Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Centralized discussion |
 |
| Discussions |
|---|
| Conclusions |
[edit] April 28
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. While there were more delete than keep votes, most were simply "per nom", and what is and what is not notable is not established by us, so saying "only gone for 42 hours" and "kids go missing all the time" completely misses the point. If news sources (and thus a large number of people) found it notable, then it meets our standards. (Aside: not finding it in Google News and a lack of current event tagging should not be surprising for an incident that happened in 2003). The article provides multiple references to backup the notability claim, and thus, should be kept. Turnstep 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Floriberta Jiménez Torres
Tried to prod, but was reverted so afd'ed as a result of this. Wikipedia is not a newssource, my opinion is that this is more or less a regional event, the person in question is not notable, and as such should be deleted. She was only gone for 42 hours, and like it or not, kids go missing all the time, many of whom are kidnapped. Bjelleklang - talk 23:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd like to see this article prove itself better. At the moment I'd have to support if I were forced to vote. MyNameIsNotBob 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Simply not notable. dbtfztalk 00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Unfortunate, but nn. -- MusicMaker5376 00:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - general subject is notable; individual may be notable in context of list or article about events on a larger scale. -Ekajati 01:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; what general subject is that? Melchoir 02:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, definitely not notable --Deville (Talk) 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Most of the Google hits for her are Wikipedia mirrors. --Metropolitan90 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --TorriTorri 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. SorryGuy 06:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ekedolphin 07:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not last night's local news bulletin. -- GWO
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Who in the hell is that person? 63.173.47.193 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The subject of the article was an innocent child put in a life threatening situation at the hands of US governement officials. Nomination is an example of Systemic bias. The article is clearly noteworthy. davidzuccaro 16:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Shit happens. And it's very unfortunate when it happens. But it happens all the time, and this person/event is not notable enough for our encyclopedia. Wait until she becomes a leading pro-immigrant activist. ;-) Grandmasterka 18:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)- If you are aware of other instances of US government officials endangering the lives of innocent children through either incompetence or malevolence then I for one would want to hear of them. However I think this victim is only one one very few. Hence she is notable.davidzuccaro 05:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely not-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - How can this be non-notable?! Luka Jačov 21:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Very small untagged stub about a current event without a current event temaplate. General Eisenhower 21:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I searched the major periodicals online and found absolutely no mention of her. I would suspect that the article's claim "Her case made the news world wide" is a bit of an overstatement. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 23:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- If major peiodicals fail to report an event, the event and the people involved are not necessarily not notable. davidzuccaro 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- El Vocero in Puerto Rico had an article about her. Futhermore, I saw her news on online editions of newspapers in Argentina, India and Russia. If "Her case made the news world wide" is an overstatement, then "The Pope is a religious man" should be considered an overstatement too. This was a long time ago, not yesterday night. Antonio Bosnia Martin
- If major peiodicals fail to report an event, the event and the people involved are not necessarily not notable. davidzuccaro 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --serbiana - talk 23:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -per nom, nn
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC) - Delete Per nom. ILovEPlankton 02:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --GTubio 12:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No googlenews hits; Wikipedia is not a news source. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Subject was major Hispanic media news. This is not a current vent , it happened more that a year ago. Hundreds of children are kidniapped everyday, not many are found inside a trunk. Florencia was. 558 Google hits. Antonio Flerencia! Florencia! Martin
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per the exact reason Bottesini voted Delete: major periodicals did report the event. Note that a few of them spelled her name "Floriberta Jiménez Tomás":
- Also Keep per Bjelleklang's nomination; see Jennifer Wilbanks - we do keep articles about people who were "only gone for 42 hours", or otherwise become famous through short-lived sensational news stories. Even Mexican people. AnonEMouse 20:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep due to new coverage evidence presented. It appears now that she does have major news coverage, in a less loathsome way than Natalee Holloway. And please, assume good faith. Grandmasterka 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete News coverage does not necessarily confer encyclopedic notability. Eusebeus 21:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Actually, it does. WP:BIO, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". AnonEMouse 22:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Grandmasterka. --estavisti 18:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aftab Ahmed Vohra
Prodded as unverified CV of a CEO, deprodded as appears notable enough [1], but a quick google search turns up a mere 14 distinct hits on his company [2] and 15 hits on the man himself [3] (which expands to 29 if you drop the middle name [4]), so we bring it to AfD for further review. Suggest Delete on grounds of nn. Eusebeus 00:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Try searching Aftab Ahmad Vohra Thatcher131 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination, nominator omits deprod citation of articles showing subject is treated as notable in relevant national press. Nominator shows an unhealthy preoccupation with targeting figures from non-Western cultures for deletion.Monicasdude 00:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. Only a few very trivial mentions in minor press sources. Most hits on the name are Wikipedia or mirrors. dbtfztalk 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Reads like someone's resume, and the parts that are verifiable aren't particularly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a free CV hosting service. There's no assertion that this particular CEO is special. Brian G. Crawford 01:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete from this non-western - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nothing in article is verified which causes the problems here. Web CVs should be subjected to utmost scrutiny, unfortunately this doesn't stand up right now.Needs the WP:HEY, which in this case would be: If verified as executive leader of a notable company, with additional influential commercial responsibility within Lahore, and article completely stripped of POV, unencylopedic info (member of Gymkhana club?) and edited for standard of English, I'd be happy to reconsider the matter. Deizio 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nice effort with the research and cleanup, still not convinced that business in Lahore revolves around him but enough for a Weak keep from me. Deizio 09:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, fails notability standards, Monicasdude is on a "remove all PROD tags" crusade. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 02:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn per WP:BIO.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
HoldAnother case where it wouldn't kill us to wait a while. CEO of a Pakastani company should be as notable as a CEO of a US company of similar size (relative to the country's economy). Nomination is an example of Systemic bias. Is google really valid for a Pakastani company? I don't know. I would prefer to wait and see if some Pakistani editors can tell us that this is either not verifiable or is notable and help us rewrite.Thatcher131 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)- Lexis/Nexis has 20+ articles in Pakistani news sources in the last two years. I will add some to the article. Thatcher131 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Lexis/Nexis has 200+ articles under spelling Aftab Ahmad Vohra with 250 G'hits (vs 40 G'hits for Ahmed) Thatcher131 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- He seems not to be notable as the owner of a chemical business but reasonably notable as VP of the Lahore Chamber of Commerce, he gets a fair amount of news coverage for trying to bring outside businesses and investment to Pakistan. Thatcher131 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I wasn't sure at first whether the level of notability I could demonstrate warranted a keep, but based on several new keep votes below, I agree he should be kept and hopefully improved upon by local experts. Thatcher131 15:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 04:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:BIO failed --MaNeMeBasat 05:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. SorryGuy 06:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Thatcher131. Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 11:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per good faith nomination by the nom. DarthVader 13:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kuzaar 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Thatcher131. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Thatcher131. Notability shouldn't be U.S.-centric. Amcfreely 23:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Thatcher131. Quite notable. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you know something about the subject could you improve the article any? Thatcher131 01:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. He gets eight hits in the Pakistani Daily Times on Google News[5], which, considering that there may well be more hits in Urdu, indicates notability in the Pakistani business world. u p p l a n d 06:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Perhaps it would be useful for the AfD habitués to review the section "Foreign languages and non-Latin scripts" at the Wikipedia:Search engine test page. u p p l a n d 06:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Chamber of Commerce guys are normally notable. Plus Thatcher131's done enough looking around to convince me. Hornplease 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning towards merge (which doesn't need deletion tools, a redirect is fine). Mailer Diablo 03:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Natalie McDonald
