: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 was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp× g 07:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Michael R. Ebert
- Michael R. Ebert ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is self-written, and reads like a resumé. I can find no google hits on any of the quoted books. Therefore a non-notable journalist.-- Anthony.bradbury 20:03, 1 September 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 was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp× g 07:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Srq racing
- Srq racing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
So you deleted my article on SRQ Racing, May I ask why? The site is non-for-profit, actually its a loosing venture since I pay it all out of pocket. Other for profit's such as Sarasota Herald Tribune and SNN 6 have an entry. SRQ Racing has been around for at least 5 years, and since I recently took ownership... its not going away anytime soon. We have meetings every Sat at 8pm near Hooters if you wish to see that we are real.
- 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 was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp× g 07:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Kross
- Kross ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Normally I don't do this, but this article seems a fairly apparent direct attack upon User:Kross. Non-notable, and violates WP:NPA. Rogue 9 06:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Already deleted and protected: Thank you Vary! E. Sn0 =31337= 06:39, 1 September 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 speedily kept as rewritten bio substub. FCYTravis 06:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Eric Van
Vanity nonsense
FCYTravis 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as Eric Van is somewhat notable as "the online statistical guru of Red Sox Nation," but the article needs a major cleanup. Sycthos Talk 04:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Ginar 04:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Ter e nc e Ong 04:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP, and do not blank content while in AfD
70.18.161.203 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- What I removed was POV, OR, nonsense *and* unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 04:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep verifiable stub I created. FCYTravis 04:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. In response to the previous weak keep comment, this article has not been stubbed. No worries, I have stubbed it accordingly to give it a chance. A one sentence article about a Red Sox statistician is not encyclopedic, and the information presented in past versions from the history section were arguably useless. This one sentence can easily be plugged into the team's main article, or it can simply and effectively be deleted. –
Я не имею никакой жизни |
существую 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) - keep please that was confusing for a moment but it is good now Yuckfoo 10:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if we're talking about FCYTravis's version, Delete as unsalvagable nonsense otherwise. - Colin Kimbrell 17:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep for FCYTravis's version. -- King of All the Franks 17:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the current version as notable and verifiable. Turnstep 18:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- 'Keep but needs expansion, why isn't this stubbed -- SusanLarson ( User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 19:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable biography. No Guru 21:50, 15 January 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 was merge to Wheel of Fortune (American game show). I've decided to merge only the first section, on show records, and not list every grand prize winner or loser. But the stuff will be there in the history, and this is a wiki, after all. Mango juice talk 14:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Biggest wins and losses on Wheel of Fortune
Nonencyclopedic fancruft. —
tregoweth (
talk) 00:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
What's "fancruft"?
JTRH 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Marge to Wheel of Fortune Yes fancruft, and there is a similar page nominated for deletion today as well. JTRH: WP:FAN if youre interested. Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Totally unsourced, violates WP:VERIFY. -- Dennette 02:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If sources can be found then merge to Wheel of Fortune. -- דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delelete unencyclopedic, unsourced, American biased.-- ZayZayEM 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune -- mathewguiver 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune -- JTRH 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune Cynical 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Michael, et al.; those who are inclined to edit Wheel of Fortune then may, to be sure, determine to what extent the material can be sourced and is encyclopedic (I'm inclined to ascribe the appellative fancruft to all of it, but many of our game show articles, it should be observed, are replete with similar collections of minutiae, such that there appears to be no consensus for its categorical removal). Joe 00:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per all above - noteable enough for the wheel of Fortune article, but not enough to have an article of it's own. - Blood red sandman 15:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Wheel of Fortune. This fits in better as a part of the Wheel article. Chris 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge This is ridiculous. Delete it because it's unsourced? Put up an unsourced tag! Delete it because it's American-centric? IT'S ABOUT THE AMERICAN VERSION OF THE SHOW! If you want ones about versions outside of the US, then make them, but don't delete this one. Personally, I think it's too long to merge into the already long main WOF article, and I'm fine with leaving it as its own article. This is Wikipedia, for crying out loud. CrossEyed7 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- merge with wheel of fortune article is best Yuckfoo 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep valid spinoff from wheel of fortune... will only clutter the main article and be spun right back off if merged.
ALKIVAR
™
20:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC) - Delete. Not a significant addition to the sum total of useful information about the glorious and tragic history of the human race. Herostratus 13:27, 12 September 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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
International Network of Crackers
No reliable sources for this information. All of it seems to be from a single site which doesn't seem to carry any legitimacy with it. Delete as not verifiable through reliable sources. Wickethewok 12:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete there are sources, but they're all from a site called defacto2, which doesn't appear to be a reliable source by our standards ( WP:RS) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the sources are actual text files and interviews from the group... if that isn't reliable, then I honestly don't know what would be. Defacto2 is a pretty large and decently known site about the warez scene as well... ZoeF 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- WP:RS outlines what reliable sources typically tend to be. If we were doing an article about some arbitrary guy, would his website describing himself be a reliable source of information? Wouldn't he be able to say anything he wanted about himself without regard to whether or not its true? Thats why we need reliable secondary sources, such as something like a computer magazine article or Eweek.com or something like that. Wickethewok 02:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Things written by and about oneself or one's group are never truly reliable sources. Even if one tries to write completely neutrally, bias always arises because they're too close to the subject. I could spend the next few seconds writing a text file that says I'm 9 feet tall, come from Mars, have titanium buttcheeks, and have telekinetic control over pasta, but that wouldn't make it true and likely wouldn't convince many others, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep INC was the first major cracking network, as the name implies, for the IBM PC. This article is well referenced by authorities on the subject, namely Defacto2,
textfiles.com, and direct interviews with those who ran the group. Furthermore, it later led to the formation of the now notorious
Pirates With Attitude. Not to mention the fact that all of this data is clearly verifiable with a copy of
this book.
ALKIVAR
™
03:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- AND your interpretation of WP:RS is flawed as the sources in this article clearly fit our policy.
| Self-published sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following:
|
- Keep per Alkivar. -- Myles Long 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alkivar, important warez group. bbx 04:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously, as per my essays on the subject, I don't get involved in Wikipedia issues on the actual Wikipedia much, but I started getting contacted by a number of people about this particular debate, and wished to make a clear and concise statement. I run textfiles.com. I spend a large amount of my waking hours downloading, acquiring, and sorting through primary sources related to bulletin board systems, warez groups, online culture in general and a wide range of related subjects. I hand-scan printouts, transfer original floppy disks from dusty boxes, and travel to interview people who were involved in the various aspects of online life that I have on my site. I am in communication with other archivists doing similar work, or at least also collecting primary sources and information, and verifying, and doing all the proper background work one does when one collects history. Defacto2 is one of many groups doing this. We (defacto, myself, archive.org, Temple of the Screaming Electron (TOTSE) and many others) consider this information important, relevant, and we work to make it accurate and represent "what really happened". This is not the first time Mr. Lenahan has decided to put his mark on deleting aspects of this culture in the name of relevancy, and his statements in the past bear out a lack of perspective on the whole matter of inclusionism vs. deletionism. Focus on improvement, not destruction. I'm sorry to hear about your cat but there are better avenues to vent your sadness. -- Jscott 04:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP are you kidding? INC was the largest English PC Games Cracking Group I have ever seen (and I have seen quite a few during the last 15 years). At some point 1991/1992 did they absolutely dominate the PC Warez scene and ALL major english game titles were released by INC first, crushing all competition. Okay, there might have been 1-2 slip-throughs, but that makes it statistically still ALL. This would be like deleting the Brockhaus article if you would compare encyclopedias with PC warez groups. -- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this group was very notable and should be documented here Yuckfoo 01:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Jason Scott's comments. For a collective of pirates that operated solely in the underground in the 1980's and early 1990's I'd say their existence is AMAZINGLY well documented. The efforts of online archivers of bbs culture (underground or public) should be greeted with appreciation, not disdain.-- Sodium N4 06:20, 8 September 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 was keep, the people from SA say so, and they should know. It gets 100 google news hits in the last week so it's hard to argue with the media coverage angle. - Bobet 12:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Neotel
 | 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}}. |
New company, launched yesterday. Looks like a startup with hopes of becoming a major competitor to the existing telecom monopoly in South Africa. Most of their services won't actually be available until next year. Google for neotel "south africa" doesn't turn up much, mainly press releases (there are other Neotel's in multiple countries). At this point, they've got investors and a lot of plans. Seems to me this isn't up to WP:CORP yet, and is rather crystal-ballish as to whether it will become a major company. Fan-1967 13:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The company isnt even offering any services yet, remains to be seen if they will become a major player in the region yet. If they ever meet
WP:CORP and article can be created but as of now it does not.
DrunkenSmurf 14:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment See below comments about it offering services: it is offering services. Re: "remains to be seen if they will become a major player in the region yet" -- that is not grounds enough to disqualify the article. Neotel holds significant economic interest to the region as well as being widely reported on by the media. There hasn't been a single 'advert' to my knowledge from Neotel, just dozens of press articles. Rfwoolf 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is too grounds for deletion. Otherwise I could write an article on the bodega on the corner; it is most certainly offering services, and it "remains to be seen" whether they'll grow to rival 7-Eleven. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Advertisement. Sparsefarce 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Dozens of independant press articles (see below). Rfwoolf 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per nom. This company is notable because it is the first non state telecommunications network, and just because it happens to be new doesn't make the page an advertisement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tertrih ( talk • contribs) Note: First edit from new user.
- Comment "per nom" is an abbreviation commonly used here to mean agreeing with the nominator. I don't think that's what you meant.
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Comment "per nom" is an abbreviation commonly used here to mean agreeing with the nominator. I don't think that's what you meant.
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- Fan-1967 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, borderline: is it crystal ball gazing when they're launching but not providing services? I don't think jumping the gun is always a bad idea, but here, it seems as if they should provide some nominal services first before they get onto Wikipedia.- Kmaguir1 08:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Following the end of AT&T monopoly in the US 20 years ago, Sprint and MCI were formed to compete. So were a whole bunch of other companies that failed and have been pretty much forgotten. We'll need to wait and see on this one. Fan-1967 14:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Surely it should qualify as an entry because it is both newsworthy and because it will provide coverage of an event that is in progress? Furthermore it does offer some services that have not been rolled out to the public yet. I can completely see the logic involved that would outlaw all businesses from having an article on Wikipedia because that would be tantamount to advertising. But this business holds significant national and regional impact on both the economy and the telecommunications industry. It may not have properly launched yet, but a wide cross-section of the public is aware of it because of the press. Rfwoolf 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. The company is already in business, however they are not yet dealing directly with the South African public (these services will be available in April 2007), currently wholesale international bandwidth is being sold to ISP's and other enterprises. Furthermore they will become the first company other that
Telkom to offer fix-line access to companies/consumers in the South African market (a market that is currently heavily over-priced due to
Telkom's monopoly). In addition to that this company represents the liberation of the South African telecommunications market. If this page is to be deleted, I recommend deleting the
Telkom page as well.
- For more information on Neotel and what it represents visit Hellkom or MyADSL and their external pages, namely [25] and [26].
- Note that the name "Neotel" was only announced on 31 August 2006, before that it was known as "SNO Telecommunications", their website is still operational at
[27] --
Cs007 10:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Note
Cs007 (
talk ·
contribs) has no edits outside this AFD and their user page.
- Comment Telkom is a company that has long existed and is already providing service to millions of people. Whether Telkom is a horrible monopoly is irrelevant. Neotel is not even up and running yet. Wikipedia is not for promoting new ventures. Fan-1967 14:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that strictly speaking in terms of being a company it doesn't seem to be up to WP:CORP standards yet, however in terms of being a historical landmark for the South African ICT market, doesn't that justify staying (I do however believe that the article is still fairly incomplete) ? -- Cs007 15:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Do NOT delete the Neotel entry. It complies with at at least one WP:CORP criteria: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.". Click here for one news source. Neotel will also have economic impacts on the economy of the Republic of South Africa because it will completely change the telecommunications industry. Finally, last I heard Wikipedia was an encyclopedia; I specifically searched for Neotel to find out facts about the company, and the only reason I was ever aware of the company was because of its extensive coverage in the independant media -- NOT in an advertising context (see link above). As a South African, I am adament, the article has got to stay! Rfwoolf 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Last I heard Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a list of every corporate entity in the world. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Forgot to sign ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I might have voted for deleting it if I didn't believe that this article will just be recreated in a few months time due to increase in information and interest in the company. Currently it is borderline but I expect it to expand. SumDude 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Note: First edit from new user
- Keep: The company can be considered notable primarily due to its political interest to South Africa. Because of notoriety of Telkom, the subject is controversial and thus interesting. However the article should follow very strict NPOV, remain factual and keep in mind that the company hasn't really proved anything yet. It will be a good idea to focus on the historical facts (related to the establishment of the new company) rather than the services or products of the new company. Errantkid 07:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep — Regardless of the company's future fate, they represent an important landmark in South African telecommunications. -- Piet Delport 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - I use Wikipedia regularly to either make sense of terms I don't understand, or to get some basic information about organisations / people that I have been hearing about and want a 'factual' update on. I am not aware of the various policies and guidelines referred to above, but the vast media coverage it has been garnering over the last many days prompted me to check the info on Wikipedia - and the current entry gave me a quick basic overview. I also understand that the company, being the second operator in South Africa, breaking decades of monopoly, represents a historical landmark - enough for the President of the country to comment on its launch. I think therefore, that the entry should be retained - any material discerned as 'advertising' must of course be removed.
