in reputable news organizations or publications) synonym of philosophical naturalism; at best, it merits a subsection or paragraph of the aforementioned more established term. The movement or organization of Brights, however, which is pretty much solely responsible for propagating the usage of "bright" as a self-identification, is noteworthy. The admin who closes this vote should keep in mind that most, if not all, of the users supporting the division between the movement "Bright" and the concept "bright" are self-identified brights themselves. A split like this would be a kin to atheists splitting the atheism article into one for the "lack-of-theism" definition and another for the "rejection/denial-of-theism" definition, rather than doing what they should (and are) and treating the topic in a single article. And atheism is much more noteworthy (and complex, spanning dozens of pages) than bright (which is only a page or two long, even merged), so a split is even less justified for this concept/movement (and the distinction between the two isn't always obvious) than it would be for atheism. (Note that the previous example was not meant to suggest that atheists are brights, or even vice versa; it was just an example.) Having two articles in this case is beyond unacceptable: it's an example of Wikipedia's corrosive systemic bias towards recent subcultures with a significant Internet base. - Silence 02:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you can cite a respectable source that says that in the source's opinion
bright is just a synonym for
naturalism (philosophy), then please add that interesting snippet to one or both articles. You say "there are so many potential pages someone could be looking for by searching for "Bright", and none of them are clearly noteworthy enough to merit being the "main page" for the word". Frankly, that's just wishful thinking on your part. No serious user of an encyclopaedia looks up things they already know about, (such as bright in the sense of "light" or "clever"). People use an encyclopaedia to look things up that they haven't come across before. Some very influential thinkers, such as Daniel Dennett, Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins have taken recently to using the word "bright" in this sense, and it is extremely likely that people, when they come accross this unfamiliar term, will come to wikipedia to look it up. I've asked on
Talk:brights movement for suggestions of realistic scenarios where a serious user of this encyclopaedia would type "bright" into the search box, when they were looking for an article about anything other than the philosophical outlook (or the band). Nobody's been able to come up with even one. I also asked for an example of an occasion when it would be useful or appropriate to wikify the word "bright" to link to anywhere other than the article about the philosophical outlook (or the band). Again, nobody's come up with even one. Sorry if it doesn't suit your agenda, but what you are saying is just plain wrong.
GrahamN 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I did - I searched "bright" in Wikipedia because Dennett use it. A.I.K. 24 March 2006
- If you can cite a respectable source that says that in the source's opinion
bright is just a synonym for
naturalism (philosophy), then please add that interesting snippet to one or both articles. You say "there are so many potential pages someone could be looking for by searching for "Bright", and none of them are clearly noteworthy enough to merit being the "main page" for the word". Frankly, that's just wishful thinking on your part. No serious user of an encyclopaedia looks up things they already know about, (such as bright in the sense of "light" or "clever"). People use an encyclopaedia to look things up that they haven't come across before. Some very influential thinkers, such as Daniel Dennett, Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins have taken recently to using the word "bright" in this sense, and it is extremely likely that people, when they come accross this unfamiliar term, will come to wikipedia to look it up. I've asked on
Talk:brights movement for suggestions of realistic scenarios where a serious user of this encyclopaedia would type "bright" into the search box, when they were looking for an article about anything other than the philosophical outlook (or the band). Nobody's been able to come up with even one. I also asked for an example of an occasion when it would be useful or appropriate to wikify the word "bright" to link to anywhere other than the article about the philosophical outlook (or the band). Again, nobody's come up with even one. Sorry if it doesn't suit your agenda, but what you are saying is just plain wrong.
GrahamN 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Replace with disambiguation. This is an ambiguous word, as Bright (disambiguation) proves. A disambiguation page will not confuse anyone and will not violate any Wikipedia guideline or policy that I'm aware of. What a disambiguation page will do is allow the debates and refinements about new uses of bright to continue, because those are clearly important discussions to some of the Wikipedia user base. But in the mean time, searching for "bright" will leave all articles about old and new meanings of bright immediately visible to all. -- Ds13 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Make disambig page This is a notable phenomenon, but there's no way it's the primary meaning of the word "bright".
Merge any non-redundant content into Brights movement, which of course should be listed on the bright dab page.-- Trovatore 05:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)- Comment actually maybe better would be to redirect bright to brightness, which is its primary meaning, and put a line at the top of the latter saying "Bright redirects here" and pointing to the dab page. That would be more in line with standard WP policies. -- Trovatore 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Modify my remarks I hadn't appreciated how much of the debate was about keeping the current content at bright separate from brights movement. I have no strong objection to them being separate articles; it's OK with me if the current bright is moved to, say, bright (philosophy) or whatever. But it shouldn't stay at bright; that strikes me as a blatant attempt to use WP to push a linguistic change. -- Trovatore 16:23, 21 March 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. W.marsh 06:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Soraya's Mid-East Dance and Music Productions
This article is non-notable. It reads like an advert (as noted by Mel Etitis), and come on: any random user with a BA in cultural anthropology does not satisfy the "professor" test. Provides no links for any "professional, internationally acclaimed" status, nor any links to notablity. Oh, and the whole thing is auto biographical.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Well, it claims some notability, in terms of the performances, and the Web site (among a lot of what's clearly puffery) indicates enough to make her encyclopædic I think. The article should, though, be moved to
Soraya (dancer), as it's clearly about the person. --
Mel Etitis (
Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- The article's creator has just left me a message explaining that she is Soraya. That changes matters, of course; nevertheless, I still think that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, and if the result of this AfD is "delete" because the aryticle is self-promotion, I'd be happy to create an article myself (at Soraya (dancer)) based on material I can find on the Web, including her Web site. Would that be acceptable? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete this one, Soraya (dancer) is a totally different and good idea. Mukadderat 03:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete unless WP:CORP is met, which I seriously doubt. As for Soraya (dancer): information should be from independent sources. If the only info you can get is from her own web page, I doubt she's notable. Anyone can put up a web page about themselves. See WP:V. Mangojuice 18:39, 23 March 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.