Nn person, nice story but person is not notable. Should be merged as a little reference into the relevant Harry Potter article, and then deleted. Bjelleklang - talk 00:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge then delete as per nom. Nice story, but nn, unfortunately. -- MusicMaker5376 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per nom into Minor Harry Potter characters, then redirect Natalie McDonald, or even keep. Daughter of a friend of J. K. Rowling, inspiration for a minor character in Goblet of Fire, inspiration for human-interest news story... none of these things are notable alone, but together I think they come close. --Allen 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. --TorriTorri 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete don't mean to be heartless but this nn. --Eivindt@c 04:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I searched all over google and other search engines. All I could find were various fan sites and forums which repeated this story...but not one actual news source. I think this is a hoax. I can't find anything respectable to corroborate this story. IrishGuy 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and don't merge, as per IrishGuy. There is a strong possibility that it is a hoax, so it should not be merged unless it can be verified by a reliable source (the article cites a fansite). -- Kjkolb 06:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The character is obviously real, which can be confirmed from the book. The little girl is real: the source quoted in the article is an interview with J. K. Rowling in which she speaks of having met the little girl. If you want to go on record as claiming that JKR perpetrated a cruel hoax you had better find better reasons than "I think it's a hoax". I ckecked the website for the source—Maclean's in Canada—and they appear not to have any archives for 2000: this is why sites like Quick Quotes Quill exist: to preserve ephemeral stuff like this for when it has expired (this is even assuming that this article was ever published online: if it was paper-only, where are you going to look?). As for merging into Minor Harry Potter characters, this little girl is not a character, she is real. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 06:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- comment Nobody said that J.K. Rowling perpetrated a hoax. Rowling wrote a book with a character named Natalie McDonald. Other people ascribed a story to this character that may not be factual. I still have yet to see any confirmation beyond fan sites. J.K. Rowling's official site makes no mention at all of this. IrishGuy 17:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: the person and the story is real enough, but not notable to have an article of it's own. Would fit better into the list of minor characters, where the background of the character could be referenced. Bjelleklang - talk 11:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep JK Rowling is very very good at dispelling rumors and hoaxes surrounding her books. The Leaky Cauldron, one of the most respected HP sites out there even ran this story, however the best I can do is find the google cache of this since it is rather old. [6] from back in july of 2001. One newspaper that originally ran the story http://www.theglobeandmail.com , only keeps archives to January of 2002, hence the reason it is difficult to find the original. This is a real person and I think notability, (however minor) has been established. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. -- GWO
- Merge per above. -- Tangotango 11:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A very sweet story, and I believe it to be true. However, I don't think that a single, one-time name-only mention in any fictional work is enough for an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- ""merge""-71.3.116.233 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep not really notable, but the character is OBVIOUSLY, GLARINGLY real. Go do original research and you can see for yourself that Natalie McDonald is in there. For the time being, keep until we can ask J.K. Rowling, WB, or whoever to confirm this story. If it's false, delete before it becomes an urban legend. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Goblet of Fire or with Minor Griffindors.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tori Kelly
Delete nn child artist, could be notable enough for inclusion when album is released, but not at this moment. A Google search comes up with 4 results for "Victoria Tori Kelly", and less than 650 for "Tori Kelly", of which many appeared to be from various forums. Bjelleklang - talk 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- decent amount of television exposure. -- MusicMaker5376 00:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, fair amount of coverage and appears to have been signed to a major label. Maybe look at again later to see if anything developed. Good nomination, though. Kuru talk 01:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't think it's a good idea to keep articles based on the possibility of future notability, but if we're pretty sure she's about to come out with an album on a major label, then I think it makes more sense to keep the article than to delete and recreate later. I won't vote keep, though, because I don't think there's a policy supporting my opinion on this. --Allen 01:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A lot of people get signed by record labels without ever actually getting an album released. Until somebody at Geffen formally announces a release date, the album should be considered crystal ballish. Fan1967 01:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete If there was more info about the album I'd be inclined to a wait in see attitude, but winning a minor television show and being on or two others isn't notable. JoshuaZ 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't a hit show, but it was a nationally broadcast show. So, it really fits in the middle, and shouldn't be called minor. It's not like she just won a local talent contest. --Rob 09:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, barely asserts notability. --Terence Ong 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 05:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep has had sufficient success to be deemed notable. --Rob 08:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per norm. Non notable, as has been said. If she releases some albums, gains a following, and actually sticks around for a while, that is a different story. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to become a forum for bios of every minor musician on the planet---press agents would love that! --Charles 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete per nom. We can afford to wait until she has released an album. Kimchi.sg | talk 18:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Has achieved sufficient success to be barely notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Siva1979 --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Catboy
Subject fails to satisfy notability requirement for living persons. Folajimi 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Catgirl, i.e. revert to original version. Current version appears to be vanity by User:Widdop. dbtfztalk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Catgirl per Dbtfz. --Allen 01:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Catgirl which was the original and better version. Thetruthbelow 01:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Catgirl. --Terence Ong 04:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - nn - but I truly fail to see the logic in redirecting this to Catgirl. A catgirl is a girl with catlike features; they're common in pop culture, whereas male counterparts are nearly unheard of. We could move Catgirl to Cat-person and redirect both "Catgirl" and "Catboy" to that page, but, frankly, I think a better solution is just to out-and-out delete Catboy. --Hyperbole 05:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'd like to point out that many (most?) of the characters in the musical cats were catboys, that the main character of Final Fantasy IX was a catboy, and that the term shows up enough elsewhere that it deserves discussion. However, that seems to be done in Catgirl, although that article is fairly poor in general. Captainktainer 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Hyperbole. -- Kjkolb 06:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Dijxtra 07:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Hyperbole. JIP | Talk 07:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Do not redirect/merge with catgirl, Catgirls are not relavent to this person. Beno1000 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn & is not relevant to Catgirl --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Just to clarify, I don't think any of us "redirect" voters are suggesting that Simon Smedley has anything to do with catgirls. We're saying that catboy should redirect to catgirl because catboys -- that is, male humans with cat ears and tails -- are relevant to catgirl. If you look at catgirl, you'll see that it does discuss catboys, in the fourth paragraph. --Allen 04:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This hasn't much to do with catwoman or catgirl or catcalls. Its just some obviously mediocre radio host. Though the bit on controversy had me enthralled.thenormalyears