196.207.40.213 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ditto. G.A.S 06:32, 7 September 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 was MERGE into PZ Myers. The raw total were 6 Keep (1 being Keep or Merge), 3 Delete (1 being Delete or Merge), and 8 Merge. 1 Keep vote is that editor's only edit so far, so if we disregard that and elect to read both the "...or Merge" comments as Merge leaves 4 Keep, 2 Delete, and 10 Merge. That seems to be quite a clear consensus to merge, and although the comments regarding the non-notability of the article subject are well taken, they don'd seem to be enough to overcome the general consensus to merge, in my opinion. Herostratus 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments
|
| 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}}. |
POV article, poorly written article on non-encyclopedic content.
A semi-supported half-joke argument against creationism. Possibel internet phenomenom. I'm putting more under Things made up in school; teachers can make things up too. PZ Myers and Jim Pinkoski deserve articles, but not this one-part-of-the-joke concept.-- ZayZayEM 13:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Created by
User:Outeast, whose only edits thus far have been this article's creation, and craete a link from
dwarf (disambiguation)--
ZayZayEM 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Google the statement
"If you doubt this is possible how is it there are pygmies" (the plus sign stuffs it up) - I got 72 hits just now. Note: people can't agree on wether it is Dwarfs or dwarves.--
ZayZayEM 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- A Google search isn't going to give accurate numbers on this. From the citations I've collected so far, many people don't quote the first part of the phrase (instead, they finish a sentence with some variation of "PYGMIES + DWARFS!!"). Even those who attempt to quote the entire quostion usually don't do it accurately. I'm not asserting that the phrase is common, but I am asserting that your proposed search string (and the results from it), don't reveal whether the phrase is common or not. Sanguinity 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Google the statement
"If you doubt this is possible how is it there are pygmies" (the plus sign stuffs it up) - I got 72 hits just now. Note: people can't agree on wether it is Dwarfs or dwarves.--
ZayZayEM 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unencyclopedic topic for an article. Flying Jazz 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into PZ Myers. Sanguinity 15:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. At best it's a neologism, at worst it's a joke referencing an event on a single website. eaolson 21:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Merge to PZ Myers Guettarda 21:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)- After further reflection, it could stand alone, and doesn't really fit all that well as a subset of the Myers article, so changing to Keep. Guettarda 12:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it It's a valuable piece of information about a common topic.
Hank Fox 20:14, 3 September 2006
- This incorrectly signed vote by 72.224.41.177 00:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to PZ Myers (provisional). But before that is done other problems will need fixing. It needs to be trimmed down. The stuff on Jim Pinkoski's POV might belong in his article instead. Some POV problems need fixing. The claim that Pinkoski is a "noted authority on biblical interpretation" should be justified or deleted. Citations would also be nice. If some of these are not addressed then my suggestion changes to delete. And in response to Hank Fox, I don't think it is all that common at all. MichaelSH 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to PZ Myers, if possible, otherwise Delete. -- Kristjan Wager 10:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Jim Pinkoski, since he made the argument. Link from PZ Myers. Moioci 14:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- That which is interesting about the argument, however, isn't the argument itself -- there are plenty of equally bizarre fallacies in his guide, none of which anyone is proposing as it's own article. The noteworthy thing about this one is that it has become a generalized tagline to label nonsensical rhetoric. I don't see that getting explained properly in Pinkoski's article. In fact, this may be one of the best reasons to keep this article where it is without merging it -- neutral ground, free of the inherent POV that would come with merging it to either place.
Sanguinity 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please cite some sources of its use as a "generalised tagline" that are notable--
ZayZayEM 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Notice, please, that my vote was and remains to merge with
PZ Myers. As far as I'm aware, the tagline is notable only within the circle of Pharyngula's readers, and not far beyond that.
Sanguinity 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly can be merged? Unencyclopedic content does not belong in any article. This article is completely unencyclopedic.
PZ Myers already has as much about this as is needed.--
ZayZayEM 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Already has as much as is needed? I haven't compared the Myers rev-history to the date of your comment, but what's over there right now is... nothing. Except the link to this article.
- As to your question about what, in my opinion, should be there.... I'd throw out the statement about "criticising at length Jim Pinkoski's comic books". It was only for a relatively short period that he was having a go at Pinkoski's books, and unless you were Pinkoski, about the only thing that ultimately mattered from that go-around is the persistence of "PYGMIES + DWARFS". I'd replace the Pinkoski-sentence with a statement that: One of Myers' creationist criticisms, the satirical use of "PYGMIES + DWARFS", has become a memetic tagline used by other science and political bloggers to highlight perceived logical fallacies of (insert NPOV wording here indicating that this is typically used by the political left when talking about the political right). Cite the original post, perhaps
Pinkoski's comic, and however many additional citations that wolud be needed to demonstrate that it's been used 1.) by other people, 2.) to criticize science arguments, and 3.) to criticize political arguments.
Sanguinity 21:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Myers did criticize Pinkoski at length. He tore apart him in several posts back in Sept 05. After the original post he set about totally ridiculing the poor bastard. Then recently he reposted the lot on the new server, with an explainer post. While it mentions that his motivation was people querying about P+G, it still fails to establish greater notabilty outside of a select insular group/club (see WP:SKOOL). Its also never referred to as an argument. Actually more appropriately, the term "PYGMIES + DWARF" logic is used. The setting behind the movement needs to be explained, or its really useless to the average reader.-- ZayZayEM 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly can be merged? Unencyclopedic content does not belong in any article. This article is completely unencyclopedic.
PZ Myers already has as much about this as is needed.--
ZayZayEM 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Notice, please, that my vote was and remains to merge with
PZ Myers. As far as I'm aware, the tagline is notable only within the circle of Pharyngula's readers, and not far beyond that.
Sanguinity 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please cite some sources of its use as a "generalised tagline" that are notable--
ZayZayEM 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge, reading up on this topic (Evolution-creation debates) just now, I didn't understand this phrase then it was used. Therefore, even though this is a very short article, I'd argue that the information is useful to the encyclopedia in that it highlights a part, if small, of a very important/common debate which people might not understand. Article does need some work, though.
Barnas 11:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has extensive information already on the alleged (my POV) Creation-evolution controversy-- ZayZayEM 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Cleanup
and MergeRich Farmbrough, 12:13 5 September 2006 (GMT). - Having done some research, it's really not worth being part of anything, but it is worth a very mini-artciel in case someone looks it up.
Rich
Farmbrough, 12:33
5 September
2006 (GMT).
- That's not exactly WP:WEB or WP:TRIVIA; I have stat-counting software on my website, people look up all sorts of weird crap, I don't think that's a reasonable case for notability.-- ZayZayEM 13:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge (preferable) with
PZ Meyers this has become a common phrase on
Evolution/
intelligent design boards by science supporters to tag nonsensical arguments.
Goatan 11:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- User:ZayZayEM has asked for some examples, Try looking at
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ or www.pandasthumb.org/ or www.talkorigins.org
It is definitely most popular on Pharyngula but appears in message boards on all three I have also seen it on others that are less well frequented by me.
Here are a few to start you of with from pandas thumb
"But how does this explain PYGMIES & DWARFS? ;)" http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/latest_fossil_f.html#comment-96276
"I haven’t read the full thing yet. I’m hoping it explains pygmies and dwarves." http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/finally_someone.html#comment-90893
Pandas thumb readers are certainly used to it. “That calls for another round of “how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??” … http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/super-mutant_ki.html#comment-39593 www.pandasthumb.org/
- Delete. I echo the judgement of Ealson- it just isn't notable. If an explanation is necessary within the ID page, it should be made there. Gabrielthursday 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with PZ Myers. It's notable. FeloniousMonk 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to PZ Myers I'm not convinced of its notability by itself but some of this makes sense to go in that article. JoshuaZ 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to PZ Myers, and ditto what Josh said. •Jim62sch• 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just merge it with PZ Myers, btw is it PeeZed or PeeZee? — Dunc| ☺ 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and/or Delete per MichaelSH and Kristjan Wager. Armon 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say Keep. It's notable as a meme, probably because it's a funny way of ridiculing a nonsensical argument, especially if a defense of creationism is the target. Merging it anywhere would reduce the quality and probably lead to bias that isn't wanted here. --
Switch 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- "because its funny" is not grounds for notability, meme or otherwise. -- ZayZayEM 06:01, 13 September 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 was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Tilman Hausherr
Is he notable? Per WP:BIO What proof? We need more proof than his Wiki friends saying so.
Let's leave aside for now the fact that this article was concidered for deletion a while back. He and his supporters cannot demonstrate enough notability for this article! What TV show or programme has he been on? Potters house 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, "never heard of him" is not a good deletion reasoning. I'm unsure how he meets WP:BIO though as the provided sources mostly make trivial mention of Herr Hausherr.-- Isotope23 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete He is no one special. I for one have never heard of the guy. If he can prove his notability then maybe, but just what is he notable for?— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Potters house (
talk •
contribs)
- Comment. Did you actually read any of the Wikipedia guidelines?? Did you read the first AfD? There were many strong compelling points proven there. -- Nishkid64 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Just because you haven't heard of someone does not mean they are not notable. He meets WP:BIO and he is considered one of the strong critics of Scientology. His article is linked in various other articles, as well. Apparently, from reading the first AfD, he is a very influential anti-Scientology figure in Germany. -- Nishkid64 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Commment Here is the first AfD for interested parties to read... and how does he meet WP:BIO specifically? I don't see anything that shows he meets WP:BIO, though I think this may be a case where someone doesn't meet WP:BIO, but the article should still stay because a compelling deletion reason was not given.-- Isotope23 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." He's not part of an enduring historical record, but he has made widely recognized contributions. -- Nishkid64 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think that this AfD by User:Potters house is in bad faith, and is related to my participation in the editwar for Potter's House Christian Fellowship. -- Tilman 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, this is a nomination made in bad faith by
User:Potters house in retaliation for
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Lee Clary (2nd nomination). Even though Mr. Clary already has an article illegitimately created under his stage name (
Johnny Angel (wrestler)), Potters house thinks that Mr. Clary should be entitled to two articles. --
Antaeus Feldspar 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Relevant comments only. Don't turn this into some edit war over bad faith nominations or retaliations. We will proceed with nominating for a consensus in a civilized manner. -- Nishkid64 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm willing to give a pass on WP:BIO for now because this nom makes no case for deletion and the last AfD was a consensus keep.-- Isotope23 15:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Clary has this type of notability but it was claimed that he had none or very little:
Oprah, Montel, Jerry Springer, Rikki Lake, Phil Donahue, Sally Jessy, Pat Robertson's 700 Club, Billy Graham's Radio show, Geraldo Rivera, Queen Latifah, Carol and Marilyn Real Friends, Montel Williams, A&E Investigative Reports, ABC World News Tonight, Bertrice Berry, Rolanda, The Today Show, A Current Affair, NBC's Donny Deutsch The Big Idea, TBN's Praise The Lord show, many national and international Newspapers and National TV Shows in Australia, England, Holland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, and Wales. He has appeared all over the Nation of Australia on ABC Radio as well as ABC's "Enough Rope" hosted by Andrew Denton also appeared with the Australian KKK leader on the Today show in Australia.
If Tilman cannot provide at least half of the notability of Clary then he should be deleted. Potters house 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (moved from the talk page, which we do not use for AfDs)
- Comment Sorry, that is not the way it works. We don't do comparative notability at Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines and each is applied to articles individually. Besides, last time I checked being on "daytime talk TV" wasn't much of a case for meeting WP:BIO.-- Isotope23 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, no new arguments from previous AFD other than "I'm mad about some other AFD". Please don't use AFD to attempt to prove points. Kuru talk 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - There are thousands, and thousands of critics of Scientology. He is not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Getaway ( talk • contribs)
- Keep - notable. Flying Jazz 02:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Regardless of first AfD and questions of retaliation, sounds pretty nn.- Kmaguir1 08:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Yeah, I have heard of him outside of Wikipedia, so nyah. =) I don't see anything particularly distressing in the previous AfD either, and what has changed its notability since then. At worst, this is merge material. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 10:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep one of the more outspoken critics of scientology.
ALKIVAR
™
14:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alkivar. Please be mindful of WP:POINT; not liking an AfD's result is not in and of itself a reason for a new AfD. -- Myles Long 22:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Having an article makes him feel good and it doesn't do anyone any harm. If he had complained about having one I would have voted to delete.
Steve Dufour 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That's ... not really the basis on which we decide AfDs. The feelings of the subject are almost wholly irrelevant to whether they have an article or not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have noticed many articles where the person or the fans of the person are the only ones who think he/she is notable. Steve Dufour 13:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If he was the first to coin the word "sporgery", there is no reason why he shouldn't be here. Yandman 10:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep His own feelings on the article are irrelevant, as are comparisons to other marginally related examples, but the article seems to establish notability. Robertissimo 11:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- keep He is well known as a scientology-critic person.