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- 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. I don't expect this to be uncontroversial. However, there are no sources for this game's existance. None. Seqsea and others have clearly demonstrated this. That, along with the majority of keep comments come from new or unregistered users, and that th e arguments for deletion vastly outweigh the arguments for keeping, lead this to be deleted.-- Sean Black (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The Game (game)
Note: Contrary to the title, this is actually the 3rd nomination
- del original cruft around "Don't think about pink elephant, and you'll get a cookie", not covered in reputable sources. The previous nomination was heavily ridden with anon astroturf. 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Mikkalai ( talk • contribs) .
- This is actually the third nomination. Links to previous nominations: September 2004 and December 2005. Both nominations included keep votes from established users, new users, and anons, and the closing admins have stood behind their decisions to keep. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (with editing) It should just be edited so that it doesnt contain original information and then kept. —This unsigned comment was added by Autophile ( talk • contribs) 03:45, March 22, 2006 (UTC).
- Keep It's a fun game, lots of people I know like it and it is a phenomenon that such thing is widespread like this. One may call it stupid or dislike it, but it is still a game, with consistent rules. Wikipedia is about knowledge, not about a game being stupid or not. If you don't like, forget about it and don't play. —This unsigned comment was added by 201.19.27.186 ( talk • contribs) 01:12, March 22, 2006 (UTC).
Weak Keep As much as I'd like to see this deleted, the previous AfD result seemed valid and the subject does seem notable, although I'm not sure how verifiable the notability is.-- Fuzzie ( talk) 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Changed my mind. The article is seemingly never going to get sourced, and that means it shouldn't be here. -- Fuzzie ( talk) 22:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, made up in school. This seems like a good opportunity to finally delete a troublesome article. Brian G. Crawford 23:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - alas, I've been trying to make some headway in the article, but at this point I don't think we'll ever be able to get rid of the {{original_research}} tag. As one editor said, "We have become the foremost source for information about The Game," [35] and that's WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. -- phh 00:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and limit to barebones information about the rules. It is an extant game that has players and has somehow spread beyond just the original people who made it up in school. Most of the information in there is OR or just plain guessing (strategies, origins, criticisms/comparisons, thoughts on rule #2), but axe that and you have a nice introduction for people who heard someone talking about it and want more information. The article will never be Monopoly (game), but it's not the collective hallucination of its contributors, either. — Seqsea ( talk) 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: I just spent a couple of hours scouring LexisNexus, ProQuest, InfoWeb, and Google for anything related to the game. Only Google returns results and they are all blogs or forums. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources (which is just a guideline): "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. [...] Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." From WP:Verifiability (which is a policy): "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. [...] For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. [...] And just because information is true, that doesn't mean that it meets our verifiability requirements — information has to be sourced if it is to have a place in Wikipedia." While this article represents a unique case, continuing to allow it without any hope for sources is in direct violation of both guideline and official policy. I still stand by what I wrote above—the game does exist and is played—but that is not enough to warrant inclusion. Until it becomes popular enough to have more than a handful of hits on Google, it should remain the province of college dorms, high school homerooms, and blogs. — Seqsea ( talk) 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with PHenry's concerns. The only way I've heard of this is by people pointing me to the Wikipedia article, so it does seem like we've become the primary source here. However, it's minorly notable so I don't feel confident to vote full-out delete. -- Mithent 00:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The only was to keep this game notable is to delete it so we can forget about it, what a bunch of hog wash.
Mike (
T
C)
01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A common if stupid game. JoshuaZ 01:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It is widespread, no matter how much you dislike it. (and damn it you made me lose). -- Midnighttonight 02:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, double jeopardy. Haikupoet 04:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: something made up in school one day; sock supported. Jonathunder 05:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This game is
complete bollocks, but that's not really a reason for deletion (though it is a reason to pray for the future of our planet). If it's so widespread, transwiki the rules to Wikibooks. This article is basically nothing without them, so delete as {{
db-empty}} --
Rory 0 9605:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) - Keep. The article is frequently linked to from outside Wikipedia, including its URL appearing in an ad in MacAddict (for some reason). We'd be lacking in our coverage if we didn't have it. I'm okay with shortening the article to remove guessing and speculation, though. By the way, the title of this AfD is wrong: this is the 3rd nomination. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't get this, WHAT does an article have to do to be kept around here? This is the third time already without any significant changes in the article's status. I'm not going to even bother coming up with reasons, there's plenty of discussion in the other two AfDs. AceMyth 11:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't want the article deleted, I want it referenced. Can it be so hard to find a reputable source mentioning the phenomena (if it exists)? / Fred- Chess 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, although someone needs to find an old media reference, would make the article a lot more credible -- MilkMiruku 16:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is 'the Game'. That's it: wiki is about knowledge, not about the Game being or not just a little stupid game. —This unsigned comment was added by 87.7.161.81 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC).