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ni parolas Esperante
Yahoocruft, fails WP:WEB. Or, to be international about it, from the Italian AfD: "Gruppo di discussione su Yahoo. Non enciclopedico IMO." Melchoir 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's a Yahoo group. Such groups aren't encyclopedic in themselves, but if this is significant to Esperanto it can be merged or linked to from that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, it's a Yahoo group without any evidence or claim of notability, and it seems to have 184 members? That seems quite small for a Yahoo group. --Deville (Talk) 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Google just got about 600 hits. It is not very notable yet.--Jusjih 05:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 06:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable Yahoo group. JIP | Talk 07:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --TorriTorri 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Mets501talk 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn, per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bloguje.cz
Non-noteable. See: Wikipedia is not... Ich 01:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:WEB - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn blog host Deizio 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, remarkably non-notable --Deville (Talk) 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 05:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 06:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Richardcavell 09:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable website. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Totally nn --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMantalk 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 merge into Genetic fingerprinting. - Liberatore(T) 16:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tommie Lee Andrews
Prod was: "insufficiently notable criminal. somebody had be the first rapist convicted by DNA, and I don't think too many people want to know exactly who that was." Deprod was: "Object to prod, nomination does not state valid grounds for deletion, Wikipedia includes many subjects notable as 'firsts.'" Well, maybe some of these firsts oughtta get deleted. The article communicates nothing new about the history of DNA in crimefighting, and is about an otherwise routine criminal. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per that crazed Russian dude. Conflates news with notability. Eusebeus 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. First, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and this sounds like newspaper material. Second, He may merit a mention in genetic fingerprinting, but he's not important enough for his own article. Brian G. Crawford 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously the article sucks, but the subject has potential. He does four times better on Google than Colin Pitchfork, who has a decent article. If you want references, there's Written in Blood: A History of Forensic Detection and The Casebook of Forensic Detection: How Science Solved 100 of the World's Most Baffling Crimes. Melchoir 01:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:BIO.--Isotope23 02:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with a merge if it helps reach consensus...--Isotope23 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Melchior. Genetic fingerprinting is a revolutionary technique in forensic science; this seems like a big enough event. --Deville (Talk) 02:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - a cursory mention in an article about genetic fingerprinting is all he deserves -- Hirudo 02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to genetic fingerprinting, he is a common criminal only notable in that context. JoshuaZ 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, well, that's really what I meant. I have no qualms with a sentence on Andrews being added to the article on the technique, and I think it would be perfectly proper. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There is already a mention of him on the Genetic fingerprinting page. It has been there some time, although I recently updated it. Ted 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, well, that's really what I meant. I have no qualms with a sentence on Andrews being added to the article on the technique, and I think it would be perfectly proper. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per JoshuaZ. —porges(talk) 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - seems no different than Colin Pitchfork. And, from the citations, came before him as well. I'd hate clogging up main articles with such things. Ted 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Joshua; this will have the result of keeping his name as a redirect, which I think he is notable enough for (though not his own article). Thatcher131 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Good point about the redirect. JoshuaZ 04:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per User:JoshuaZ. Under no circumstances should this comment be interpreted as my suggesting that an article on this person should not exist in the future if there is enough verfiable information to spin off from genetic fingerprinting. Jkelly 04:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to genetic fingerprinting. --Terence Ong 06:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a separate article. Wikipedia should include firsts when they are already notable as such. (To take a rather extreme example, we wouldn't write off the Wright Brothers for just being another pair of amateur pilots.) I also don't care for the "Wikipedia isn't a newspaper" argument: sure it isn't, but if the article sounds too much like a newspaper, just rewrite it. --Saforrest 06:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per JoshuaZ. The difference between Andrews and the Wright brothers is in their history — were this an article about the person/people who came up with fingerprinting, then it'd be an easy keep. Outside of being the first to get nailed, there's nothing really notable about Andrews. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 11:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per above. He's a small part of the history of a wider subject. Friday (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Doesn't deserve it's own article. Could use a mention in genetic fingerprinting, though more for the date that it was first used than the actual crime.
- Merge per JoshuaZ --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, interesting and notable person. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 18:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Rimstead
De-prodded, one-line article. Subject appears to have been an opinion columnist for a Toronto tabloid in the 70's and 80's [7]. 79 unique, 253 total hits on google is low, but de-prod asserted meeting the 5k+ readership standard at WP:BIO. That standard applies to "authors, editors, and photographers" but pehaps not "Page 5 columnists", so another debate that should be given the full treatment. Deizio 01:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, stub clearly fails any attempt at being an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zoe --Deville (Talk) 02:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleteper WP:BIO. I'm not convinced that 5K+ readership should be extended to newspaper columnists.--Isotope23 02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)- I have no objections to the latest version.--Isotope23 14:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as it fails to provide the context to be a stub article. No prejudice against a subsequent version that is at least a stub is intended. GRBerry 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Keep - new version at this time is a good start. GRBerry 17:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Delete Per Isotope. If it did apply every small town newspaper writer would be in here. In any case, I don't like the 5k guideline anywsy. No prejudice against recreation of a version that makes a good argument for notability. JoshuaZ 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Need to think about the new version, will abstain for now. JoshuaZ 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)- I prodded, but I'm throwing a wrench into the Afd works. Please review the latest edit. -- Robocoder 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiably a published author and columnist. Not obvious to me what the problem is beyond the article needing cleanup. Jkelly 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- The original article read simply, "A popular writer for the Toronto Sun." -- Robocoder 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Deizio, even the current version. He does not appear to be exceptional and only the smallest of newspapers would fail to meet 5,000 readers. -- Kjkolb 06:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 08:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per Robocoder's valuable revisions; clearly meets notability standard for published book author (Prentice-Hall) as well as having award named after him at major Canadian university. Monicasdude 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I have located significant sources through Lexis/Nexis (which has a longer memory than Google) and will be updating accordingly. Thatcher131 17:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The revisions are good enough to verify notability, in my mind, and if Thatcher131 can make some adjustments to the article to make it more encyclopedic, I don't see why we couldn't keep it. ekedolphin 00:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 19:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the rewrite ... and I really like WP:HEY. AnonEMouse 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep not very notable, but rewrite is solid and subject squeaks by. Eusebeus 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep New version is much better and demonstrates possible notability. JoshuaZ 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the rewritten edition. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep somewhat notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eric Siegel