Redecke 11:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But where is the proof of his notability? I think he is promoting himself to be someone who is is not. Who says he is notable? Antaeus Feldspar claimed the
Johnny Lee Clary wasn't notable enough even after being on Oprah, Donahue, and about 10 other major TV show major newspapers etc. Johnny scrapped in on notability so I straight away thought that this guy doesn't stand a chance!
Potters house 12:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nick, I would be surprised if you could provide any evidence of your accusations that Tilman is "promoting himself to be someone who is is not [ sic]". In fact, I would be highly surprised if you could provide evidence that Tilman is promoting himself at all. This is in stark contrast to Johnny Lee Clary, who if I'm not mistaken created the original article on himself and (quite obviously) has been the recipient of heavy promotional efforts since. Johnny Lee Clary is not the first aggressive self-promoter we've dealt with. He isn't the first to try and demand his own article that reads like a press release; he isn't the first to interfere with the AfD on his article by erasing other people's words, and he surely wouldn't be the first self-promoter on Wikipedia to exaggerate modest indicators of notability and describe them as if they were proof (i.e., to use a notable example that I'm sure sticks in many Wikipedians' minds, "featured in the New York Times" turning out to mean "mentioned as an example in a single New York Times op-ed piece".) Clary may choose to make paranoid allegations about neo-Nazis on Wikipedia trying to oppress him (and you've chosen to go along with him) but in reality he has himself to blame. When Clary has shows that he has no moral scruples against making vicious, slanderous accusations against people who disagree with him, [31] and shows that he has no moral scruples against tampering with a discussion to try and force it to come out his way, [32] no one is going to take vague claims like 'he appeared on Oprah, at some point, and on Donahue, at some point, and that's proof that he's notable' at face value. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Administrators? Can we close this discussion? I think the nominator has made it clear that this AfD is not about the merits of the article under discussion but about punishing anyone who doesn't agree with the nominator about Johnny Lee Clary. --
Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Tilman is self promoting
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tilman_Hausherr&dir=prev&action=history and also clary has notability. He is the head director of Operation Colorblind, has appeared on Billy Graham's Radio show, Geraldo Rivera, Sally Jessy Raphael, Jerry Springer, Rikki Lake, Queen Latifah, Carol and Marilyn Real Friends, Montel Williams, Phil Donahue, A&E Investigative Reports, ABC World News Tonight, Bertrice Berry, Rolanda, The Today Show, A Current Affair, NBC's Donny Deutsch The Big Idea, and The 700 Club, TBN's Praise The Lord show, many national and international Newspapers and National TV Shows in Australia, England, Holland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, and Wales. He has appeared all over the Nation of Australia on ABC Radio as well as ABC's "Enough Rope" hosted by Andrew Denton also appeared with the Australian KKK leader on the Today show in Australia. What has Tilman got? Nothing. He is not notable. Also this deletion is warrented. How come one person JLC can be nominated for deletion by you Antaeus Feldspar but if your best friend Timan is nominated on the same grounds it is unwarrented? Pleae PROVE his notability or delete this article.
Potters house 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- sigh You know, it's really not necessary to copy and paste the entire laundry list of everyone who has ever purportedly deemed Clary worthy of attention every time the subject comes up. We've heard it all before and strangely enough, we don't really need to see it again on an article that has nothing to do with Johnny Lee Clary. As for whether this article was nominated on "the same grounds", that's obviously untrue: this is the only article on Wikipedia about Tilman Hausherr, unlike Johnny Lee Clary who had his article
Johnny Lee Clary nominated because it was redundant with the already-existing
Johnny Angel (wrestler) article. --
Antaeus Feldspar 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Forget clary then and just provide some proof that Tilman is notable. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_page Please PROVE IT! Remember this is not a vote page but a dicussion about whether he is notable or not. I see no proof whatsoever! Please stick to the subject at hand. IS HE NOTABLE if so PROVE IT.
Potters house 09:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You know what? I'm not going to bother answering that. I'm just going to let the absurdity of you, of all people, suddenly issuing a command to "stick to the subject at hand", hang in the air. --
Antaeus Feldspar 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't get all emotional about it. You won't answer because you CAN'T. Like Harry said below "He is just a little computer guy in Germany obsessed with with celebrities and hatred against minority religions." If not PROVE otherwise. Potters house 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You know what? I'm not going to bother answering that. I'm just going to let the absurdity of you, of all people, suddenly issuing a command to "stick to the subject at hand", hang in the air. --
Antaeus Feldspar 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Forget clary then and just provide some proof that Tilman is notable. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_page Please PROVE IT! Remember this is not a vote page but a dicussion about whether he is notable or not. I see no proof whatsoever! Please stick to the subject at hand. IS HE NOTABLE if so PROVE IT.
Potters house 09:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- sigh You know, it's really not necessary to copy and paste the entire laundry list of everyone who has ever purportedly deemed Clary worthy of attention every time the subject comes up. We've heard it all before and strangely enough, we don't really need to see it again on an article that has nothing to do with Johnny Lee Clary. As for whether this article was nominated on "the same grounds", that's obviously untrue: this is the only article on Wikipedia about Tilman Hausherr, unlike Johnny Lee Clary who had his article
Johnny Lee Clary nominated because it was redundant with the already-existing
Johnny Angel (wrestler) article. --
Antaeus Feldspar 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Tilman is self promoting
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tilman_Hausherr&dir=prev&action=history and also clary has notability. He is the head director of Operation Colorblind, has appeared on Billy Graham's Radio show, Geraldo Rivera, Sally Jessy Raphael, Jerry Springer, Rikki Lake, Queen Latifah, Carol and Marilyn Real Friends, Montel Williams, Phil Donahue, A&E Investigative Reports, ABC World News Tonight, Bertrice Berry, Rolanda, The Today Show, A Current Affair, NBC's Donny Deutsch The Big Idea, and The 700 Club, TBN's Praise The Lord show, many national and international Newspapers and National TV Shows in Australia, England, Holland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, and Wales. He has appeared all over the Nation of Australia on ABC Radio as well as ABC's "Enough Rope" hosted by Andrew Denton also appeared with the Australian KKK leader on the Today show in Australia. What has Tilman got? Nothing. He is not notable. Also this deletion is warrented. How come one person JLC can be nominated for deletion by you Antaeus Feldspar but if your best friend Timan is nominated on the same grounds it is unwarrented? Pleae PROVE his notability or delete this article.
Potters house 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But where is the proof of his notability? I think he is promoting himself to be someone who is is not. Who says he is notable? Antaeus Feldspar claimed the
Johnny Lee Clary wasn't notable enough even after being on Oprah, Donahue, and about 10 other major TV show major newspapers etc. Johnny scrapped in on notability so I straight away thought that this guy doesn't stand a chance!
Potters house 12:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete Tilman Hausherr is a nobody. He is just a little computer guy in Germany obsessed with with celebrities and hatred against minority religions. If Wikipedia portrays such people, it loses credibility. Hausherr is a bore. If you give him a Wikipedia page, you have to give one to thousand other Usenet loons too. Harry Turner 6:57 — HarryTurner ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Speedy keep. This is a transparently bad faith nomination. The previous debate closed as a consensus keep, and the only people in favor of deletion are single purposed accounts with less than 10 edits. RFerreira 18:35, 5 September 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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Bogan
I am sure that this nomination will be hotly contested, so I will explain my reasons carefully. Most of the article at present is either OR or unverifiable. I recently edited it to remove all this OR/unverifiable material, after which it looked like this. The remnants of the article were basically a dicdef. In short, I think the only thing that an article about 'bogan' can be is a definition of the usage of the word, encompassing its etymology and the full extent of its usage, to be sure – but this is what an entry in a major dictionary looks like. In short, this is one for the Wiktionary and not for Wikipedia. I am of course open to persuasion on these points. mg e kelly 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Neologism. There is quite a bit of stuff written on the subject, which is quite surprising for an article on a word. I personally don't know its notability in Australia and New Zealand, but it links to quite a bit of things on Wikipedia (nearly 100). However, according to
WP:NEO, we try to avoid writing articles on neologisms because
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This could be a candidate for a move to Wikitionary, but I think apparently that it's notable enough for Wikipedia. --
Nishkid64 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The amount contained in the article isn't a good guideline. Articles on pejorative stereotypes are original research magnets, that, unless given attention, just grow and grow as editors add their favourite personal novel contributions to the stereotype. It's exceptionally tempting for people to add their own personal views of what the stereotype is to such articles, or to use it to make sly (and not so sly) digs at their friends and enemies. Editors regularly have to throw out such additions to chav, for example, insisting upon sources. This article has not had the same attention paid to it, and cites no sources at all. How do we know that bogans are "prone to the use of marijuana", for example? How do we know that that wasn't simply made up by some editor who wanted to use Wikipedia insult their marijuana-using friend? The place to look to see whether there is a lot of stuff written on the subject is outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- But if you actually check out those 100 linking-to articles you'll find many are talk pages, are other class-based pejorative stereotypes like Riff Raff, Redneck and White trash, and for some reason several characters of soap opera Neighbours, like Sindi Watts, have bio articles that use the term. Article The Comedy Company describes how the word became popular. Asa01 23:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Bogan is a term used very frequently in Australia, esp in the Southern parts like Melbourne and Adelaide. Just as much as America has head bangers and the UK has Punks Aussies have Bogans.
Potters house 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Whether a word is in use isn't a relevant argument here. That's an argument for Wiktionary. The question to answer for Wikipedia, which you haven't addressed, is whether there is scope for an encyclopaedia article about the stereotype that the word denotes.
Uncle G 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Bogan culture in Australia is unique and has been often mocked on comedy TV show etc. It is the mullet culture, and are basically the opposite to surfies. In Northern Parts of Australia they are called "Westies." Skeg is another term often used, and is equivilent to a surfie. For cultural trends bogans are described in a hit sone "No body likes a Bogan." How people in nothern Australai don't know what a bogan is and thus don't really get the song. But when I explain the "Westie" connection they understand compleatly. Perhaps the "Westie" could also be incorporated. Terms like "bogan mobile" refering to certain old trashy holden cars, a bogan hair cut - similar to the Mullet, these are cultural terms and shoud be revealed for wikipedians.
Potters house 23:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Article
Westies (people) exists in WP already.
Asa01 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, that article has been the source (indirectly) of a recent AfD to do with Parochialism in Sydney, so perhaps this one (being the broader term, i.e. I've heard it used in Queensland) is the place to roll the entire thing up into. BigHaz 00:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Article
Westies (people) exists in WP already.
Asa01 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Bogan culture in Australia is unique and has been often mocked on comedy TV show etc. It is the mullet culture, and are basically the opposite to surfies. In Northern Parts of Australia they are called "Westies." Skeg is another term often used, and is equivilent to a surfie. For cultural trends bogans are described in a hit sone "No body likes a Bogan." How people in nothern Australai don't know what a bogan is and thus don't really get the song. But when I explain the "Westie" connection they understand compleatly. Perhaps the "Westie" could also be incorporated. Terms like "bogan mobile" refering to certain old trashy holden cars, a bogan hair cut - similar to the Mullet, these are cultural terms and shoud be revealed for wikipedians.
Potters house 23:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Whether a word is in use isn't a relevant argument here. That's an argument for Wiktionary. The question to answer for Wikipedia, which you haven't addressed, is whether there is scope for an encyclopaedia article about the stereotype that the word denotes.
Uncle G 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as the culture described is certainly notable in Australia (the word itself is a neologism, but it describes a cultural phenomenon, much like "goth" or "emo" IMO). That said, the article needs work - there'd have to be sociologists who've written on this, for a start.
BigHaz 22:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Google Scholar turns up nothing (except for a lot of people with this surname who've written journal articles) and searching Amazon turns up nothing. The nearest that I've found so far is
this, which is anonymously written and has no evidence of having been fact checked.
Uncle G 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll admit to being very surprised, but who am I to disagree with the facts?
BigHaz 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The places where I expect that this will be covered are newspapers. Please search
The Age and others to see whether you can come up with anything.
Uncle G 10:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- If we're looking for scholarly articles, Melissa Campbell, an academic at the
University of Melbourne has written a thesis and other articles, and given talks, on bogan culture. --
Canley 10:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- This comment seems to be based on [this
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/15/1026185158244.html] newspaper article. Campbell appears to be a graduate student, therefore only an 'academic' in a rather broad sense. The only evidence I can find of her work on 'bogans' is an abstract [here
http://www.emsah.uq.edu.au/mia/issues/miacp104.html] which does not provide material which would raise this article above the OR/dicdef level.
mg
e
kelly 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't wish to inflate Ms Campbell's academic credentials at all, but that reference that she was a grad student is from 2002. I believe subsequently she was a staff researcher for the Cultural Studies Dept, possibly not "academic" enough for some people's definition. Also, I was not intending to cite Campbell's MA thesis as a source, more to check her bibliography for these elusive "reliable sources", which I will do tonight. Should provide more info than an abstract and a couple of web links. -- Canley 05:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- This comment seems to be based on [this
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/15/1026185158244.html] newspaper article. Campbell appears to be a graduate student, therefore only an 'academic' in a rather broad sense. The only evidence I can find of her work on 'bogans' is an abstract [here
http://www.emsah.uq.edu.au/mia/issues/miacp104.html] which does not provide material which would raise this article above the OR/dicdef level.
mg
e
kelly 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- If we're looking for scholarly articles, Melissa Campbell, an academic at the
University of Melbourne has written a thesis and other articles, and given talks, on bogan culture. --
Canley 10:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- The places where I expect that this will be covered are newspapers. Please search
The Age and others to see whether you can come up with anything.