- Keep This is a genuine internet phenomonon that, by it's very nature, won't have an awful lot written about it. —This unsigned comment was added by 212.159.119.232 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC).
- Keep I play and I refer people to this page for new players. Keep it. —This unsigned comment was added by 82.170.119.106 ( talk • contribs) .
- Delete per nom -- Jaranda wat's sup 21:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep May have been non-notable originally, but has grown into a genuine social phenomenon. Mister Five 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Although the game does exist, I don't see this article ever being verifiable. It would be nice if we could document this social phenomenon, but I don't currently see an encyclopedic way of doing that. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 23:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nonnotable/nonverifiable. Mukadderat 03:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. This is absolutely ridiculous. There are at least two major websites which detail the game, and many more which reference it. Anyone voting delete needs to do their research.
- http://www.losethegame.com/
- http://www.forgetthegame.co.uk/
-- Liface 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment While verifiability is certainly an issue, it is notable. It is mentioned on many personal webpages such as here: http://imago.hitherby.com/archives/000862.php and as observed earlier was oddly referenced in an add. JoshuaZ 03:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - One of those major websites has an alexa ranking of 1,892,011 while the other has no alexa ranking. --
Xyzzyplugh 14:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - It does not matter what the Alexa ranking of the sites are, it matters only that they exist. -- Liface 23:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, per comments below WP:UCS the game is notable, since everyone seems agree that it exists as a known phenomenon. So the above go to verifiability, and as others observed on gets that also from googling the phrase "I just lost the game." JoshuaZ 15:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
You have to keep this game by this point. No question The Game is inane, however it is now an established social grace to admit loss. When one says "I lost" half the room -no matter what the social setting- understands and confesses losing as well. To delete this game would be par with deleting hopscotch (an equally pointless but renowned game). 70.226.183.238 03:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Nathaniel
- Keep - It's been nominated many times, and kept then. I've encounted many people, from diverse backgrounds, who play the game. It's a widespread social phenomenon which deserves to be documented. -- CannedLizard 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've defended the notability of this article through both of the previous A/VfDs, and on both occasions it was conditional that a lot of the crap be trimmed out of the article. Successive rewrites and re-rewrites have alternately removed and replaced a lot of it, and it's reached a point where there is no chance of ever salvaging it into a sensible article. I fully accept that the above argument is probably a case for cleanup rather than deletion, but a recent RFC attempt got nowhere. I just can't see this ever becoming viable. Right now, the article represents almost everything that is bad about Wikipedia; POV-pushing by both sides, massive piles of cruft flooding the article, chronic unverifiability (the very concept of the article means that a Google Test is meaningless) and breaches of almost any policy you could care to name. Weak Delete (only weak because despite the aforementioned flaws, The Game is a real phenomenon) unless all sides can come up with a solution before this AfD closes; which, sadly, seems increasingly unlikely.
Kinitawowi 11:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- comment Note that additional sources have been mentioned above. Also, we can clean it up and then add a protect or semi-protect. I for one pledge to add it to my watchlist if it gets kept.
JoshuaZ 17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- "Additional sources"? I presume you're referring to those two websites. One of them is the website of
User:Kernow, and guess what? It's now got a big message on the front that says "PLEASE HELP! The Game is up for deletion on Wikipedia!
Click here and vote KEEP with your reasons". 'Nuff said.
Kinitawowi 18:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sockpuppeting and votestacking attempts are not relevant as to whether the article should be deleted. That merely means that those votes should be discounted. JoshuaZ 18:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- "Additional sources"? I presume you're referring to those two websites. One of them is the website of
User:Kernow, and guess what? It's now got a big message on the front that says "PLEASE HELP! The Game is up for deletion on Wikipedia!
Click here and vote KEEP with your reasons". 'Nuff said.
Kinitawowi 18:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- comment Note that additional sources have been mentioned above. Also, we can clean it up and then add a protect or semi-protect. I for one pledge to add it to my watchlist if it gets kept.
JoshuaZ 17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why should such votes be discounted? I have put up this link to make visitors to my site aware of the AfD. A significant number of those voting Delete include The Game's lack of notability as a reason. Every vote for Keep, no matter where from, or what reasons they give, automatically dispute such claims of non-notability. There are almost 1000 players in the Cambridge Facebook group alone. Over 400 people have filled in their details on The Game Tree.
- If voters that have come here from my site can provide good reasons as to why The Game article should be kept, then such views are just as valuable as anyone elses. As it says in the Attention box above, it is the reasons given, not the number of votes that counts.
Kernow 19:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Many people consider calling "help" with an AfD an act of bad faith. This is why I placed the {{afdanons}} notice at the top of this AfD. You have to admit, "PLEASE HELP! The Game is up for deletion on Wikipedia! Click here and vote KEEP with your reasons." Certainly sounds like an attempt to vote-stack. --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 19:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, it is an attempt to get more reasons for keeping this article.
Kernow 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Um, I voted to keep and it seems like votestacking to me.
JoshuaZ 20:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- How you voted is irrelevant. As it clearly says in the Attention box above "ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff". I am merely trying to get as many opinions about The Game as possible, so that the best decision regarding this article can be made.
Kernow 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're trying to court the opinions of people to vote Keep, not to get lots of wonderful new reasons that nobody has thought of for why this article should be kept.