This article is obviously a vanity article. This person who first created this article is "ESiegel." This page should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy pertaining to vanity pages.--Wikster72 01:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity article. -Ekajati 01:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity, reads like a resume. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. If he was really nominated for an Emmy and the musicians he allegedly worked with are notable, he might be notable. But I could not verify any of this. dbtfztalk 02:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- That was puzzling to me too. There's an IMDB entry for an Eric Siegel, but he's an actor and not the same as the current subject (and has no awards or nominations listed, either). A search on the official Emmy website for the subject's name doesn't yield anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, vanishizzlespamcraftisementastic --Deville (Talk) 02:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I can overlook the WP:VAIN issues, but it falls very short of WP:BIO.--Isotope23 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Isotope23. SorryGuy 06:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable biography article. JIP | Talk 07:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity article. ekedolphin 07:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - hopeless vanity. Note the 'charitable' stub. - Richardcavell 09:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete complete vanity --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, does not meet WP:BIO. Vanity article. — TheKMantalk 23:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete, after discounting sockpuppets . Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blue Diamond Clan
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
Non-notable online clan. Clans are only generally considered encyclopedic if they compete in sanctioned organizations like the Cyberathlete Professional League. FCYTravis 02:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the only way for a gaming clan to be notable is to kill a bunch of people, commit suicide or have extremely notable members, like heads of state. -- Kjkolb 06:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and User:Kjkolb. JIP | Talk 07:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 10:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn forum --ES2 13:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep,I believe we are notable considering we are the biggest successful DS Online Clan as well as one of the first(not the first). -ptfreak
- Keep,I think 600 members is considered notable. We would just like to get the recognition we deserve as possibly the largest Nintendo DS clan on the internet. -N64BOY39
- Keep,I personally see the Blue Diamond Clan as one of the best video game clans and most succesful of all time. There should be no reason for deleting an article on one of the the greatest and most successful clans.If you do not belief us check us out. bdc.clan.pro
- golferwerd
- Delete,I personally believe that there is no point in having this article here, as it was purely created to advertise their clan. Also, it is just a Wifi DS Clan. Maybe the best (in golferwerd's opinion [but not mine]), it's just a Wifi DS Clan. You could hardly get a clan to be any smaller and specific yet be of any importance.
- James Vanderbilt
- Keep,The Blue Diamond Clan may seem unimportant to those people who do not play DS Wifi games, but the importance of articles is relative. To people involved in the Nintendo gaming community, this article holds value. Therefore, it should not be deleted. - Lynn
- Keep,I dare you to find another DS Wifi Clan that is:
1. More Populated and 2. More Successful than the BDC. This Webpage should stay on because the BDC is the best DS Wifi clan out there. The BDC has a unique arengement of people and each and very visit to the BDC is always fun. There is always something to do there be it games or talk about random stuff. All the other DS Wifi clans have already collapsed but the BDC is as strong as ever. Also, commiting suicide does not make a clan notable. Just.....dangerous. Again, digg.com must have found the BDC notable because the gave the BDC a 10, but its just only the perfect score right? ~Crazyforkillua[BDC's Sheik Smasher Expert]
- Keep,The clan is large, and still growing, showing great potential. I can see why one may not want every single clan to write an article, but this clan is very successful. As for it not being notable, like was said, if you personally don't care about online gaming, then you probably wouldn't think is was noteworthy, but that's an opinion. Anyone interested in online gaming may find it interesting. Also, I didn't find this article to be an advertisement any more than any other Wiki article that has a link to the source. Anyway, why would one advertise on Wikipedia instead of a site more heavily frequented by video gamers? -Thorn
- Keep,BDC is the biggest WiFi clan on the internet. Period. Also the most successful. And quote from the top of this page "Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!" So, how does it hurt Wiki to have MORE information? Explain that to me. -Nintendofankid
- Keep,BDC is one of the best clans I have ever been in. I have been in tons of clans before for different reasons, but this clan actually... How you say it touched me. (Not like that pervs <_<) Anyway without this clan... I don't know maybe I wouldn't be here. This clan is just more than a ds clan to some, but a part of some peoples lives. Before some other person comes and flames that last sentence I just said I would like to say... I know it may seem nerdish or whatever you people say is wierd and not common to you. Just remeber that a person is a person no matter what. Plus I'm going off topic and just probably blabbing stuff out, so I would like you to remeber that BDC is more than a clan, but more like a family - Zuto
- Keep, I agree with Nintendofankid and Zuto - Bacon&Eggs
- Keep,the Blue Diamond Clan is the most successful and most notable Wi-fi clan out there. We have 600 members and if you call that unnotable then your opinion on here shouldn't matter, as you wouldn't know much about a wi-fi clan. You can go on the BDC to play games, or to just hang out and chat. And as Zuto said to some people the BDC is more then just a clan, to some it's family. It will be a serious injustice if you delete the Blue Diamond Clan article. After all, more articles mean more visitors for Wikipedia, which means more success. And that's what is wanted, right? ~ Joe, a.k.a JoeWise6
- Keep,this clan is great. I joined the day I got Mario Kart DS. I came across this clan on gamefaqs. Someone was advertising so I joined. I expected it to be one of those "other clans" that usually dies because of non-active members. I thought to myself, "I'll just use this clan to make wi-fi friends to play on Mario Kart." Little did I know that this clan would take a piece of my heart with it. I am now very active and the clan is thriving is ways I didnt imagine. I love it so much I sneak on at school (shh). If you were to chose a wi-fi clan, chose BDC. I promise you that you WILL make friends and that you WILL have a great time. - abc123
- Keep,as Lynn has stated, this article holds value to those involved. The Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection community is a relatively new community, with plenty of clans being created each day. The Blue Diamond Clan is among the oldest and is currently the most populated clan of this type. This article holds valuable information. If an article about the most popular clan of a certain online service is not valuable, then what is? This clan deserves an article, especially for being a quintessential Nintendo Wi-Fi Clan, and for being the apex of these clans in general. - Katie, a.k.a. "Valkyrie"
- Keep,BDC is a threshold in Nintendo's growing online community. It has brought hundreds of Nintendo's fans together to meet and share everything from memories to funny videos. It's an online community where everyone knows everyone and where we stick together like a family. The goal of the article is not to advertise, but to inform, as does every other article on Wikipedia. BDC has pioneered and helped shape Nintendo's WiFi community, and is guaranteed to only expand and become more notable, especially when Nintendo Wii is released. I really hope BDC can keep its article, it means a lot to me. -Nick a.k.a. phoenix
- Keep,I was SO bored until I found BDC. I always have someone to talk to or play against. And I'm sure people will appreciate this page as much as I appreciated the article on Digg. This shouldnt be deleted just because noone commited suicide or noone in this clan is famous. You guys call this an encyclpedia right? I think an article like this should be included in an encyclopedia. What harm did this article cause? I dont see anything wrong with this being here. -KopyKat I can see you
- Keep,BDC is a clan I have become a part of. I didn't know anything about clans at the time I joined. But the friendly community sucked me right in. This is probably the NICEST, ONE OF THE MOST THRIVING, and SUCCESFUL clans I have seen compared to many others. I made so much friends in BDC and if you decided to delete this article you might be preventing many other people to have new good friends. And so what if no one commited suicide in the clan? What if Arnold effin Swartchinager isn't in here? That is not what makes a clan notable. What makes a clan notable (Preferably a wifi clan) is the community, challenge, and relationships. This clan ain't some clan that has any boundaries to join either unlike some clans. We came right from the start of DS wifi with a good history and you know what? That seems like a pretty long time for it to deserve an article. Thank you.