Uncle G 10:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll admit to being very surprised, but who am I to disagree with the facts?
BigHaz 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Google Scholar turns up nothing (except for a lot of people with this surname who've written journal articles) and searching Amazon turns up nothing. The nearest that I've found so far is
this, which is anonymously written and has no evidence of having been fact checked.
Uncle G 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - completely agree with Uncle G, this article is a magnet for editors to try and shoehorn in any old descriptions of people they don't like, or describe any tacky or trashy behavior. I keep trying to take out the long list of unverified exmaples, but any such deletions are regularly reverted. I was even called a vandal for deleting various things, even though each individual deletion was small and had a clear description to each edit. But maybe the only solution is indeed to move the entire thing to Wiktionary. Asa01 23:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per BigHaz. DXRAW 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Widely used word for a significant and verifiable subculture in Australia. There might be case for this as a disambiguation as there is the Bogan River, Bogan Shire Council and poet Louise Bogan. However, the culture is the equivalent of the chav. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable subculture. Lankiveil 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC).
- Delete, one for wiktionary until reliable sources have more than a dicdef on them. Andjam 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Neologism?!?!? People really ought to actually do the most cursory of Google searches before nominating articles for deletion.
Rebecca 04:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- And people really ought to look at what the nominator did and didn't say... Andjam 04:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep - if not speedy keep - this is NOT a neologism - the term is a well-known word that has been around for quite a while. Get your research and facts right before you nominate stuff for deletion. I'm sick of commenting on articles where people just haven't got the facts right. ( JROBBO 05:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
- Comment - the nominator did not claim that bogan is a neologism.
Asa01 05:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Too right I didn't! I claim that this article is a mix of OR and dicdef, which no-one seems to be disputing, so I'd like to know what rationale they are following for asserting that it should be kept. This word is in very wide usage in Australia, but that does not imply there should be an article about. 'Bogan' is a slur, not a subculture per se.
mg
e
kelly 08:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that it's a slur isn't necessarily here or there. One could argue that chav is a slur, and yet the subculture which is associated with the slur is notable. The same is true of other subcultures, the names of which are seen as slurs by some/all members thereof. BigHaz 08:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Too right I didn't! I claim that this article is a mix of OR and dicdef, which no-one seems to be disputing, so I'd like to know what rationale they are following for asserting that it should be kept. This word is in very wide usage in Australia, but that does not imply there should be an article about. 'Bogan' is a slur, not a subculture per se.
mg
e
kelly 08:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the Mullet (haircut), location (e.g., Elizabeth, South Australia), obsession with cars/motor bikes and anglo background are characteristics associated with Bogans in Adelaide. Paul foord 06:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per BigHaz. pfctdayelise ( translate?) 07:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
-
Strong delete The article really is a mess. It is a magnet for origional research and nothing more the a dictionary definition. It is not encyclopedic. --
WikiCats 09:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC) - Delete - Wikitionary is that way, furthermore the article in its current form has a lot of OR with a lack of sources. -- Arnzy ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons mentioned above. QazPlm 03:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Must Keep JC807 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.222.222 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep. I feel deletion is too strong an action here, as the "bogan" as an Australian cultural phenomenon is beyond doubt. I am also sceptical of the application of
WP:NOR here, but we are perhaps interpreting it differently. I will work to improve this article as I have found a significant number of references in the media and other publications. We can at least bring it up to "
white trash" standard(!). I think some of the more personal or regionally-specific observations could be pruned back, and uncited naming of "famous bogans" should definitely be removed except for fiction characters such as
Kath & Kim (CUBs),
Kylie Mole and Michelle Grogan and Ferret from
Fast Forward, which should nudge it above the dicdef standard. --
Canley 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment it seems to me that no-one in this 'discussion' has managed to assert how this article can be more than a dicdef, which was my original reason for nominating the article. My use of WP:NOR was merely to point out that most of the article is at present OR, and that that's all that pads it beyond a dicdef. Even the assertion of fictional characters as bogans is largely unverifiable, except in a couple of seminal cases where the word 'bogan' was specifically used. The wide currency of a word in no way indicates that there should be an article about it. mg e kelly 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment agree with Mgekelly comment. No one wanting to keep the page seems to be coming up with any external references, which is what will save the page and its content. Deciding that Michelle and Ferrett (or any of these other fictional characters) are bogans is original research unless an external source can verify that they are bogans. (Personally I thought that Michelle and Ferrett were intended to represent anachronistic
Mod Revival types with Michelle's platinum bob, black lipstick/white foundation combo and tight connie jacket and miniskirt - they are not like bogans at all.) It might be true that there are oddly dressed people around, and there are some commonly seen fashion trends visible, but for a Wikipedia editor to decide that these people are bogans or that a fashion look is that of a bogan is original research if there are no external references that designate the said people or fashion trend as that of a bogan.
Asa01 08:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment OK, I've posted a list of references to "bogans" I've found in the media on Talk:Bogan, so please tell me what you think. Point taken re: Michelle and Ferret, and I agree this is a large problem with the article - that much of its content is subjective categorisation. I'd be interested to know what people think of Melissa Campbell's (see above discussion) work or opinions on the matter (and she does by the way, class Michelle and Ferret as bogans [33]). Does she count as a reliable source (given that she was just a grad student)? Does the publication of her views and research in The Age make it more reliable or citable? Maybe post on the talk page as I don't want to clog up this AfD any more. -- Canley 11:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Stong Keep. I can't believe this is up for VfD, this is the Australian equivalent of Redneck (which also doesn't cite any of its sources by the way, for the stereotype list or anything else) and a valid article for the exact same reasons (unless you think Redneck can't be more than a dicdef). Some sections, such as "Contemporary Evolution", could do with massive cleanup or complete removal, and it could probably be better structured, but calling for its deletion is absurd. The current citation-needed spam is also pedantic beyond belief for an article of this type; things like the stereotype of bogans being "Culturally blue-collar" is not remotely contentious to anyone even familiar with the term. I found this within 20 seconds of searching. Others will probably be more difficult to cite directly due to the nature of the phenomenon we're covering here, but the principle is the same. I seriously question the possible agendas/motivations behind people who want this article deleted or are attempting to discredit it by spamming fact tags after each and every sentence no matter how non-controversial it is. -- Rankler 17:08, 5 September 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.
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.. NOT
This isnt a debate, a few votes is a completely meaningless process, how can it be an advertisement for something that existed more than 30 years agoo and was dissolved 25 years ago? wierd notions but then smashing a country's history is meaningless to most of you guys, look at the record (pun). Why dont you go and do some really important stuff. moza
- 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 was No consensus so keep. Tyrenius 23:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Myra Wilson
Not notable Mk3severo 16:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but has been on Robot Wars, and is therefore something of a public figure. Uucp 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable.-- Getaway 21:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Being a judge on Robot Wars pushes her over the notability limit in my view along with Martin Smith (academic) and Noel Sharkey. With all the pokemon characters and video gamecruft in Wikipedia, I'll look for any reason to keep real, living, smart people in here. Flying Jazz 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Smith and Sharkey are both Professors and have, therefore, much more notability. Also no references to published works. At the moment I don't see Wilson meeting WP:BIO. BlueValour 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Accepting reality TV contestants because they are on a popular TV show and rejecting a successful smart person like Myra Wilson because she is on a popular TV show and is in academia without a tenured professorship seems like complete nonsense to me. I really, really enjoyed Robot Wars when it was on PBS here in the states. I was a fan. I remember the house robots, I remember the spinny-spinny flywheel robot that chewed the place up, and I remember the judges. I want an article to appear that includes some details of my little enjoyable slice of TV pop culture and it might not happen because the subject of the article hasn't gotten tenure. Ridiculous. Flying Jazz 04:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I am with you all the way on Big Brother contestants and the like! However, there is already a substantail article on Robot Wars to which the material in this article can be added. BlueValour 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Flying Jazz, with the hope that this can be expanded. RFerreira 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep judging an internationally shown television show makes her a notable public figure.
ALKIVAR
™
19:40, 10 September 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 was keep. - Mailer Diablo 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Kalisto
Warez group article with no reliable sources. The only thing that seems to be verifiable is that it exists, which is a minimal claim of notability. No reliable news sources or anything. Delete as such. Wickethewok 18:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I guess the fact that it was RAIDED BY THE US GOVT isnt exactly noteworthy... and the fact they mention the group specifically by name means nothing... "Among the groups targeted by Fastlink are well-known organizations such as Fairlight, Kalisto, Echelon, Class and Project X, all of which specialized in pirating computer games, and music release groups such as APC."
[34] </sarcasm>
ALKIVAR
™
16:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alkivar - all that needed to be said was said. // Gargaj 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alkivar. -- Myles Long 22:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alkivar. bbx 10:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep what is today? National BSA day? Or deleting relevant articles day? First INC (PC) now Kalisto (Consoles). I am sorry for you guys who have only seen Games that came out of a box after a purchase at the local games store, but some did not have that much money when they were teens. Not to mention the being cool factor back in the days when we didn't knew better. -- roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:36, 6 September 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.
Courtesy blank
- 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 was Keep - I'm terminating this AfD because there is a unanimous chorus of two dozen keep votes, mostly speedy or strong, and this debate has dragged on for too long with no possibility of ending in deletion. - Richardcavell 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Aiden Ford
Non-notable fictional character, of interest only to fans of Stargate Atlantis. Pan Dan 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
For the same reason, I am nominating each of the other pages entirely devoted to a Stargate Atlantis character: Carson Beckett, Ronon Dex, Teyla Emmagan, Rodney McKay, John Sheppard (Stargate), and Elizabeth Weir (Stargate). Pan Dan 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Keep under snowball clause, user obviously has no idea of notability. Bad faith nom. thanks/ MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) What is the "snowball clause"? (2) Why are these characters notable? Wikipedia is not a repository of pop culture.
Pan Dan 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since when did they become signers, it's pretty obvious your accoun is an SPA (deletion) you may also like to read
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). (PS:
Wikipedia:Snowball clause) thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) I have no idea what this means: "Since when did they become signers, it's pretty obvious your accoun is an SPA (deletion)." Please explain. Pan Dan 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- (2) Seems to me, looking at
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), it would be appropriate to have brief descriptions of these characters on the Stargate Atlantis page. It is not appropriate to have full pages devoted to each character.
Pan Dan 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- 1=Single Purpose Account, 2=Why "Short summaries"? There main characters which could not be summed up in a paragraph. thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Re: SPA, I don't see why I need to defend myself, but if I must, go to my
user page, and you will see I have made substantive edits to "
Antonin Scalia," "
2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict," "
Snow", and others. I am not a single-purpose user. Second, that the characters cannot be summed up in a paragraph doesn't mean they're notable.
Pan Dan 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Care to show me whats not notable? thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The show Stargate Atlantis is notable. The characters are non-notable, and the articles don't assert the notability of the characters. The articles are mainly plot summaries.
Pan Dan 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Plot lines assert character notability. thanks/ MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The show Stargate Atlantis is notable. The characters are non-notable, and the articles don't assert the notability of the characters. The articles are mainly plot summaries.
Pan Dan 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Care to show me whats not notable? thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Re: SPA, I don't see why I need to defend myself, but if I must, go to my
user page, and you will see I have made substantive edits to "
Antonin Scalia," "
2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict," "
Snow", and others. I am not a single-purpose user. Second, that the characters cannot be summed up in a paragraph doesn't mean they're notable.
Pan Dan 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- 1=Single Purpose Account, 2=Why "Short summaries"? There main characters which could not be summed up in a paragraph. thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since when did they become signers, it's pretty obvious your accoun is an SPA (deletion) you may also like to read
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). (PS:
Wikipedia:Snowball clause) thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) What is the "snowball clause"? (2) Why are these characters notable? Wikipedia is not a repository of pop culture.
Pan Dan 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep They deserve their own pages and the pages are quite large, it wouldn't be a good idea to just list a brief summary of them on the Stargate Atlantis page considering their depth and size. Faris b 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Their depth and size is part of the problem. I could write a deep, long article about my dog, but it wouldn't be notable.
Pan Dan 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Of course your dog wouldnt be notable. The fact there main characters in one of the biggest sci-fi shows on air at the moment makes them notable. End of. thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I refer you to the page you referred me to,
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It is very clear: "Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." The problem with the articles on Aiden Ford, et al, is that they are not encyclopedic treatments: they are plot summaries, which do not assert the notability of the characters.
Pan Dan 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- How does it not? It is afterall a character biography. thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Whether you call them plot summaries or character biographies, they're not encyclopedic, they're not notable, and they belong--in greatly shortened form--in the main article on Stargate Atlantis.