Kinitawowi 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- As some of you do not trust my motives for adding the link I will remove it immediately. Kernow 22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're trying to court the opinions of people to vote Keep, not to get lots of wonderful new reasons that nobody has thought of for why this article should be kept.
Kinitawowi 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- How you voted is irrelevant. As it clearly says in the Attention box above "ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff". I am merely trying to get as many opinions about The Game as possible, so that the best decision regarding this article can be made.
Kernow 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Um, I voted to keep and it seems like votestacking to me.
JoshuaZ 20:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, it is an attempt to get more reasons for keeping this article.
Kernow 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Many people consider calling "help" with an AfD an act of bad faith. This is why I placed the {{afdanons}} notice at the top of this AfD. You have to admit, "PLEASE HELP! The Game is up for deletion on Wikipedia! Click here and vote KEEP with your reasons." Certainly sounds like an attempt to vote-stack. --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 19:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep although it appears a joke and lacks seriousness it is clearly a notable game. It's worldwide spread is reason enough to keep it. Maybe edit to the most notable information rather than the current extended version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainAlec ( talk • contribs)
- Ultra Mild Keep How much time is going to be spent dragging this to AFD. This article does have an external reference on it, which already makes it more referenced then 50% of the last 10 articles I hit using Random. — xaosflux Talk 17:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The Game is a very interesting concept and is played by an increasing number of people all over the world. The only valid argument against this article is its verifiability. However, the unverified/unsourced tag was added
less than 3 weeks ago. This article has to be kept, with a clear tag telling people that it is currently unsourced, for enough time for a source to be found.
Kernow 19:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- And how long is "enough time"? This is the third AfD run in 18 months, and these criticisms were around for the first. 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Kinitawowi
- My point is that the tag has been around for a very short amount of time. Without this, readers are unaware that the article requires a source, and this will significantly increase the time it takes to find one.
Kernow 22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- And my point is that people have already been looking for information for eighteen months, without success. Kinitawowi 23:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- My point is that the tag has been around for a very short amount of time. Without this, readers are unaware that the article requires a source, and this will significantly increase the time it takes to find one.
Kernow 22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Let me make this clear: I don't want this article to be deleted. I would like to see this article filled with accurate, authoritative, verifiable information from a better source than a single fanpage somebody made about the Game. The problem is that no such source exists. As has been discussed, the leading source on the internet for information about the Game is precisely this article. As such, it violates WP:NOR and will always continue to do so. Nobody knows who invented The Game; I don't, you don't, and from the anecdote of Mike Codling or whatever his name is, he doesn't either. There is no verifiable rule set; that means that the article is going to be filled with every minor rule variation that can be thought of. That, and that alone, is my reason for voting for deleting it; not because it's non-notable, or even that it's unverifiable, but because it's so unauthoritative that it's always going to be a crap magnet. Kinitawowi 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is, while rather stupid, a popular phenomenon and one that is increasingly well known. -- El Zilcho 22:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have to say keep. If the question is just whether the game exists and is played by enough people to make it significant, then a simple google search for the phrase "I just lost the game" (with quotation marks) reveals how widespread it is. In fact, such a search reveals that by far the most common occurence of that phrase on the internet is in relation to The Game as described in this article. By nature of this game and the way it has spread, it's very unlikely that a 'source' in the usual sense is going to be found. Obviously this game has no historical roots that will be dug up. Even if someone were to step up claiming they invented the game, I very much doubt this would make a difference. Possibly if a prominent journalist wrote a news article about it then perhaps this would qualify, I don't know, but really I would argue that this is one topic that just won't have a 'source'. It is fairly obvious that this article has aided in the spread of The Game. Does that mean it should be removed? Absolutely not! It's irrelevant how it has spread, the point is that it does exist as the phenomenon described in this article. People have claimed that they used this entry as a reference when explaining The Game to others. Isn't that fulfilling its purpose as an encyclopedic entry? If someone asks for an explanation of a phenomenon or entity, pointing them to an encyclopedia entry or suggesting they 'look it up in an encyclopedia' is not an uncommon thing to do. 86.139.10.162 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A game that is well-known, not something made up at school one day, undoubtedly notable. Where in the policy is there grounds for deletion? Batmanand | Talk 22:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but put a "lacking sources" template on it. I just spent a 5 hour drive with a bunch of college students where "I just lost the game" was said every 30 minutes. The game exists and it's interesting enough to write about. That said, the article has some dubious information. Until recently it claimed that in Brazil it was called "El Juego", but that's Spanish; in Portuguese it would be "O Jogo". – Andyluciano 22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. On the 8th of February,
User:Brabblebrex added the following "A link to this article has been displayed in an advertisement for
OmniGraffle in
MacAddict publications.
[36]"
[37] . On the 9th, IP 4.246.105.71 added "The Game is also mentioned in the same add in the March 2006 Macworld, page 8"
[38]. Can anyone verify this information, and if so, does this count as a published source?
Kernow 23:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, it doesn't; the advert isn't the source. The source is still the Wikipedia article. Nice try... Kinitawowi 23:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
![[36]](/info/en/?search=Image:Thegameinadvertisement.jpg){kind=link}
- As far as I can tell, the Wikipedia Verifiability page does not discuss this seemingly unique situation whereby the only source refers to the article itself. The Game is refered to in a "reliable, published source" and this appears to be all Wikipedia requires as regards verification. Even if this is not the case, its appearance in two publications would definately weaken the "non-notable" argument given by a significant number of Delete voters.