-metroixer the metroid mod N_N
- Keep,I don't have many friends at school... no good friends are in my class. I get picked on occasionally. What does this have to do with the BDC? I know that when I log on here I won't be picked on. I will be accepted for the person I am. The BDC is a part of me, and I'm sure others feel the same way. Please don't delete this article. - WiiMonkey
- Keep,I agree with all you guys-Naruto
- Keep,the Blue Diamond Clan should stay up because without it, the DarkSnipers Clan would have no real competitors! The Blue Diamond Clan is the inspiration that makes other clans want to try harder to be successful! The BDC (Blue Diamond Clan) is the root reason for other clans to exist... If the Blue Diamonds go down, then the entire Nintendo Wi-Fi clan community will have nothing to work towards unless another Clan is good enough to match the popularity of the BDC.
BDC is to Nintendo, as E3 is to the Gaming Community in general! -Kurayamiblack(DSC)
- Keep, this shouldn't be deleted. It is in no way an advertisement but a way for fellow gamers to come together and accomplish something greater. If we were advertising we would have only included our positives. We are a group of dedicated gamers who care a lot about each other and want a way to be able to remember ourselves for what we have done for each other. -Jermtastic
- Keep, the fact that more than 600 people have registered makes it somewhat noticeable. That so many members are protesting deletion proves just as much.
Video games are considered "of note". Otherwhise, there wouldn't be nearly as many articles on them as presently exist. Small to medium sized communities are considered "of note". So is the internet. This is all three combined into one confusing myriad of a microcosm.
Personal value doesn't matter, but numbers do. And teacher tells me that 600 is a large one. --Genus
- Keep This clan has helped me a LOT of times of when I was in need. So I would want to keep this site, even in times of trouble, we still were able to help ourselves. And for that, I would really appreciate it if you guys can keep this.- LJkaRma
- Keep The clan seems to be growing at an alarming rate. Why take it off a growing website? It has become a part of my life, not just because of the games, but because you grow along with the site, and everyone on it. -Cyeo
- Comment: By far the most of the above "keep" votes were added by users who have only ever edited the Blue Diamond Clan article itself and this AfD discussion (as if you couldn't guess). JIP | Talk 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 23:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Juggernaut Bitch
|
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. Please sign your posts on this page by adding You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
Delete Regardless of the previous AFD. This is not encyclopedic (be sure to check the link for the video). Also, being a popular video for a while doesn't merit inclusion (will anyone remember it 1 year from now? 5 years? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Alternatively, merge with Internet phenomenonand redirect as someone proposed. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Strong Delete plain and simply, doesn't meet the verafiability policy and hence is original research. —porges(talk) 05:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete every article on wikipedia must meet certain requirements, these include verifiablity, and notability. Just because this is on google video does not make it noteworthy. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This article requires revision (particularly in the plot summary section) but the video deserves a page. Doctofunk 05:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The above user had less than 15 edits prior the comment, and nearly all of them from past week.
-
- why does it deserve a page? that's the core of the issue. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- For the same reasons that were discussed the first time this came up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Juggernaut_Bitch ; as for the misleading comment about my number of edits, I've been using wikipedia for almost a year and often making minor edits without signing in. But thanks for the ad hominem attack. Doctofunk 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- drini probably pointed out the low number of edits made by your present account because it indicates that you are a new member of the community and, as such, it is only fair to assume that you are still learning about Wikipedia policy. This kind of note is standard practice on AfD. Melchoir 01:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- For the same reasons that were discussed the first time this came up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Juggernaut_Bitch ; as for the misleading comment about my number of edits, I've been using wikipedia for almost a year and often making minor edits without signing in. But thanks for the ad hominem attack. Doctofunk 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete Low to no verifiability. Perfect fodder for any shock journalist trying to discredit Wikipedia. Appears to contain nearly a complete transcript of the video (oh thats been recently removed, no doubt leading to the above comment on the plot summary section). Furthermore, our link to the video itself (which is a clear copyright infringement) is contributory infringement, but remove the link and the article is totally unverifiable. --Gmaxwell 05:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per others.--Sean Black (talk?) 05:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There are a million videos on google video, few of which are notable in any way. There is too much webcartooncruft out there. Are we to make a page for everyone? I don't think so. Sasquatch t|c 05:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; being a somewhat popular amateur animation does not make it notable. The fact that it is on Google Video is meaningless, since they accept nearly anything that is legal and appropriate; see the Google Video upload page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone. This article doesn't even claim that its subject is notable. No verification by reliable sources. Melchoir 05:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per everyone. We don't need articles about non-notable copyvios. --Hyperbole 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per many others, this is extremely non-notable. --Deville (Talk) 06:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I would say the fact of this eing on Google Video makes it less notable not more. Nothing to see here, move along please... Just zis Guy you know? 07:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
DeleteWikipedia should only consist of material that can be verified from some outside source, however obscure -- no outside source, no article. We should never consider how informative, well-written or interesting the content of any page is on its own terms. That is utterly immaterial in light of THE RULES. We should only stick to the narrowest possible interpretation of the THE RULES in all circumstances, without any exceptions for any reason whatsoever. All articles should be composed in the dryest, most soulless manner so that we can all pretend that they are written in a way that offers no point of view, even though all history has shown us that such is humanly impossible. We must ignore the examples of such utter trash as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and dozens like it, which included and continue to include POV from its writers and articles on obscure subjects, since we know that those encyclopedias never achieved any serious critical or popular recognition or excellence. Indeed, we must also be sure to insult and dismiss the value in any articles with which we personally disagree or dislike, because that helps wikipedia's reputation for lack of POV among its writers. Also, we should be especially sure to find reasons in the THE RULES to delete anything that's popular or identifiable with youth culture, political and economic conservatives or moderates, and/or anybody or anything not susceptible to being included among those subjects we would approve for our own intellectual consumption. Above all, we must NEVER, EVER allow anything into wikipedia that would not exist in a regular encyclopedia, as that would put wikipedia in danger of turning into something unique and distinct, which, as good Marxists like us know, is evil and selfish. We MUST DELETE this article and all others like it before young, impressionable minds begin to disregard THE RULES!!!! RiseAbove 07:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sounds good to me. Support —porges(talk) 07:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse User:RiseAbove -- Simon Cursitor
- Keep: I know a lot of people who have heard of this, and have come to Wikipedia looking for info on it. Other people must be looking for info on it as well, because this page ranks pretty high on the Google search rankings. Also, I was reading the requirements for notability, and on the proposal for Internet Memes it said there is currently no consensus for what consititutes a notable meme. With that in mind, in my opinion, I don't feel notability should be a factor in this debate. StarNeptune 08:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- The above user has less than 50 edits.