Pan Dan 19:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You need to learn what isnt notable (A bio about you, your corner shop, a local unsigned band, et cetera (i can use fancy words as well
)) and what is notable (major tv shows, major people, major characters, etc.) thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- As I have tried to make excruciatingly clear, I believe it is appropriate to have an article devoted entirely to Stargate Atlantis--a major TV show. It is not appropriate to have an article devoted entirely to each major character on a major TV show. This is plain from
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).
Pan Dan 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then re-read it; "If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- A plot summary is not an encyclopedic treatment. Pan Dan 20:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then re-read it; "If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- As I have tried to make excruciatingly clear, I believe it is appropriate to have an article devoted entirely to Stargate Atlantis--a major TV show. It is not appropriate to have an article devoted entirely to each major character on a major TV show. This is plain from
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).
Pan Dan 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You need to learn what isnt notable (A bio about you, your corner shop, a local unsigned band, et cetera (i can use fancy words as well
- Whether you call them plot summaries or character biographies, they're not encyclopedic, they're not notable, and they belong--in greatly shortened form--in the main article on Stargate Atlantis.
Pan Dan 19:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- How does it not? It is afterall a character biography. thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I refer you to the page you referred me to,
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It is very clear: "Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." The problem with the articles on Aiden Ford, et al, is that they are not encyclopedic treatments: they are plot summaries, which do not assert the notability of the characters.
Pan Dan 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Of course your dog wouldnt be notable. The fact there main characters in one of the biggest sci-fi shows on air at the moment makes them notable. End of. thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have to say I simply agree: keep. Cristan 11:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Their depth and size is part of the problem. I could write a deep, long article about my dog, but it wouldn't be notable.
Pan Dan 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if nothing else it gives the Sci-Fi nerds something to work on. -- RMHED 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not taking the bait of name-calling, but the "fans of Stargate Atlantis," as I shall politely call them, have plenty of fora, I'm sure, elsewhere on the Internet. No need to clog up wikipedia with this stuff.
Pan Dan 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with being a Sci-Fi nerd, we all have our little foibles. --
RMHED 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, we do. And we all have places on the Internet to go to where we can enjoy our little foibles. Wikipedia is not such a place.
Pan Dan 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think your wrong there. Wikipedia is such a place for a major show like Stargate et cetera; But is not for a deletionist. thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Them's fightin' words, Matt! But as I said, I am not a single-purpose user, which you can see by visiting my user page. Pan Dan 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- As to your comment that was not a personal attack: Yes, "Wikipedia is such a place for a major show like Stargate." But no, wikipedia is not a place for one page devoted to each Stargate character. Pan Dan 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think your wrong there. Wikipedia is such a place for a major show like Stargate et cetera; But is not for a deletionist. thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, we do. And we all have places on the Internet to go to where we can enjoy our little foibles. Wikipedia is not such a place.
Pan Dan 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with being a Sci-Fi nerd, we all have our little foibles. --
RMHED 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not taking the bait of name-calling, but the "fans of Stargate Atlantis," as I shall politely call them, have plenty of fora, I'm sure, elsewhere on the Internet. No need to clog up wikipedia with this stuff.
Pan Dan 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- This nomination is obviously going to be a Keep otherwise you can delete pretty much every other article on fictional TV characters, and that ain't gonna happen. So come on just Speedy Keep it and be done. -- RMHED 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, one fictional TV character deletion at a time, and maybe we can clean the fancruft out of wikipedia.
Pan Dan 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Or maybe you could cdontribute and make the articles better without your fancruft you speak of? thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- For the third time, Matt, visit my
user page, and you will see I have made many substantive contributions to wikipedia.
Pan Dan 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's OR and uncited and thus you may not of been those IPs. thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, Matt, I can't prove those edits were mine. But they are. (Why would I go through the trouble to find those IP's and list them?) Anyway, you can see that as Pan Dan I've done substantive edits on Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. (Still don't know why I'm defending myself--'cause it's so easy, I guess.) Pan Dan 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- PS--I don't know what you meant by "OR". Please tell me b/c whatever charge that is I would love to defend myself from it.
Pan Dan 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- OR means original reasearch. American Patriot 1776 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's OR and uncited and thus you may not of been those IPs. thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- For the third time, Matt, visit my
user page, and you will see I have made many substantive contributions to wikipedia.
Pan Dan 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Or maybe you could cdontribute and make the articles better without your fancruft you speak of? thanks/
MatthewFenton (
talk •
contribs) 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, one fictional TV character deletion at a time, and maybe we can clean the fancruft out of wikipedia.
Pan Dan 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all Major characters in a major television program. I believe their is sufficient content to allow for a separate page, keeping in mind that the article will grow as the seasons of the program move along. DrunkenSmurf 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- My God, is wikipedia a log of plot summaries?
Pan Dan 20:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- For good or ill Wikipedia is what its contributors make it,
Pan Dan it's best to reserve your fights for battles that you have a chance of winning. Just surrender and it won't hurt at all. --
RMHED 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just trying to save Western civilization here, RMHED, one step at a time :)
Pan Dan 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sadly I think you're about 50 years too late, we're doomed, best to just invest your savings in a top grade bunker. --
RMHED 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Already done, RMHED. :) But seriously, re: your comment that "Wikipedia is what its contributors make it." Isn't wikipedia (1) an encyclopedia, and (2) not a democracy? Aren't the admins sensible enough to delete fancruft?
Pan Dan 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- This was all decided long ago by the community that this is encyclopediac. Whether it is to you is your own business, and none of the community's collective concern. Or else thousands of such articles would be gone. Why on Earth is this so offensive to you? If you don't care for this part of the content, there's another 1,500,000 pages you can busy yourself on.
rootology (
T) 00:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not offensive to me, and it's not true that "I don't care for it." I find it unencyclopedic--plain and simple. Pan Dan 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- This was all decided long ago by the community that this is encyclopediac. Whether it is to you is your own business, and none of the community's collective concern. Or else thousands of such articles would be gone. Why on Earth is this so offensive to you? If you don't care for this part of the content, there's another 1,500,000 pages you can busy yourself on.
rootology (
T) 00:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Already done, RMHED. :) But seriously, re: your comment that "Wikipedia is what its contributors make it." Isn't wikipedia (1) an encyclopedia, and (2) not a democracy? Aren't the admins sensible enough to delete fancruft?
Pan Dan 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sadly I think you're about 50 years too late, we're doomed, best to just invest your savings in a top grade bunker. --
RMHED 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just trying to save Western civilization here, RMHED, one step at a time :)
Pan Dan 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- For good or ill Wikipedia is what its contributors make it,
Pan Dan it's best to reserve your fights for battles that you have a chance of winning. Just surrender and it won't hurt at all. --
RMHED 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- My God, is wikipedia a log of plot summaries?
Pan Dan 20:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Admins, like all humanity are a mixed bunch. I doubt any kind of consensus could ever be achieved on what defines fancruft, at least this article isn't about bloody Pokemon, that alone is a small blessing.-- RMHED 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, most are major characters on a major series. Too much information to merge, and the show is ongoing. Individual pages are fine. Kuru talk 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Too much information to merge"? Exactly. The "information" on these pages is mostly plot summary. It's not encyclopedic.
Pan Dan 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Even trimming off the cruft would blow out the size of the main article. If you'd like to gain consensus to trim those articles down to reasonable size, then feel free. Work with those editors. I don't really see the need, though.
Kuru
talk 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) The main article on the show is OK b/c the show itself is notable. Not so the characters. (2) Trimming these articles down to size would reduce them to 2 lines each, which should then be merged into the main article.
Pan Dan 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You keep forgetting the "in my opinion" part. Most of those articles have a fairly large amount of viable content; random plot summarizations aside. I doubt that you'd be able to cull them down reliably by yourself, and I'm not seeing a great deal of willingness to work with the other editors in that project on your part. If you're proposing an "Othello Rule" for notability and maximum article size, please feel free to join in the policy section at the village pump, or set up at WP:FICT. Kuru talk 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) The main article on the show is OK b/c the show itself is notable. Not so the characters. (2) Trimming these articles down to size would reduce them to 2 lines each, which should then be merged into the main article.
Pan Dan 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Even trimming off the cruft would blow out the size of the main article. If you'd like to gain consensus to trim those articles down to reasonable size, then feel free. Work with those editors. I don't really see the need, though.
Kuru
talk 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Too much information to merge"? Exactly. The "information" on these pages is mostly plot summary. It's not encyclopedic.
Pan Dan 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:FICT main characters get their own articles when they will not fit into the main article. Does anyone read this anymore? -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- They get their own articles when the material is encyclopedic. Think Othello. Think Milo Minderbinder. Even the article on Anakin Skywalker has merit. But the articles I've nominated are basically plot summaries with no encyclopedic value.
Pan Dan 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just because you personally feel 1 writers work is more important then others does not mean we should delete the writers you feel are not important enough, I think the above "keeps" speak for the importance and relevance of these characters. I am not sure what led you to pick stargate, but fictional characters from notable programs are deemed important and encyclopedic here, if you feel the article needs to be cleaned up then you should put the appropriate tag not attempt to delete it. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets| 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, the articles are mostly plot summaries. A tag is not appropriate b/c if all the non-encyclopedic material were removed, only a few lines would be left--which should be merged into the main article on Stargate Atlantis. I don't know anything about Anakin Skywalker, but the article on him is fine b/c it shows some depth and notability. But these articles that I've nominated are, again, mainly plot summaries.
Pan Dan 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you are not arguing the subject is unencyclopedic then a tag is appropriate, it really doesnt matter because WP:SNOW anyway. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets| 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Try as I might, I am not able to make sense out of the 1st part of your sentence. I am arguing that these articles are not encyclopedic, therefore tags are not appropriate. Pan Dan 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you are not arguing the subject is unencyclopedic then a tag is appropriate, it really doesnt matter because WP:SNOW anyway. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets| 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, the articles are mostly plot summaries. A tag is not appropriate b/c if all the non-encyclopedic material were removed, only a few lines would be left--which should be merged into the main article on Stargate Atlantis. I don't know anything about Anakin Skywalker, but the article on him is fine b/c it shows some depth and notability. But these articles that I've nominated are, again, mainly plot summaries.
Pan Dan 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just because you personally feel 1 writers work is more important then others does not mean we should delete the writers you feel are not important enough, I think the above "keeps" speak for the importance and relevance of these characters. I am not sure what led you to pick stargate, but fictional characters from notable programs are deemed important and encyclopedic here, if you feel the article needs to be cleaned up then you should put the appropriate tag not attempt to delete it. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets| 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- They get their own articles when the material is encyclopedic. Think Othello. Think Milo Minderbinder. Even the article on Anakin Skywalker has merit. But the articles I've nominated are basically plot summaries with no encyclopedic value.
Pan Dan 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all per WP:FICT; all of these characters, given proper treatment (as they have been) would cause the Stargate: Atlantis article to become inappropriately long. As such, "[those] character[s] can be given a separate article[s]." Given the examples at WP:FICT, it seems rather simple that starring characters for a television show (those showcased in the opening credits, to include others) are not non-notable. Lastly, being of interest to only a select group of people in no way makes it prudent for deletion; excepting only a small percentage of articles — the majority of Wikipedia articles are only of interest to truncated groups of people. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You have a point there. That these articles are only of interest to fans of the show, is not a good argument as to why they should be deleted. The articles' fan base is, rather, a diagnosis of the reason why, despite their lack of encyclopedic content, these articles can be found on wikipedia. And the lack of encyclopedic content is the reason why these characters should not be given separate articles. The material is mostly plot description; it should be truncated and merged into the main article.
Pan Dan 00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't like the policy, get the policy changed. Arguing it on AfD is not the appropriate venue and a waste of bytes and bandwidth. As for only of interest to fans of the show, do you have access to the access logs of Wikipedia, and the referals or search logs to see what people are looking up? Or is this some general bias vs. pop cultural items...?
rootology (
T) 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) Do you fail to see the irony of calling this discussion a "waste of bytes and bandwidth"? (2) What is the appropriate venue?--not a rhetorical question, I really want to know. (3) I don't think I need to see access logs to know that nobody who has not seen the show, will ever, ever have occasion or desire to look up Aiden Ford.
Pan Dan 00:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why would anyone not interested in complexity theory look up NC, for instance? Or why would anyone not interested in being a bad guy look up molotov cocktail? Or better yet - why would anyone who has nothing to hide look encyption up? 207.234.147.96 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) Do you fail to see the irony of calling this discussion a "waste of bytes and bandwidth"? (2) What is the appropriate venue?--not a rhetorical question, I really want to know. (3) I don't think I need to see access logs to know that nobody who has not seen the show, will ever, ever have occasion or desire to look up Aiden Ford.
Pan Dan 00:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- That said, it seems that your objection is about the quality of the articles as they stand now, not that the articles exist. With nigh on three years of content, there is substantial information that they would be over-sized to be in the SG:A article anyways. Instead of asking/expecting that the articles be deleted, merged, re-written, and then re-forked into their own articles; why not simply annotate the articles as being written in an unencyclopedic tone {{ Inappropriate tone}}, express your concerns on the appropriate talk page, and perhaps take a hand in re-working the article to be better written. I still advicate keeping all listed articles, but would also support their bring appropriately tagged for needing work. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't like the policy, get the policy changed. Arguing it on AfD is not the appropriate venue and a waste of bytes and bandwidth. As for only of interest to fans of the show, do you have access to the access logs of Wikipedia, and the referals or search logs to see what people are looking up? Or is this some general bias vs. pop cultural items...?
rootology (
T) 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- You have a point there. That these articles are only of interest to fans of the show, is not a good argument as to why they should be deleted. The articles' fan base is, rather, a diagnosis of the reason why, despite their lack of encyclopedic content, these articles can be found on wikipedia. And the lack of encyclopedic content is the reason why these characters should not be given separate articles. The material is mostly plot description; it should be truncated and merged into the main article.