Kernow 23:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The ad does not mention the game; it mentions the existence of the WP article, just as
User:Brabblebrex said.
Here is an image of the ad. It's not the best, but you can see that it's a magazine, and that there is no context whatsoever for the link. As far as I'm concerned, citing this as a reason for keeping the article is the same as citing other articles on WP—it shouldn't and can't be done. We're back to having no reliable published sources. (Also, even if the advertisement did mention the game, I would have trouble calling an advertisement a reliable source.) —
Seqsea (
talk) 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I find it highly prophetic that the advert features the article as a redlink. ;-)
Kinitawowi 11:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The ad does mention The Game. The fact it is within a link to Wikipedia is simply a way of telling people (that don't already play) about the rules. According to WP:V an article "should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher". I assume MacWorld/MacAddict count as reputable publishers. I can't find any advice in the Wikipedia policies on what to do if the only published source refers to the article. This is a unique case and I feel your interpretation of Wikipedia policies is hasty. Kernow 22:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I find it highly prophetic that the advert features the article as a redlink. ;-)
Kinitawowi 11:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The ad does not mention the game; it mentions the existence of the WP article, just as
User:Brabblebrex said.
Here is an image of the ad. It's not the best, but you can see that it's a magazine, and that there is no context whatsoever for the link. As far as I'm concerned, citing this as a reason for keeping the article is the same as citing other articles on WP—it shouldn't and can't be done. We're back to having no reliable published sources. (Also, even if the advertisement did mention the game, I would have trouble calling an advertisement a reliable source.) —
Seqsea (
talk) 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the Wikipedia Verifiability page does not discuss this seemingly unique situation whereby the only source refers to the article itself. The Game is refered to in a "reliable, published source" and this appears to be all Wikipedia requires as regards verification. Even if this is not the case, its appearance in two publications would definately weaken the "non-notable" argument given by a significant number of Delete voters.
Kernow 23:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, By the definition of "The Game", it exists because people believe it does. Therefore, there should be no reason to delete something about something that exists.
Eddie 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Using that logic I can create an article on anything I want, as long as I add the clause that the thing in question exists because I believe it does, and therefore the references to the 'Other Game' that appeared in the article should be reinstated. Crowley 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- (This user's 2nd edit.) The games existence is not being disputed. But there are other reasons, which are discussed above. --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. What about WP:UCS? We've lost track of Wikipedia's ultimate goal, that is, providing information, in favor of guidelines developed to aid in achieving that goal. If nobody's doubting the Game's existence, then obviously 1. There is sufficient evidence that it exists, even though it doesn't fit the common pattern of some single authoritative source we can cite, and 2. Not providing any information about it, even though nobody is doubting said information's truth, would go against Wikipedia's true goal. Now, I understand that verfiability via citation of authoritative sources is a perfectly legitimate guideline most of the time, but obviously this is a special case. For one, I believe that given the circumstances, [39] would be a perfectly acceptable citation. -- AceMyth 04:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this entry. I've come across this in multiple communities, in multiple cities. Although I'm sure a print encyclopedia doesn't have room for games of such triviality, it does exist in forms a significant number of people may come across, and so there's no good argument for deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.156.122 ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 March 2006
- Keep, I believe this to be a noteable topic and a useful article. I believe improving the article is a far better solution than deleting it. (And if it makes you feel better this is far from my first contribution/edit [41].) Feelingscarfy 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - it's been nominated for deletion before, and was kept. Why will it be any different this time? There's more evidence to support its existence than before. Granted, Wikipedia may be the singular major source of information on it, but that is perhaps because of The Game's nature to be spread by word of mouth rather than through online means. I feel that IAR applies in this article's case because of common sense. There seems to be consensus among those who DO want the article to exist that the rules are accurate and correct. If the article's contents are, in fact, precise, then why should verifiability be an issue with such a minor article? I could understand verifiability being crucial with more complex topics, but this is much more trivial than the proverbial rocket science. brabblebrex 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- POV / Neutral Seeing as there seem to be a lot of new people putting their 2¢ in (including me), a quick summary:
- Existance: "The Game" exists, seems to be the general concensus, though some would rather it not.
- Accuracy: Is the content of the article correct, or is it (either wholly or in-part) hear-say and/or fabrication? Some of the content, while it may be accurate, reads like fiction or a good idea the author thought up/was told (Example: T-shirts with "The Game" on them), and are unverified by any of the references.
- Suitability: This is the main point at issue; How suitable is it as content?
- Does it meet the criteria of What Wikipedia Is and The 5 Pillars?
- Are the sources verifiable? (and if so, are they reliable?) This links in tightly to No Original Research, as it is fallacious to have the Wikipedia article as it's own main source of information. Some feel that while there are external sites with information, they are tenuous. However, from the nature of The Game, it may be impossible to prove the validity of the content.
- Is the article written from a Neutral point of view? Is it written representing The Game as either a good or bad thing?
- Just because something exists and is widely "known", this in itself may be insuffient if it is Not Notable. For this we need to address what impact has The Game had as a memes and on other games, plus evidence of that impact.