-
- Someone's always going to say notability is invalid, so I repeat: No verification by reliable sources. Verifiability is not a proposed guideline; it is bedrock policy, and it is not satisfied by someone claiming to know "a lot of people". Melchoir 08:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- If this can stay (which has nothing in the way of verification besides a link to the video), then this should, too. StarNeptune 08:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- That was a mistake. More to the point, the inclusion of one allegedly-yet-unverifiably popular internet video on Wikipedia does not open the door to every other video for which someone pops up and says "yeah, my mates and I have heard of it". You can add all the footnotes you want, but unless you can find a reliable source to cite, this article is just as worthless to us as the other. Melchoir 09:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- If this can stay (which has nothing in the way of verification besides a link to the video), then this should, too. StarNeptune 08:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Someone's always going to say notability is invalid, so I repeat: No verification by reliable sources. Verifiability is not a proposed guideline; it is bedrock policy, and it is not satisfied by someone claiming to know "a lot of people". Melchoir 08:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keepper advocates of guerilla ghetto over-dubbing: I find it interesting and funny. I think that counts. stylistic choices were made. certain characters or universes were used at discretion of artists. hence, art. hence,you delete it equals you'r wack.more seriously- dry & soulless- did that for a while. it was fun. I'm feelin a skotch more soul in 'pedia in general starting with this article. dryness is cool, but perhaps not as a rule. perhaps not as an argument to delete this. and riseabove- minds be young. the rules are cool. but this article?
and
-
-
- Also, we should be especially sure to find reasons in the THE RULES to delete anything that's popular or identifiable with youth culture, political and economic conservatives or moderates, and/or anybody or anything not susceptible to being included among those subjects we would approve for our own intellectual consumption.
-
- I don;t get it. and why youth culture? Ka-zizzlMc 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- RiseAbove was the page creator and is being sarcastic. Melchoir 08:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- k. hehe. I did think for a sec that he had to be kidding.
- I change my vote to Strong "Meh" (regular "Meh" is even more indifferent than neutral). I viewed the video. I added to the article for the record. I realized even if it's funny and well done, I don't care terribly if it has an article here. It's on the net. it's not going anywhere. I can tell my friends to check it out. however, to those who feel this article is valuable/worth saving: I would recommend (and wikipedians don't seem to EVER do this) find or create another wiki for the kind of content that you would like to see! If you really want this type of content to live there's probly a wiki for it somwhere. there's gotta be a compendium of internet phenomena somwhere. Ka-zizzlMc 04:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ENC. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for the juvenile pranks of adolescents (unless they're really, really funny, or really, really notable/newsworthy). And if this is really symbolic of "youth culture", come back child labour, all is forgiven. -- GWO
- Delete per Sasquatch. Metamagician3000 12:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for many of the reasons above. PJM 12:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Smacks of WP:NFT but there is no standard for movie notability. Mystache 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Internet phenomenon, or, if that fails, just delete. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 15:01 UTC
- Delete per nom. Maybe we'll get better luck this time. RGTraynor 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Can someone explain the timing of this proposal, given that there was active discussion on the talk page about overhauling the article? Why not wait until the dicussion is complete before proposing deletion? Doctofunk 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Without a source in sight, no amount of overhauling an article can save it. The AfD process does not target articles that need cleanup; it targets articles that are beyond cleanup. Melchoir 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete , non-notable. --Terence Ong 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete... and this is coming from someone who was brought to tears laughing while watching it. Funny as hell, but it's just not verifiable by outside sources. It would make a good addition to an article about this trend in general, as I'm sure there are some sources for the general concept of things like this, Kung Faux, etc. Wikipedia doesn't hate youth culture. It just depends on verifiability. — AKADriver ☎ 18:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom.--Nilfanion 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 'Heavily mirrored' is not the same thing as 'notable'.--InShaneee 20:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep* Definitely keep this article. It helped me in more ways than one in receiving an A+ on my in class presentation concerning internet phenemona for my Anthropology 247 class. This encylopedia is for exchanging information, and regardless of the content of the article it does provide information for people interested in the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.146.77 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Above user had only 5 previous edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Encyclopedias are not for exchanging information; you must be thinking of a blog. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; we summarize information that has already been published by reliable and reputable sources. What is so hard about this concept? Melchoir 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Verifibility is not an issue with this article. It's become a notability issue, and instead of hashing out a consensus keep on the talk page, a user has decided "No, I'm just going to AfD again to get my desired result." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Verifiability is always an issue. This is an encyclopedia, not a think tank. No reliable sources = no article. Melchoir 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Verifiability is always an issue, just not with this article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Where are the sources? Melchoir 02:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RS. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Where are the sources? Melchoir 02:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Verifiability is always an issue, just not with this article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Verifiability is always an issue. This is an encyclopedia, not a think tank. No reliable sources = no article. Melchoir 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Verifibility is not an issue with this article. It's become a notability issue, and instead of hashing out a consensus keep on the talk page, a user has decided "No, I'm just going to AfD again to get my desired result." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Encyclopedias are not for exchanging information; you must be thinking of a blog. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; we summarize information that has already been published by reliable and reputable sources. What is so hard about this concept? Melchoir 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, possible venue shopping and WP:POINT issue. This belongs at WP:DRV if anywhere at all. The last AfD was a consensus keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted" Melchoir 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, DRV is there for contested AfD's. According to the opening paragraph "It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora." This is a contested AfD result, and bringing it back here constitutes forum shopping to get a desired result, IMO. On another note, this type of article is EXACTLY why we need a meme-specific guideline. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, DRV includes reviews of recent AfDs, but this is a new one, opened three weeks later, which is an eternity in the lifetime of a meme. Articles get renominated like this all the time, and often the result changes if only because more people are watching. And it is hardly forum shopping to return to the same forum! Melchoir 01:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- You apparently don't understand the lifespan of notable internet memes. And most certainly, a less than 3 week lapse between AfDs and not bothering with the talk page or DRV suggests otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you're the expert, then, how long should we wait? And why should anyone bother with the talk page of a doomed article? All I'd be able to say is Attention: find some sources in the next month or your work will be in vain. I think {{not verified}} on the article makes a better statement. Melchoir 02:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article's only "doomed" because people would rather keep nominating it to get a desired result than actually work on the article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you're the expert, then, how long should we wait? And why should anyone bother with the talk page of a doomed article? All I'd be able to say is Attention: find some sources in the next month or your work will be in vain. I think {{not verified}} on the article makes a better statement. Melchoir 02:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- You apparently don't understand the lifespan of notable internet memes. And most certainly, a less than 3 week lapse between AfDs and not bothering with the talk page or DRV suggests otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, DRV includes reviews of recent AfDs, but this is a new one, opened three weeks later, which is an eternity in the lifetime of a meme. Articles get renominated like this all the time, and often the result changes if only because more people are watching. And it is hardly forum shopping to return to the same forum! Melchoir 01:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, DRV is there for contested AfD's. According to the opening paragraph "It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora." This is a contested AfD result, and bringing it back here constitutes forum shopping to get a desired result, IMO. On another note, this type of article is EXACTLY why we need a meme-specific guideline. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted" Melchoir 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. What is so special about this article that gives it an exemption from verifiability. How can anything ignore that rule?--86.139.225.84 02:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- The above IP had only three previous edits