Pan Dan 00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all, the nominator apparently doesn't understand the scope of Wikipedia's coverage. Wikipedia isn't paper, there isn't a space shortage or a limit to the number of articles we can have. Bryan 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that wikipedia can, and should, cover much more than ordinary encyclopedias. I also understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Lengthy expositions of TV characters' exploits don't belong.
Pan Dan 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your (extreme) minority opinion. rootology ( T) 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- There are encyclipedias dedicated to nothing but lengthy expositions of TV characters' exploits. The Star Trek Encyclopedia springs to mind. Bryan 21:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that wikipedia can, and should, cover much more than ordinary encyclopedias. I also understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Lengthy expositions of TV characters' exploits don't belong.
Pan Dan 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep These include good thorough articles. There is no reason to delete them. Kundor 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, main characters of successful TV show. Not fancruft! -- Andromeda 23:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- (A word from the nominator.) It would be an understatement to say I'm swimming against a tide here. But it seems to me self-evident that these articles do not give the characters the "encyclopedic treatment" required by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) ("If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article"). These articles are each 2 lines of character description, and the rest is plot summary. That's not encyclopedic. That doesn't assert notability. It's rote description of plot. The solution: the 2 lines of character description should be merged into the main article on Stargate Atlantis, and the rest should be deleted. And, fans of the show, not to worry: I am as sure as I'm typing this that the material whose deletion I am calling for can be found on 10 other websites on the Internet within 2 seconds on google. Pan Dan 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Ill-advised nomination that is ignoring WP:FICT, or only selectively viewing it. Othello is OK, but not TV fiction? Better get rid of the Darth Vader, Frodo Baggins, and Jesus Christ articles whilst we're at it. Sheesh. rootology ( T) 00:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- First, (sigh, defending myself once again) see my
user page for evidence that I am a contributing member of wikipedia, not a troll. Way to assume good faith, rootology! Second, I have explained why the article on, say, Anakin Skywalker is fine, but the articles I nominated are not. The article on Anakin (and Darth, and Frodo--don't know why you include Jesus, he's a religious figure whether fictional or not) presents a compelling portrayal; the nominated articles are just plot descriptions. Third, my nomination is a straightforward application of WP:FICT, not a "selective viewing" of it.
Pan Dan 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I revised my comment. Please see: Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. This article is valid, as this is one of the "main" characters of the show--all of them are. They were all opening credits characters, therefore they are "major" to the show itself, which is certainly notable (4,000,000 odd viewers, etc.). I was making use of hyperbole as well. rootology ( T) 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- First, (sigh, defending myself once again) see my
user page for evidence that I am a contributing member of wikipedia, not a troll. Way to assume good faith, rootology! Second, I have explained why the article on, say, Anakin Skywalker is fine, but the articles I nominated are not. The article on Anakin (and Darth, and Frodo--don't know why you include Jesus, he's a religious figure whether fictional or not) presents a compelling portrayal; the nominated articles are just plot descriptions. Third, my nomination is a straightforward application of WP:FICT, not a "selective viewing" of it.
Pan Dan 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: See also from WP:FICT: Noonien Soong is an example of a minor, but still notable, character in Star Trek: The Next Generation, who has sufficient content to sustain an independent article. Same for all the major characters of a television show. Per policy. rootology ( T) 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Pan Dan down here since the page is giving me trouble. Proper venue to discuss is the talk page at the FICT policy, not by mass afding. Your own words indicate you may have done this to make a point about fancruft as you see it--that's not allowed per WP:POINT. I'd advise you to take it up at the FICT talk page if you're not happy with how our rules work currently. rootology ( T) 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep All - Per comments above Morphh 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- In response to zerofaults, pd_THOR, and others, I should make it clear that what I think is unencyclopedic is the content, not the tone or organization. As I said somewhere above, lengthy descriptions of characters' exploits should be deemed patently unencyclopedic. That's why I feel outright deletion, not a tag, was appropriate. Pan Dan 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Would you then qualify
Spock,
Josiah Bartlet,
Sharon Valerii,
Danny Tanner, or
Jim Brass under your same criteria for eventual deletion? —
pd_THOR |
=/\= | 01:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Having just taken a quick look at all of these, I would say this: Spock has become part of the broader culture, and the article makes this point. I would definitely keep that. (Maybe in 10 years the same will properly be said of the nominees for deletion.) The article on Danny Tanner is a (somewhat) compelling analysis of the character--not just a summary of his actions on the show--so I would keep that. The Bartlet article is also a (somewhat) compelling portrayal--and, as the actions of Bartlet invite comparisons with real life, the article could potentially be expanded. Valerii and Brass--I would argue those do need to be deleted, as they are not compelling, nor do I see any potential for them to be expanded. Those articles are just a description of the characters' doings--like the present nominees for deletion. A description of the characters themselves could be summed up in 2 sentences, and are. So I would insert those 2 sentences into the main articles for the TV shows, and delete the rest. Pan Dan 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- In response to rootology, I certainly didn't make this nomination to make a point about fancruft. I thought it would not be controversial that the nominated articles are fancruft. Wikipedia:Fancruft says: "One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevence, as opposed to their place in the real world. Articles on episodes of television series, or fictional characters in movies are more likely to be labeled fancruft if they are primarily summaries, biographies of made-up people, or collections of trivia that relate to the continuity of a series rather than its critical or social reception." This exactly applies to the articles I've nominated. Pan Dan 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all per precedent set by many similar character articles for other popular TV series. 23skidoo 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all per above arguments... and such... - Xornok 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all per Xornok. American Patriot 1776 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Speedy Keep to all Very notable charcters in a very notable show, not in violation of any policy. Tobyk777 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong speedy keep for all. -- SFH 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong speedy keep because the existence of these articles is well justified by the policies stated in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), just like the articles for Anakin Skywalker and Hermione Granger. Fancruft applies only to obscure information of interest only to a small group of hardcore fans, which is not the case here at all. Stargate is, in fact, wildly popular, rivaling Star Trek and the X-Files. I hope that Pan Dan will not make a nomination like this again, now that s/he knows that it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding. Noneofyourbusiness 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- From the nominator.
- First, I admit that in my nomination I didn't present my argument for deletion as thoroughly as I should have. This is because I truly thought the deletion should not be controversial (despite some here who shamefully assumed bad faith). So let me just re-emphasize the main point in favor of deletion that has come out in discussion: The articles are summaries of the characters' exploits--i.e. plot summaries (except for 2 lines at the beginning which should be merged into the main article). Therefore the articles:
- (1) violate WP:BIO because plot summaries don't assert notability of the characters,
- (2) violate WP:BIO because of the 100 year test: "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?", and
- (3) violate WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which says: "Plot summaries - Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer comprehensive, summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series."
- Therefore these articles aren't encyclopedic treatments of the characters. So the articles also fail to satisfy WP:FICT--"If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article."
- Second, there is no available source for "analysis, ...details on...achievement[], impact, or historical significance" per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, so there is no potential for the articles to be re-written or expanded to an encyclopedic treatment. This is why deletion, not tags, is appropriate.
- Third, on fancruft: Even though these articles are obviously fancruft, that's not a good reason for them to be deleted. But the fact that these articles have a fan base is a diagnosis of the reason why, despite their lack of encyclopedic content, these articles can be found on WP.
- Fourth, it is obvious that I've touched a nerve with some fans of Stargate. I understand what it must be like to have articles you've worked on very hard, and for a very long time, to be considered for deletion. I am truly sorry for that. But the fact remains that WP is not a place for fans of X to collect indiscriminate information about X. There are plenty of other places on the Internet for fanclubs.
Pan Dan 19:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not a single one of these points makes logical sense. Tobyk777 19:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- And none of them seem valid. thanks/ MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't feel that these articles are fancruft, but if they are then perhaps the definition of fancruft is too broad.
Noneofyourbusiness 20:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- In "Third,..." above, I explicitly admit that "fancruft" is not a good reason for requesting deletion. Pan Dan 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This character is absolutely notable and Pan Dan's entire comment about him only being notable to fans of SGA is rather offensive. There are millions of fans of the show. -- Voldemort 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) As in "Fourth...", above, I apologize to anyone I offended. It was a good faith nom, I thought this material unencyclopedic, and I stand by that. (2) I repeat my contention that summaries of characters' exploits are plot summaries which do not assert notability. (3) The fact that there are millions of fans of the show certainly explains why there is so much interest in putting and keeping this material on WP, and the fact that there are millions of fans justifies the article on Stargate Atlantis. But it doesn't justify the lengthy plot summaries whose deletion I am requesting, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, no. 7. Pan Dan 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. According to m-w.com, an encyclopedia is "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". Per this definition, I think the The Star Trek Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia as are the entries it contains. And if they're encyclopedic in that context, then I think they're encyclopedic in the context of Wikipedia, which I see as an encyclopedia for every niche. And if Star Trek entries are encyclopedic how are Stargate entries any different?
- See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, no. 7. Pan Dan 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Also, assume, for the moment, that your nomination for deletion succeeded and Stargate: Altantis only had one article. It'd then be expanded to such a point whereby editors would have little choice but to split it up into multiple articles. Soon, those articles would expand, and those articles, and so on and so forth, until you have what you have today. So even if what you were proposing did succeed, what's, really, the point? TerraFrost 04:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- You raise a good point. But the point I am trying to make is that narratives of fictional characters' exploits, with no "real-world context and sourced analysis," per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, no. 7, shouldn't appear on WP at all. Pan Dan 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep all Per above and so many, many more reasons. What's even more insane is that all of these are main characters, I could at least understand it if they were for some one episode random characters, but these ones are in over 20 episodes a piece! Konman72 06:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I just think this nomination is funny. Out of about 25 voters, the nominator is the only one who thinks this is fancruft. Many of the voters have argued at length about why the nominator is wrong. Never before have I seen a AFD with such overwhelming resistance to the deletion. Usualy, even if there is consensus to keep there are at least one or two people who agree with the nominator. Here there is unanamous consensus. I'm just think that's kind of funny.
Tobyk777 06:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's because the nominator hadn't heard of the
Wikipedia: Snowball clause before nominating.
Noneofyourbusiness 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- To show you how clueless I really am, I'll say this: Even if I had heard of the Snowball Clause, I still would have made the nomination, b/c I didn't think it would even be controversial, and I certainly had no idea I would be 1 against 1 million. Pan Dan 13:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's because the nominator hadn't heard of the
Wikipedia: Snowball clause before nominating.
Noneofyourbusiness 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I just think this nomination is funny. Out of about 25 voters, the nominator is the only one who thinks this is fancruft. Many of the voters have argued at length about why the nominator is wrong. Never before have I seen a AFD with such overwhelming resistance to the deletion. Usualy, even if there is consensus to keep there are at least one or two people who agree with the nominator. Here there is unanamous consensus. I'm just think that's kind of funny.
Tobyk777 06:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- keep
First they came for the Pokemon, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a 12-year old anime addict.
Then they came for the Stargate Atlantis characters, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a fan of bad science fiction (or whatever Pan Dan thinks SGA is).
Then they came for the articles on World War 2, and there were no editors left to speak up for it. 207.234.147.96 07:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the laugh, 207.234.147.96 (I mean that). As to the serious point you are making, narratives of the exploits of WWII heroes are appropriate for WP. Narratives of the exploits of fictional characters are appropriate for fan websites, not WP. See
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information (no. 7),
WP:BIO#Alternative_tests (100-year test), and
WP:FICT, no. 1 (non-encyclopedic coverage doesn't get its own article).
Pan Dan 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- 1) As it states, the presence of a plot summary is not grounds for deletion. Even if these articles consisted only of plot summary, which they don't, it would not be grounds for deletion, only cleanup/revision.
- 2) These articles pass the 100 year test. Probably. The very nature of the test makes it hard to say with 100% certainty.
- 3) As it states, major characters get their own articles if proper treatment of them would cause the main article to become overlong.
- In short, these three policies all say that we should keep the articles. Noneofyourbusiness 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the laugh, 207.234.147.96 (I mean that). As to the serious point you are making, narratives of the exploits of WWII heroes are appropriate for WP. Narratives of the exploits of fictional characters are appropriate for fan websites, not WP. See
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information (no. 7),
WP:BIO#Alternative_tests (100-year test), and
WP:FICT, no. 1 (non-encyclopedic coverage doesn't get its own article).
Pan Dan 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Re: your point #1, The "expansion and cleanup" required by no. 7 is not possible w/ these articles b/c it is not possible to give them "real-world context and sourced analysis" (see
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information). By the way, I note that the explicitly stated "Plot summaries are not grounds for deletion" (paraphrasing) was added today--probably in good faith, but that does sort of change the meaning of the policy, and maybe sd be reverted (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AWhat_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=73506100&oldid=73428962).