- Personally, while I find "The Game" irritating and do not play it, I do not doubt it exists. However, I do have doubts that has enough source credibility and accuracy. Overall? Neutral - I'll let the more experienced folk on here guide me in this. - Crocos 07:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; this game is simply real!! it is real dammit!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick01424 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep, Notable. I definitely heard about it quite some time ago. Ironwolf 13:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable and can only be verified from hearsay and a few blogs, which means the article is creating a primary source, which is not allowed under WP:NOR. Robin Johnson 13:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - This whole thing reminds me of one of those sci-fi situations where a person goes back in time to stop some disaster, and once he gets there, he takes some action accidentally causing it himself. He went back in time because the disaster had happened, but then he was the cause of it. If he hadn't gone back in time, it never would have happened. The disaster caused him to go back in time which caused him to accidentally cause the disaster which caused him to go back in time which caused him to accidentally cause the disaster.
- We seem to be involved in a similar loop here. Of the 22,000 google hits on "I just lost the game", 13,000 of them also contain the word "wikipedia". People keep looking for sources for this topic. Of course we can't find any decent sources; we ARE the source. This topic became notable because of the wikipedia article, it is notable because of the wikipedia article, and now we must keep the article because the topic is notable. If we deleted the article, likely the topic would stop being notable, but we can't delete it because the topic is notable.
- There are two major methods of deciding whether an article should stay, Notability and Reliable sources. Usually they go together, this time they don't. Half the people here are saying that we must keep this because it's notable, the other half that we have to get rid of it because we'll never get a reliable source. Looks like a stalemate. The loop continues. -- Xyzzyplugh 14:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- And that's why Wikipedia shouldn't create primary sources, which is why I say delete it. If anyone still remembers it in a year (and has written about it somewhere other than their livejournal), maybe it'll count as notable then.
Robin Johnson 16:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- This article has existed for well over a year, I personally have been playing since 2002. I have been contacted by a number of people that have been playing since 1998.
Kernow 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- No one's saying it doesn't exist. It does. They're saying no reliable sources documenting it exist. They don't.
Robin Johnson 10:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am well aware of the lack of sources. I was refering to your comment "If anyone still remembers it in a year, maybe it'll count as notable then". Many people will still be losing The Game in a year and it is notable now. Kernow 21:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- No one's saying it doesn't exist. It does. They're saying no reliable sources documenting it exist. They don't.
Robin Johnson 10:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- This article has existed for well over a year, I personally have been playing since 2002. I have been contacted by a number of people that have been playing since 1998.
Kernow 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- And that's why Wikipedia shouldn't create primary sources, which is why I say delete it. If anyone still remembers it in a year (and has written about it somewhere other than their livejournal), maybe it'll count as notable then.
Robin Johnson 16:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The very nature of the game makes it hard to document. It's a special case, and is clearly a social phenomenom, and thus, should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.41.111 ( talk • contribs)
- Delete -- patent nonsense.
John Reid 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How is it nonsense? People do in fact play the game and the page explains the rules. JoshuaZ 21:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I, too, would like to hear your reasoning. brabblebrex 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and therefore there is no reason to delete an article that (accurately) describes a meme that is seen by many across the whole world, especially in the UK and USA. The fact that many people have not heard of it does not make it untrue/unreal/false/worthless - thousands of people seek Wikipedia for an explanation to this "game", and as an encyclopedia it is imperative that such an explanation is provided. Deletion of this article defies the entire purpose of Wikipedia, which (as I understand it) is to achieve an encyclopedia providing a detailed source of knowledge encompassing as many parts of existance as possible. The fact that this many newbies care enough to participate is testimony to how important this article is as a reference - does anyone honestly think people would bother to create an account on wikipedia just to vote in one article just because a friend told them to do so? Of course not. The fact that so many newbies have participated is, in my eyes, an indication of what Wikipedia is all about - a source of information to countless anonymous users who want nothing more than a source of reliable information about things that affect them. Do not take that away.
DJR (
Talk) 22:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - people create an account, at the urging of their friends, just to vote on one article all the time. They're called Meatpuppets. --
Xyzzyplugh 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- They're also called newbies, and they might become good Wikipedia contributors if you don't call them disparaging names. Do you realize how many new editors get introduced to the editing side of Wikipedia through AfD? I think that every use of the M-word, unless it's a case of clear malice, is an instance of biting the newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - people create an account, at the urging of their friends, just to vote on one article all the time. They're called Meatpuppets. --
Xyzzyplugh 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - It is stated above that this page is designed to gage general opinion of Wikipedia users, regarding the article. As such, I feel that it is notable that not a single person (below the age of 21) that I know does not play "The Game". This is the case with the wide majority of my peers, and through them my extended network of aquaintances quite easily spans the majority of Nottingham City. As such, I believe that it is quite clear that the article fulfils the notoriety requirements of Wikipedia. Previous posters have said such things as "If anyone still remembers it in a year (and has written about it somewhere other than their livejournal), maybe it'll count as notable then" when the article clearly states that the game has existed since 1993, and I personally have been playing since 2003, as have most of my peers. —This unsigned comment was added by 80.7.19.84 ( talk • contribs) .