- Strong Keep--I am unclear as to how this article is unverifiable. The question of "legitimate" verification requires resources that are not available to Internet phenomenon (a realm in which, one must be reminded, Wikipedia itself belongs). Further the very purpose--I believe--of Wikipedia is to allow verification by way of open source and access to information that is not readily available elsewhere (let us be reminded of articles like "Skateboard Tricks", and "turntabilism") and this certainly includes Internet media and other esoterica. If the issue is that the article belongs under a larger "tree"--as part of "internet phenomenon" as suggested above--than it is simply a question of information taxonomy. If there is a question of content (i.e. revision) than this is not cause for deletion it is a request for clarity. One is immediately struck with the strangeness of deleting an article that provides information about an object that is not only a member of the same media as Wikipedia but is created in its very same spirit. And as a final note on verification, one merely must do the most basic of web searches and find an easy and quick link to the video and from there scrutinize the article in view of its source. In terms of that which is forgettable (the issue of timeliness) much of what is available on Wikipedia that relates in any way to pop culture will be lost--some in quicker breaths than others--but this does not, nor should it, preclude inclusion. The very possibility that it may be forgotten is the very reason to include an article: We are the archivists of the Internet, and without cataloguing that which occurs--monumental or not--we may lose or forget what the internet is--or is meant to be--in addition to its waves and ripples, its own peculiar movements. The question of whether the thing is worthy of an article is foolish, this is an open source popularly edited source of information, this is thankfully not scrutinized by the academy (think of what would be lost on Wikipedia if it were, or what we could easily lose by continuing this line of argument). Further articles such as "Juggernaut Bitch" are meant for the specific searcher, such as the individual above who was researching "internet phenomenon". The inclusion of such articles keeps Wikipedia democratic, and though edited popularly, not populist. As to the idea that Wikipedia is not an exchange of information, this is fallacious. Wikipedia, being that it is made up of a series of editable documents, is nothing but an exchange of information that--depending upon the users' level of interest in participation--can either be a one or two way methodology of exchange. The very idea that the article is commonly accessed through google seems enough for it to stay afloat, but those opposed to its existence are more than welcome to edit it.--RevNet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.145.160 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- The above IP had never edited before -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep This article requires revision but the fact is that this video is a big enough internet phenomenon that it warrents an article. The original version on Youtube has something like a million unique hits. NightShade 06:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Youtube claims it's popular, ergo Wikipedia must make stuff up about it? Melchoir 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Youtube has claimed no popularity for the video. Youtube has registered it. If you take issue with the veracity of specific content on the page, this is not an excuse to nominate it for deletion. Spotlessmind 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I appreciate those of you on this page who are voting Keep, you do yourselves an intellectual honor. However, I don't think there are enough of us to compete with the sheer weight of the doctrinaire Wikipedia Inquisition that's watching to make sure there aren't any rules violations. They put up this new AfD about a week after the last AfD was consensus keep. If this one is keep, they'll put up another one in a few days. And again, and again. There's nothing stopping them from doing it as many times as it takes to get the page deleted. It's not a question of the rules, or decorum, or wikipedia's reputation, it's only about a certain, sad group of martinets which seeks to discredit anything which it does not approve of. So, rather than get into arguments with those same martinets, I advise you to save your effort. As Schopenhauer said: "The ability to think from one's own resources is the prerogative of the few. The rest are guided by authority and example." That's a fact of human existence that we simply cannot change, no matter how rational, clever or outright true our arguments are. And yes, for those haters voting delete, I think The Juggernaut Bitch is brilliant AND I just quoted Schopenhauer. Wrap your ivory tower minds around that -- that is, if you even know who Schopenhauer is. If I ever meet any of you in real life, I will be sure to hit you with your own pimp. Peace. RiseAbove 08:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment that may be, but it doesn't meet the verfiability policy, and as it stands is a blatant example of original research. —porges(talk) 20:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources —WP:OR
- Strong Keep BTW, just in case anyone actually thought I was being serious with my "Delete" comment above.RiseAbove 20:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- keep please it is very notable as a video Yuckfoo 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- A large percentage of above account edits belong to AFD space -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep The creed of summarizing that which has been previously published by reliable and reputable sources is a fair guideline for an enyclopedia, in general, to follow. The obstinate adherence to it, in open hostility towards common sense and the will to inform, is the act of an obsessive compulsive and a philistine. Unfortunately for the authoritarians behind this grand inquisition, knowledge is an unruly beast and the scope of notable sociological phenomena far exceeds what spills down into the neat compartments of academic journals and "reputable" (whoever's presuming to define this dubious term for the rest of us) sources. As has been pointed out above, the nature of internet memes prevents their notability being "verified", as defined by the martinets, in the same easy manner as more traditional subjects. Of course, all of the information on this page is verifiable by watching the video, which the million or so people who have viewed it (as recorded by google and youtube statistics) will be happy to attest to. But to a certain kind of blinder-sporting absolutist, the very idea of accepting such wildly unruly data as evidence is anathema. Unfortunately, these people are often in a position to make the rest of us suffer. Is it the mission of an encyclopedia to hold fast to an arbitrary rule of content as a public exercise in intractibilty? Or is it the mission of an enyclopedia to educate, enlighten, and disseminate? Are we to sacrifice valuable data which a mass of people derive use and benefit from, because of the inability of a few to adapt to a world where information does not always make itself known through state approved channels? To those who support deleting this page because of its alleged "unverifiability": the forest you're looking for is over there, right behind those trees. Spotlessmind 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- The above user has only five edits previous to this discussion -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:Note SpotlessMind does not exist as a user. The signature is falsified. —porges(talk) 20:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)::The above IP had never edited before::I accidentally signed my name with a capitalized M instead of lowercase. I have corrected this, and clicking on my name, you will find I have been a member of wikipedia since last year. Spotlessmind 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC) :::Thanks for fixing that :) If you always sign with four tildes you shouldn't have this problem in future. —porges(talk) 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment on above debate: This is not the place to debate policy. If you would like to see WP:V and WP:OR changed or rewritten, please do it somewhere else. As it stands, this article directly violates (two-thirds of) what is accepted content policy on Wikipedia. —porges(talk) 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. —WP:V
- the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources —WP:OR
- Edit: someone notified me I sounded a bit organizationalistik here :) I didn't mean to, what I meant is that several of the posts here are irrelevant because what they're arguing isn't really whether or not to keep a page, but whether some of the core policies need to be rewritten. —porges(talk) 21:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- -Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is intended as a repository of all subjects of any notability.