Pan Dan 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since this is fictional work, real-world context and sourced analysis is applied in an Out-of-universe perspective. Morphh 20:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Re: your point #1, The "expansion and cleanup" required by no. 7 is not possible w/ these articles b/c it is not possible to give them "real-world context and sourced analysis" (see
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information). By the way, I note that the explicitly stated "Plot summaries are not grounds for deletion" (paraphrasing) was added today--probably in good faith, but that does sort of change the meaning of the policy, and maybe sd be reverted (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AWhat_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=73506100&oldid=73428962).
Pan Dan 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- notable to WikiProject: Stargate
I'm certainly no wiki expert or anything, but I would think that the existence of the apparently legitimate Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate is a major point to consider in the discussion of notability of these articles. Certainly they are an important component of that WikiProject?
68.166.244.74 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep all nominated articles per above. Central characters to a notable TV series.
Chrisd87 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikiproject Stargate is a well organized, lagitamate wikiproject, with more than 40 members, 3 of which are admins. Among various other things, we are currently working to eleminate fancuft and to merge non-notbale articles into lists. Our project follows all policies and is just as lagitamate as any other, and more organized than most. Tobyk777 16:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Definately KEEP ALL as Elizabeth Weir is a charachter in stargate sg-1 and atlantis, and weir was the commander of the sgc at one point. The other charachters have similar reasons in my opinion - Stwalkerster 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 |
 | |
|
Articles to be written: Articles to be expanded/improved:
| ||
-- Tobyk777 16:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Main character in a notable TV show. Wikipedia is a repository of everything, and that includes pop culture. -- K e rowyn Leave a note 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
From the nominator. If this were a chess game, now would be the time to say "I resign." I gave it my best shot. Now (after more than 40K!) I want to withdraw the nomination. I apologize for what is now clear to me was an ill-advised nom as rootology said, since it had zero chance of succeeding, although that was certainly not clear to me when I made the nom. In fact I thought it wd be so uncontroversial that I used PROD before someone removed it.
Now that the debate is over, I want first to concede what I think are the three best arguments against my nom:
1. Inertia. These articles are so extensive, and have been on WP for so long, and are even part of a Stargate portal (God save us all!), that to delete them now would be disruptive to the portal and unfair to a relatively small but very hard-working chunk of the WP community.
2. Precedent. I assume discussions like these have come up before, whether formally in deletion nominations, or informally on talk pages, or both. The fact that articles like these have survived for such a long time despite such discussions, is precedent-setting, I suppose.
3. Fairness. If these articles were yanked, it would not be fair that hundreds, if not thousands (if not tens of thousands?--God save us all!) of comparable articles would remain, like the article on Soong which rootology mentioned.
I still think my basic argument is right: that WP is not an appropriate place for articles like these, including the Soong article, and WP would have a much better reputation if it cracked down on them. The fact that these articles are 95% plot narratives and 5% character analyses attests to their lack of significance to the real world today, lack of any artistic, philosophical, or literary merit, and certain lack of significance to anybody at all 100 years from now. So it's obvious to me that they're unencyclopedic faddish fancruft.
Worse, I get the impression that allowing these articles makes the WP community sort of like a high school student body, in that both are divided into cliques devoted to fads, rather than a cohesive community devoted to the whole WP project/high school sports & academics. There is a clique devoted to Stargate, and a clique devoted to Pokemon, and a clique devoted to Survivor, and a clique devoted to Goth. Leaving high school aside, whether I'm right about the existence of cliques on WP or not, I'm probably right that Stargate et al are fads which will be forgotten 100 years from now. And it seems to me that at WP, the proponents of fad projects should take them off of WP and go elsewhere on the World Wide Web, which is pretty darn wide and would accommodate, and certainly already does accommodate, each one of these fads.
So again, I apologize for the nom. I also apologize for being blunt about what I called "fads," which may offend some people. Especially, I apologize for the rant you just read, because I know now (thanks rootology) that the appropriate place for that rant is in a discussion like the one at WP:FICT, not here. I just want to say, thanks to all of you who have contributed to this debate. Thanks especially to those of you who thoughtfully engaged me in some particulars of the debate, even though you could have just cited WP:SNOW and walked off. Y'all probably feel this debate was largely a waste of your time, and you may be right, but for me this has been an educational experience as I am new to the procedural part of WP (though I have been contributing substantively to WP for quite some time as described on User:Pan Dan, ahem, Matt and rootology). I have no hard feelings towards anybody here (yes, even you Matt, though next time a newcomer adopts a snowball-in-hell position, don't assume bad faith), although I understand if some of you have hard feelings towards me. Anyway, see you around WP! May the force be with you! or whatever. :-)
Pan Dan 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Will Stargate be forgotten a hundred years from now? Maybe so. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whether something will be notable a century from now is inherently unknowable, and thus not a criteria for determining whether it's notable now. Assuming that Wikipedia still exists in 2106, these articles will be deleted by then if they've ceased to be notable. Currently, however, they are notable. Oh, and Strong Keep. Redxiv 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- With respect, you're way off base here. My argument that "Stargate will be forgotten 100 years from now" appeals to the 100-year test at
WP:BIO#Alternative_tests. It has nothing to do with the policy
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not relevant to this debate even if I am speculating about the future.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball would be relevant to a nomination for deleting an article that speculates about the future, and I'm not even claiming that these articles speculate about the future.
Pan Dan 03:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Or, put another way, Crystal Ball forbids articles from speculating about the future, whereas the 100-year test at WP:BIO#Alternative_tests invites debates about articles to speculate about the future. Pan Dan 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- With respect, you're way off base here. My argument that "Stargate will be forgotten 100 years from now" appeals to the 100-year test at
WP:BIO#Alternative_tests. It has nothing to do with the policy
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not relevant to this debate even if I am speculating about the future.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball would be relevant to a nomination for deleting an article that speculates about the future, and I'm not even claiming that these articles speculate about the future.
Pan Dan 03:46, 4 September 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 was delete all of them. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Daniel M. Shirley, The BSDS Production Company and Roanoke: The Lost Colony
|
| 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}}. |
A walled garden of vanity articles about a film maker, his company and his current production. Edited out of the latter is the fact that the movie is not due out until 2007. Vanity, not (yet) notable, crystal ballery. -- RHaworth 21:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All per reasons given by nom. Came across this when reviewing the article on Bertie Stephens, which I have already nominated for deletion. Agent 86 22:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep All. They are a credible source, and considering this is an 'encyclopedia', what harm is there in allowing articles that have truth and substance. Why do people search an encyclopedia? to find information about something. What do these articles provide...truthful information. Ive seen more crap in more 'notable' articles.
- —The preceding comment was added by 82.43.72.117 ( talk • contribs). [35]
- Keep All as per reasons above.
yesselman 14:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- —The preceding comment was added by 82.43.72.117 ( talk • contribs). [36]
- Keep All RHaworth noted the fact the movie's not yet released, however future movie releases are allowed and i believe a stub has been added now
Oliver Pereira 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- —The preceding comment was added by 82.43.72.117 ( talk • contribs). [37] [38]
- Keep All Feel its unfair to say its a walled garden, when it's linked from and to 'roanoke' based articles Bullard21 13:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep All ghits seem credible linked to film which external links seem credible
- Keep All The Wikipedia guidelines state Vanity articles are "empty of any interest to anyone".I find it hard to believe that a movie on an extremely famous subject can be "empty of any interest to anyone".
- Keep All I don't have a problem with it, seems to be informative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.7.29 ( talk • contribs) .
Guidelines also state. "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous". So exactly how can articles be deleted based on one individuals 'mini' research on the subject claiming 'no notability' 82.43.72.117 09:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The closing admin may wish to review the edit history for this discussion. It appears most of the preceeding entries were not made by their purported author but by User:82.43.72.117. Agent 86 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep All I don't have a problem with it, seems to be informative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.7.29 ( talk • contribs) .
- Delete all three per nom's reasons. Vanity and POV, crystal ballery, no non-primary sources.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 'Delete all as per nom. It's vanity, and fails verification. -- Whpq 13:47, 6 September 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 was - Delete - The main point raised by the deletes is that there is a problem in WP:OR in determining what/who is a critic. The keep advocates do not address this particularly well - CltFn is the first, and says "Its a list , like any other wikipedia lists of", which is subsequently seconded by a variety of users. There is a problem in that problems which were cited for deletion were not addressed. Angry inquiries to my talk page. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
List of critics of Islam
Article *must* rely on OR to decide who's a critic and who isn't Frescard 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum: I guess my original motivation for submitting this article was a bit brief - but to me it seemed like a clear-cut case that only needed a brief notice, but obviously it does need some more explanation:
- While this list may be "interesting" and "timely", that alone does not justify inclusion here. The main hurdles it has to overcome are
Verifiability and
No Original Research.
- Verifiability: Classifying a person as a critic is very hard to prove. First of all, what is a "critic"? Does he have to reject Islam altogether? Does he have to hate it? Or is it enough to just be dissatisfied with certain aspects? Then - even if a clear definition could be agreed upon, how will inclusion in this list be determined? A brief quote might be helpful, but what if it's taken out of context? What if that person later changed his mind? What if the person approves some parts of Islam, but rejects other parts? Which gets us to the next hurdle:
- No Original Research: Who will decide who fits the criteria of being a critic? The WP editors? That will be a lot of judgement calls to make, and will probably only end up in an edit war. Islam-opponents will try to classify everybody as a critic, and Islam-proponents will try their best to achieve the opposite. Unless we have a third-party source that did the classification already, these are too fundamental a judgement to make for editors.
- Delete - while this could be referenced, it isn't, and does nothing a category couldn't handle better. Yomangani talk 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - It is markedly improved from the state when nominated (well done to those working on it), but there are still many "critics" listed without any citations to back up the claims, plus some questionable citations ("imprisoned...for blasphemy", for example, doesn't strike me as NPOV way of assessing whether somebody is a critic). Yomangani talk 14:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as proposed. A category would have the same problems. Gazpacho 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Its a list , like any other wikipedia lists of.-- CltFn 01:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete No criteria for inclusion, and I can't see one that wouldn't be original research. However, a category can work, as the guidance on assigning categories is to keep the number minimal and to use only the ones most associated with the subject - so the only people in it would be those highly known for criticizing Islam as a major portion of their (encyclopedically relevant) life work.
GRBerry 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Lowered (to the extent it matters) my opinion to Weak Delete. The List has improved since nomination by addition of reasons some are deemed critical. This material would not be replicable in a category. There seems, however, to be no coherent criteria for inclusion yet, so that concern still needs to be addressed. I still don't see one that wouldn't be original research, so I still think deletion is the right answer. GRBerry 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, bad list, WP:NOR, POV list. If not, category should be included, but it will also have the same problem. -- Ter e nce Ong ( T | C) 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Informational quality in itself does not warrant deletion. Check deletion guidelines.
Germen (
Talk |
Contribs
) 13:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. BhaiSaab talk 03:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per CltFn Bakaman Bakatalk 03:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I think this might be better as a category, but it could have value as a list. To have value as a list each name should perhaps include a book or article they wrote that criticized Islam. See Category:Books critical of Islam to aid that.-- T. Anthony 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wholly pointless--Aquinas stole all of his theology from Arab Aristotelians, etc. Lots of people criticize Islam, a list to that effect is to difficult to put together.- Kmaguir1 08:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Stole is rather unfair. He adapted much from them, but from that he went in a new direction applicable to Catholicism. It's like saying Dante stole from Vergil or that Marx stole from Hegel.-- T. Anthony 08:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - as per Terence.-- Kitrus 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Lists are important, and this is a hot topic. -- Britcom 12:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Valuable tool for those wishing to explore related information.
Germen (
Talk |
Contribs
) 13:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - Article has no references/reasons given for inclusion of the people listed, obviously a bias from the author (of the article) to paint/label certain people as anti-Islamic and which seems to be the case. - ResurgamII 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Lack of Informational quality is not a valid reason to delete an article.