- Keep- Why delete this? It's a notable internet meme and is an actual game played throughout the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.26.198 ( talk • contribs)
- Weak keep as per above. Chairman S. Talk 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Certainly references in TV shows and the like, popular meme not only on the net but in "real life". Last time I explained the rules to someone, several passers-by expressed annoyance at losing it :) I guess if you really want proof of notability, try shouting "You just lost the game!" in a crowded place. ZoFreX 04:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I thought about it long and hard, but decided my original decision was wrong. The game is notable yes, and it definitely exists - but we have no sources, it's therefore clearly against policy, and as others have pointed out Wikipedia is fast becoming a primary source for this, which is a bad idea (we delete other games made up in school to stop Wikipedia being used as a platform for spreading memes, which is exactly what is happening here!). With respect to the large number of users voting keep, (and of course welcome to those new to Wikipedia!), many of you do not seem to understand the reasons for deleting - nobody, or almost nobody, is claiming that The Game does not exist, however it is against the policies of this encyclopedia to document as fact something that we cannot back up. Also, as far as I'm aware the fact it has survived before is not grounds by itself to keep the article. ZoFreX 01:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- As above. ShaunES 04:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it survived twice before, however, it should definitely be cleaned up, and unsourced material should be deleted. Kind of difficult to find sources for it, but they should exist. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I've encountered this before; there are a few die-hard fans of this spamming teh Game all over teh Intarnets (and our articles, like
Meme, I might add). Their actions, and the subject matter convince me this is a remarkably idiotic subject matter and the current article an attempt at advertising. --
maru
(talk)
contribs 05:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment By that specious logic, then the articles on leetspeak or pwned, etc. should be deleted.
brabblebrex 04:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Except that leetspeak and the etymology of words like pwned is, for the most part, well documented elsewhere with plenty of sources.
ZoFreX 10:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The documentation is irrelevant. I was referring to the fact that such nomenclature is often used by persons whose actions are often construed as idiocy (like spamming pages on Wikipedia). According to Marudubshinki's logic, that would override verified scrutiny. brabblebrex 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Except that leetspeak and the etymology of words like pwned is, for the most part, well documented elsewhere with plenty of sources.
ZoFreX 10:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment By that specious logic, then the articles on leetspeak or pwned, etc. should be deleted.
brabblebrex 04:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Addition to previous statement - much of the article is not verifiable, so if kept, I'd say get rid of almost everything except the 3 core rules, until we have sources for the rest. (And I assure the above poster that while this article may be unsourced, and may have problems enough to be deleted, it is not just a few die hard people advertising it, but is incredibly widespread). ZoFreX 05:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's such a popular game, why shouldn't we list it? 193.13.57.88 08:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unless proper sources can be citted, then it shouldn't be kept. Crowley 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I've been playing the game for about two years and never came across an article online to help explain it. it's really an amazing mind game - the article's part on its effects on the mind is correct. I don't understand why the article would be deleted if it isn't anywhere else on the internet. that doesn't seem fair. as for it not being credible, the article states itself that the origins are unknown and the theory it provides is labled as such- a theory. this article is very helful to send new players too also, just so the know how big it is and how to play, how many lives are affected by it. Keep! [Unsigned comment by
24.151.23.140. Please sign edits to talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~]
- If, in two years, you've never come across an article that explains it, that is a reason not to include the article.
Original research has no place on Wikipedia.
Robin Johnson 12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I lost now, dammit! -- PinkDeoxys 13:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- If, in two years, you've never come across an article that explains it, that is a reason not to include the article.
Original research has no place on Wikipedia.
Robin Johnson 12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Ignore all rules presides over No Original Research on this one by common sense. It is widespread, it is not internet-confined, as I have experienced several times myself. Nobody is going to write anything authoritative about it but there is enough acquired knowledge about it to write good undisputed prose about it, so it should stay. If you've never heard of it, tough, don't edit the article. BigBlueFish 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:IAR is a pseudo-guideline; WP:SENSE is not even that. WP:NOR is a fundamental content-guiding policy; it can't be simply over-ruled in the manner you suggest. Kinitawowi 15:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I lose! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.69.134.250 ( talk • contribs)
- keep Im not sure how helpful this is but most universities include a "game" group in their facebook listings, as such lots of references exist on the net but are unaccessable to people outside of the education system — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Xuberant (
talk •
contribs)
- (This user's only contribution.) I really don't understand what you mean. Even if we could acsess this, how it is a reference? It might prove the game exists, as many other links above, but it still wouldn't provide a source for the content of the article. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 18:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep Wikipedia is meant to be informative and useful and learning about The Game falls into both catagories. Just because something sounds daft to some people doesn't mean it should go. Trainspotting might sound daft to some but is there an article on that? Yes. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.97.35 ( talk • contribs)
- Comment Voters should look at the current draft of the article which is much better done and is sourced.
JoshuaZ 23:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- There still isn't sources for the rules, or the description of what The Game actually is. These sources should be reliable, not "fan sites" or blogs. Something like a respected media outlet would be ideal. --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 23:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- What would you consider the minimum in reliable sources? 68.221.74.38 01:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- There still isn't sources for the rules, or the description of what The Game actually is. These sources should be reliable, not "fan sites" or blogs. Something like a respected media outlet would be ideal. --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 23:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The reason that there are not many websites about the game is because the upkeepers of those websites would lose whenever they keep them up to date. The best way to win the game is to pretend it doesn't exist. This article must be kept! By the way, can't we just use people as sources? -- Liface 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Seqsea's diligent research above (way above) FreplySpang (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether it is notable is not the issue to me. It is simply unverified -- and, much worse, unverifiable -- by the terms of
WP:V and
WP:RS. If it's not verifiable from reliable sources, it shouldn't be here.
User:Seqsea spent considerable time trying to find reliable sources. I have a lot of respect for Seqsea when it comes to conscientious referencing, and if he says he can't find reliable sources for something, then it starts to look very shaky indeed. The websites people are citing here on AfD as sources do not qualify on
WP:RS.
WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources says it quite clearly: "personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website". This article has gone through two AfDs already, amid heated debate and promises to improve the article, and has had an RFC request which resulted in attention from non-involved editors. If, after all that, these are still the best attempts sources that can be found, it doesn't matter how notable the thing is (or isn't). The article can not be reliably referenced, will never be reliably referenced, and should not be on Wikipedia.
Telsa
(talk) 11:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I couldn't have put it better myself. --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Surely as soon as a reference to The Game is published somewhere it will become verifiable. As with the argument for hide and seek, no one knows where it originated, but it has since been refered to in published material. The same will eventually happen with The Game. Kernow 21:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I couldn't have put it better myself. --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I have run into people i don teven know who play this game, seams like it should stay Zath42 18:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- ""Keep"". The game is a widespread social phenomenon-- not an innnocuous schoolyard-type fad. Of course the game is unverified-- there is no central authority or any official sanctioning body that administrates game playing around the world. However, we do know that people, independantly, take part in the game; it is a relatively well-perpetuated phenomenon which this site, in fact, would only continue to propagate in popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.80.142.210 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep THERE ARE NO ORGINAL SOURCES FOR THE GAME 'HIDE AND SEEK' SO CLEARLY ITS ENTRY SHOULD BE DELETED TOO??? How can anyone possibly expect verifiable sources for the game to ever be found? It was MADE UP by people, just like everything else, but because its a silly game, there is no article in the New York Times about it. Come ON guys think properly! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mostly Zen (
talk •
contribs)
- (This user's 2nd edit.) Just because
Hide and Seek isn't referenced doesn't mean this article should be kept. It means someone should go reference it. It will easy to find reliable references for Hide and Seek compared to what it has been trying to find some for The Game. --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 19:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hide and Seek is in the OED with a first reference of 1724—two years later, it's in Gulliver's Travels. LexisNexising returns 57 results in major newspapers for the phrase "hide and go seek". Thank you for alerting me to the sad state of Hide and Seek, though. It's on my list of things to fix up now :) Also, please be civil. — Seqsea ( talk) 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- (This user's 2nd edit.) Just because
Hide and Seek isn't referenced doesn't mean this article should be kept. It means someone should go reference it. It will easy to find reliable references for Hide and Seek compared to what it has been trying to find some for The Game. --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 19:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Seems like a Deus ex Machina is needed to sort this one out.
brabblebrex 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's looking like this could be one of the most critical AfDs in the history of Wikipedia; determining whether an article on a meme should be kept because lots of people know about it, or deleted because the strict interpretation of Wikipedia policy states that it's unverifiable. I truly hope that whatever admin ends up making the call on this is able to assess this article independently of their own opinions on the Game, because that's what I can see this boiling down to. Kinitawowi 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep provides sources.
Computerjoe
's talk 22:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- But this source isn't much good per WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, minor pop society fad. Not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is "record what the human race has learned", not "node what you know" like Everything2. silsor 22:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Given what a mess this AfD is, I recommend to the admin that it be given an outcome of no consensus.
JoshuaZ 22:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think that would be the worst decision that could be made, particularly considering that this is the third nomination for the article. The decision should be either keep or delete; a no consensus is likely to result in another AfD nomination within a couple of months.
Kinitawowi 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well then this should definitely be a keep since when in doubt one is supposed to keep. I think the above in any event with
WP:UCS says keep pretty strongly, but apparently there is a lot of disagreement.
JoshuaZ 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure
WP:V and
WP:NOR overules common sense. To quote them, [These] policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But we have verification, see the article which has a link, and I'd like to see what in the current version is OR.
JoshuaZ 23:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- That source is self-published.
WP:V#Self-published_sources says they are not acceptable as sources with very few exceptions. The article stands as OR without reliable sources. (See also
User:Seqsea's vote above which explains in more detail.) --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But WP:RS which determines sourcing reliability is a guideline, not a rule, and WP:V does say "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The use of "largely" in there indicates that it is not an ironclad rule, so WP:UCS overrides. JoshuaZ 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The current version is better, but still has original research. Anything that is not the three rules is, at this point, original research, and even the rules have verifiability problems in the traditional sense. We do not have verification: We have one website that suffers from credibility. We cannot WP:UCS about this... the goal is not to document fun games or social memes; the goal is to produce an encyclopedia based on verifiable information. — Seqsea ( talk) 23:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- That source is self-published.
WP:V#Self-published_sources says they are not acceptable as sources with very few exceptions. The article stands as OR without reliable sources. (See also
User:Seqsea's vote above which explains in more detail.) --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 23:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But we have verification, see the article which has a link, and I'd like to see what in the current version is OR.
JoshuaZ 23:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure
WP:V and
WP:NOR overules common sense. To quote them, [These] policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. --
JiFish(
Talk/
Contrib) 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well then this should definitely be a keep since when in doubt one is supposed to keep. I think the above in any event with
WP:UCS says keep pretty strongly, but apparently there is a lot of disagreement.
JoshuaZ 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think that would be the worst decision that could be made, particularly considering that this is the third nomination for the article. The decision should be either keep or delete; a no consensus is likely to result in another AfD nomination within a couple of months.
Kinitawowi 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for many of the reasons above. YashaBK 00:05, 23 March 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.