Germen (
Talk |
Contribs
) 13:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This article documents the perception of Islam in this eyes of historical figures. Very interesting topic and useful in locating sources .-- Amenra 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete because this list is worthless unless we attempt to define critical first. Just about every Muslim scholar has had a problem with something the academic community would call Islamic. Amina Wadud doesn't like many salafi tendencies Ibn Wahhab doesn't like Sufis. They are all critics in some sense. We could narrow this down to non-Muslim critics but then we have to figure out who is Muslim and who isn't--which, I think we should be able to agree that self-identification is the important aspect but it will inevitably lead to vandalism with people removing Amina Wadud and Rashid Khalifa because they "aren't Muslims". As it stands now this list is completely anecdotal. Does it matter that Dante had a few lines critical of Islam? It seems to me that's about the same as putting Mel Gibson into critics of Judaism. I think we should agree that critics applies to people who have made actually critically studied Islam. Wansbrough and Crone (as far as I know) don't get into moral judgments about Islam but they question the typical assumptions of Qur'anic origins. The main issue we need to deal with is Muslim critics of various aspects within Islam. To call them "reformers" is rather aggrandizing and just about every Muslims author I can think of fits this category in some way. How do we deal with that? gren グレン 11:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I could be misunderstanding those who worked in it, but I think this list means people who are critical of Islam in any form rather than a particular element of it. The most obvious being people who think the Qur'an and Muhammad are morally repugnant, but I imagine it could also mean something less severe. Like people who feel that the Qur'an and the basis of Islam is based on false notions or write about why they feel Islam is inferior to other religious or philosophical positions. Some of this could dovetail into general critics of religion, but I think they're wanting people known for focussing on Islam. (Or if not they should want names of people who focussed their harshest criticism on Islam)-- T. Anthony 09:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Meets all the requirements of WP:Lists, and is very notable as Islam is a very prevalent religion and a powerful world force. Mugaliens 15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak provisional keep. The nominator's argument for deletion is essentially "oh no, there could be a content dispute about inclusion", which is unpersuasive. This is one of the few lists that could be a valuable encyclopedic resource. But the article as it stands - just a list of names without comment - is very unhelpful and reeks of WP:OR. I'd support deleting it in a later AfD unless all entries are individually referenced and sourced, e.g. " Joe Schmoevich - Bozarkian Member of Parliament who sponsored a bill in 1985 to outlaw the sale of the Koran, source: Bozarkian Chronicle of 12 June 1985". Sandstein 17:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It pretty sad how even here the contributions are done clearly in accordance to the "party-line".
The pro-Islamists would like nothing more than having this list disappear as quickly as possible, and the anti-Islamists (as well as, of course, the authors/contributors) are vehemently against its deletion. And, just like in the articles, arguments are twisted to suit each one's purpose...
One positive surprise that came out of this though, was the discovery that there are some truly independent and neutral editors out there, who aren't attached to any fixed POV, and who work to defend WP, not their own propaganda. Perhaps there is still hope...;) -- Frescard 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well said mate, couldn't have said it better myself but just for the record , this article was started by JuanMuslim, so I guess our little theory as nice sounding as it is, does not hold water--
CltFn 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't quite see what the fact that the list was started by a Muslim has to do with anything. Perhaps the original motivation behind creating this list was different from its current use. But I'm talking about now. And if you look at the contributions of the voters there is a 100% correlation between their attitude towards Islam and how they voted.
Of course, as I said, there are some editors where it's impossible to tell from their history what their personal POV is. That's how it should be. But as soon as an editor's contributions and votes become predictable, he has most likely become an opinion pusher. -- Frescard 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)- I think this would be better as a category and there is no other "List of critics of X" articles at the moment. That said I voted weak keep because I don't see why there can't be. There are people known for their writings critical of Islam so I don't see a problem with a list in theory. There are also people known for their writings critical of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Catholicism, Environmentalism, George W. Bush, and television. A list of critics on those could also be fine too if done right. Or it could all be avoided, but I decided to go weak keep to err on the side of caution wrt deleting.-- T. Anthony 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't quite see what the fact that the list was started by a Muslim has to do with anything. Perhaps the original motivation behind creating this list was different from its current use. But I'm talking about now. And if you look at the contributions of the voters there is a 100% correlation between their attitude towards Islam and how they voted.
- Well said mate, couldn't have said it better myself but just for the record , this article was started by JuanMuslim, so I guess our little theory as nice sounding as it is, does not hold water--
CltFn 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Vsion 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per norm. Similar articles have been deleted in the past because defining critic is problematic, peoples are living persons who my dislike the label, and OR required in defining them.-- Tigeroo 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom and gren. For example, Edward Lewis is listed there but he is not a critic. Indeed academics usually don't define themselves as critics though they may criticize particular aspects of Islam. Polemics do. -- Reza1 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The statement about Lewis is just dealing with problems concerning the list as it stands now, not whether it's good or bad.--
T. Anthony 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- My point is that how one can define who the critics of Islam are? How can one deal with the controversy and possible edit warrings? The article is inherently very prone of that. Again we have the
WP:OR problem. I will change my vote if all editors agree that only those who have identified themselves clearly and unambiguously as critics of Islam as a whole (rather than being critics of certain practices or traditions) should be listed there. (i.e. around 99% of people listed there should be removed).
Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, a Shia Muslim religious authority, is listed in that article. I think he may sue wikipedia for that :D. --
Reza1 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- He must have been in an older version. I took out the Muslim reformer section because that seems like a separate issue to me.--
T. Anthony 14:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind, he was there I just took him out when removing that section. Also I put a few names back in that section.-- T. Anthony 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- My concern is not really whether reformist Muslims are critics of Islam or not. It is that whether a consensus would be possible in which one is considered a critic of Islam if he/she identified himself/herself clearly and unambiguously as critics of Islam as a whole (rather than being critics of certain practices or traditions). I don't think so, since this would mean that almost all of the people listed there should go away. -- Reza1 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- He must have been in an older version. I took out the Muslim reformer section because that seems like a separate issue to me.--
T. Anthony 14:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- My point is that how one can define who the critics of Islam are? How can one deal with the controversy and possible edit warrings? The article is inherently very prone of that. Again we have the
WP:OR problem. I will change my vote if all editors agree that only those who have identified themselves clearly and unambiguously as critics of Islam as a whole (rather than being critics of certain practices or traditions) should be listed there. (i.e. around 99% of people listed there should be removed).
Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, a Shia Muslim religious authority, is listed in that article. I think he may sue wikipedia for that :D. --
Reza1 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per norm. I would have supported this article if there was a definitive criteria for considering someone a "critic" -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. If particular editors are having trouble acertaining what constitutes a "critic", that's a problem with the editors in question, and not with the article concept itself.-- Mike18xx 02:18, 6 September 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Kingdom Hearts Showdown
|
| 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}}. |
Non-notable per WP:WEB. Just about all Google hits are actually for Kingdom Hearts: Showdown of Fate. RaCha'ar 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is an interesting game and it is a lot of fun. Also, a lot of people are interested in this game. Dark Angel, KH Showdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.122.164 ( talk • contribs) - Note: Signature was added by Cipher343 ( talk · contribs)
- We want our site to be heard, and that requires Wikipedia. It's one small step to being well known, and if well known is what you want, your gonna get it in some time. Our game and forum are unique, they test creativity, and everyone has some sort of creativity in them. So, for the sake of other people, let this page live!- Sora, KH Showdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipher343 ( talk • contribs)
- As mentioned in the article Kingdom Hearts Showdown is hosted on inivision free which is a free message board website. You are almost gauranteed to not find it on google as these boards very rarely appear on google and other search engines. - Riku KH Showdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwarz ( talk • contribs)
- This is a good board and we need more people to join. It's entertaining and fun also.-Braig KH Showdown
P.S. add the link to your favorites Maxsdev 02:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above admissions that it's a little-known game trying to gain exposure. Wikipedia is for things that are already notable, not to help you get there. Fan-1967 02:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a fan created game(which automatically hurts it's chances of deserving an article), on a non-notable website. Fan-1967 is right in that Wikipedia is for things that are already notable, not to help something become notable. TJ Spyke 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Even so, put yourself in our shoes, you have a board in a DESPERATE need of new members, wikipedia is one of your few options to turn, I think you'd go with Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipher343 ( talk • contribs)
- Please read What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a free bulletin board. There is zero chance that this article will be allowed to remain. Sorry, but you'll need to come up with a Plan B for drumming up members. Fan-1967 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You win...
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ATTY 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete umm.. yeah. WP:WEB, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR... etc.. per the article itself: "This site is pretty much one huge forum, members, as well as guest can post about things in topics created by the users." -- Kunzite 04:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Editors pretty much slayed themselves. Danny Lilithborne 06:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep You claim Wiki is for things that are notable. Wouldn't other people find it interesting that several fans who played and enjoyed the Kingdom Hearts series got together and created a text based game on it and maybe they would like to be apart of that game.
Redwarz 18:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You do have to read Wikipedia's policies on what's notable and what's not, though, which is why I linked the WP:WEB policy when I let you know about this AfD. Please read that again. I understand your guys' rationale for this article, but unfortunately, it won't fly here. - RaCha'ar 18:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a failure of WP:WEB. -- Hetar 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per reasons above. — tregoweth ( talk) 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete self-admitted advertisement. I'll also add that the advert is entirely original research without using verifiable and reliable sources and has a clear POV. It also has elements of a game guide. -- TheFarix ( Talk) 19:06, 2 September 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 was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Bertie Stephens
|
| 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}}. |
NN person, fails WP:BIO. Sparse IMDB entry of little note, and not impressive number of ghits, many of which are not for this person. FYI: this may be part of a walled garden, see the AfD on Daniel M. Shirley and others. Agent 86 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Blood red sandman 23:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep All Says not an impressive number of ghits, many of which are not for this person. Well i Know of Bertie and searched finding bar 1 every result was related to him for first few pages. He's not just a filmaker which is probably the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.72.117 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep All As above (bar knowing him), plus it seems bio appears on more than Imdb as listed for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.6.78 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep All Not quite sure how this is against the rules as I found the infomation on the internet and is clearly not promoting someone, but maybe I don't know all the rules User:JamesFarington
- Comment It appears that the previous three comments are all from single purpose accounts that have edited nothing but this and the other articles forming part of the walled garden. Agent 86 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom -- Whpq 13:38, 6 September 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 was delete both, Wikipedia is WP:NOT for things made up in school one day --- Deville ( Talk) 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Teeterdil, Dilboard
|
| 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}}. |
This is a non-notable game that violates WP:NFT. There is one Google hit, and it is a personal blog. Deprodded by creator. Erechtheus 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page because it is exclusively an instrumentality of this game:
Erechtheus 00:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well its not a huge game yet, but it will be soon, many of my friends all over the San Francisco Bay Area play it. It is a great game, please don't shut it down. It is a part of our lifestyle now, read the article, sir - Widereceiver19
This is a real game that could end up huge. We have an official website, and it is the new skateboarding, it is an underground sport that many like - Widereceiver19
- Delete both articles. See WP:NOT (particularly "Wikipedia is not a publisher of..." "original inventions" and "Wikipedia articles are not: Self promotion or advertising"), and WP:NFT. Wikipedia has articles on things that are already notable, not things that may become so in future. If in time it does become notable then it will be an apropriate subject for an article, but not before. Thryduulf 00:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFT and as advertising (article says, "But for now the founders wish to spread the Teeterdil word to all."). -- Merope 00:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If this becomes notable someday, we can have an article on it. But it is not notable now. Heimstern Läufer 01:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete it is a notable game i can't believe you guys havent heard about it. Its played in the bay area and thats what counts, many things on this site are far less important than Teeterdil, Cmon man, you guys be trippin — Preceding unsigned comment added by widereceiver19 ( talk • contribs)
- Delete Man, you straight trippin', quit frontin' on us. This mofo hellas non-notable, only one Google hit up in this mug. Cap it like Tupac. - Elmer Clark 03:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Now you guys are being racist, please stop making fun of my race, and then maybe we can talk. You are not giving the great game of Teeterdil a chance. -Widereceiver19
- KEEP! I am from California, and i see peopleall the time playing teeterdil outside my house, of course, iam too old to play, but it seems like a very fun game, and my son plays it almost every day, please keep this article - John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.121.29 ( talk • contribs) — 4.245.121.29 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- KEEP! This is a notable game, i play it all the time, please leave it alone - Widereceiver19
- KEEP! this is a great game. just because people not from the Bay Area don't know it, doesn't mean it doesn't rock. rock the teeter. sweet. -truckinator— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.14.70 ( talk • contribs) — 67.169.14.70 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. Mushroom ( Talk) 01:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both,
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --
Stormie 06:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are wrong stormie, it was made up in school one day, but it has grown in to the Bay Area's favorite passtime among young teens. You shouldn't be prejudice against our game, give it a chance, many people know about it! --
Widereceiver19 21:26 PM, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure you'll be able to provide links to articles in newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle, then, reporting on this sport which is the "favorite passtime" of young Bay Area teens? -- Stormie 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are wrong stormie, it was made up in school one day, but it has grown in to the Bay Area's favorite passtime among young teens. You shouldn't be prejudice against our game, give it a chance, many people know about it! --
Widereceiver19 21:26 PM, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - made up, with no sources. -- Whpq 13:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Wasn't basketball, football, and even baseball made up one day? How do you expect this game was brought to existance? By Aliens or something? It has been around a long time. It was made in 2005 and has grown exponentially. you can love it or leave it -- Widereceiver19 13:39 PM, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User has voted twice. Also, in response to your claims: yes, those sports started out non-notable. Had Wikipedia existed when Abner Doubleday (or whoever) first came up with baseball and he'd tried to add it, it too would have been deleted. Once the sport achived notability, however, only then was it an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia entry. If and when Teeterdil gains a sufficient degree of notability (as defined by Wikipedia:Notability), it can be added (provided sources are given, etc). Until then, it is a non-notable sport known only to a small group that is in no way, shape, or form notable. - Elmer Clark 20:44, 6 September 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.
- ^ "Drivers To Be Smarter With SpeedAlert Software". AusIndustry. 20 March 2006.
- ^ "THE COOL COMPANY AWARDS". Australian Anthill. 1 August 2006.
- ^ "Secrets of Australian ICT Innovation Competition". IT Secrets. 10 April 2006.
- ^ "successful e-entrepreneurs". MyBusiness. 1 July 2006.