- -By the guidlines you so literally cite, which apparently decline to recognize tracking and usage statistics as a valid source, *no* internet memes may qualify for submission to wikipedia.
- -Internet memes can achieve, and have achieved, notability.
- So we have a problem. And we have two choices: we can censor information so that Wikipedia delineates only that body of knowledge fortunate enough to have been reproduced through channels which a few self-appointed arbiters of knowledge artifically designate as "acceptable". OR: We can choose not to carve large chunks out of the social and historical record for irrational and bureaucratic purposes, and admit that RULES are an imperfect contrivance, subject to constant scrutiny, revision, and exception, and that they *do not apply* to all things at all times. Are you saying you are unwilling to allow basic common sense, practicality, efficacy, and the evolution of informational transmission, to supercede THE RULES on an individual, merited basis, without another RULE explicitly stating that this may be done? If this is so, then I have to ask, and I ask this non-rhetorically and in all sincerity: of what benefit are you? Spotlessmind 02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Which is where we have a problem; namely, that there are no agreed guidelines on how much of an internet presence a 'meme' needs before it warrants its own article. At the moment, everything seems to be getting funnelled into internet memes, which is hardly an ideal situation. But here I am, crossing the boundaries of what I've said above. This isn't the place for this discussion. It is a place where the outcome of such discussion, as and when it takes place, is required. I do think you're getting a bit hyperbolic here, excluding (what is an admittedly minor manifestation of) this internet meme from Wikipedia at the present time is not "carv[ing] large chunks out of the social and historical record". —porges(talk) 03:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's not hyperbole, it's extrapolating to a logical extreme. The argument to me is not about this page, specifically, but what this page represents, and the idea that there are now, and will continue to be even more, subjects of note on the internet that must and can be verified differently from Plato's Republic or the Battle of Antioch. If this page is impermissible, then there are a LARGE number of Wiki pages that must also be so. Spotlessmind 04:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Which is where we have a problem; namely, that there are no agreed guidelines on how much of an internet presence a 'meme' needs before it warrants its own article. At the moment, everything seems to be getting funnelled into internet memes, which is hardly an ideal situation. But here I am, crossing the boundaries of what I've said above. This isn't the place for this discussion. It is a place where the outcome of such discussion, as and when it takes place, is required. I do think you're getting a bit hyperbolic here, excluding (what is an admittedly minor manifestation of) this internet meme from Wikipedia at the present time is not "carv[ing] large chunks out of the social and historical record". —porges(talk) 03:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Edit: someone notified me I sounded a bit organizationalistik here :) I didn't mean to, what I meant is that several of the posts here are irrelevant because what they're arguing isn't really whether or not to keep a page, but whether some of the core policies need to be rewritten. —porges(talk) 21:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- No kidding. Spotlessmind, I see you're new here. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not everything you want it to be. We are not in the business of describing previously undocumented things for posterity; you can start your own wiki for that. Or you can try Wikinfo, or Everything2, or h2g2, or Uncyclopedia; these sites do not share Wikipedia's content policies. Melchoir 01:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Melchoir, I see you confer length of association with unwarranted moral authority. Please keep in mind that if I were interested in turning Wikipedia into everything I want it to be, I would be campaigning for the comprehensive inclusion of a porn star database with extensive photo and screen capture galleries. If you are interested in removing from Wikipedia things of an undocumented nature, then I suggest and wholly support your finding such a thing. In the meantime, feel free to click on the link at the bottom of the article, where you will be directed to a page documenting the existence of one "Juggernaut, bitch!" video. Spotlessmind 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Moral authority? How ridiculous. I'm not saying the article is bad; I'm saying it doesn't belong here. As for the Google video page, I've seen it, and all it says is "The Juggernaut!!!". There is nothing that does or could support this or any encyclopedia article. Melchoir 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Melchoir, I see you confer length of association with unwarranted moral authority. Please keep in mind that if I were interested in turning Wikipedia into everything I want it to be, I would be campaigning for the comprehensive inclusion of a porn star database with extensive photo and screen capture galleries. If you are interested in removing from Wikipedia things of an undocumented nature, then I suggest and wholly support your finding such a thing. In the meantime, feel free to click on the link at the bottom of the article, where you will be directed to a page documenting the existence of one "Juggernaut, bitch!" video. Spotlessmind 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Melchior, you could simply Google "The Juggernaut Bitch." You will find that the results include not only numerous pages leading to the video, but also a listing for the wikipedia article itself at around number 5 or 6 on the list. But yet, somehow this page is not notable enough to remain on wikipedia. Spotlessmind is absolutely right. And not just in the above posting, either. RiseAbove 08:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's the first thing I did, and I didn't find any reliable sources; it appears no one else did either. Melchoir 20:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Most of those Google results are of either people on various forums and personal blogs (apparently neither format is criterion for notability and/or verification for an article on an internet meme...go figure.) quoting lines from the film, or mirrors of the film itself. If this film was not notable, I doubt it would have that many people quoting lines from it or hosting it on other servers for other people to see. The only things we have for verfication and reliable sources are the link to the MySpace account of co-creator Xavier Nazario (where he discusses the video, and where people who have seen the video posted how much they enjoyed it), and the video itself. Seriously, what more does an article of this nature need? It's an article on an internet meme, not an article on some groundbreaking scientific research project. StarNeptune 15:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, notability standards in all categories require nontrivial sources independent of the subject, and blogs and personal websites are never reliable. Neither of the links supports the original research going on in this article. Articles on all topics are held to the same standards; it would be ridiculous to lower the bar for memes just because you want more of them to have articles. Melchoir 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge summaries with X-men and Juggernaut or an article dedicated to derivative works of them.In1984 00:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep' If you're going to keep all the other articles about internet memes then this should be allowed to stay aswell XSpaceyx 15:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- We delete alleged "memes" them all the time. Melchoir 21:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article seems a bit long, but I feel that this is certainly notable enough for wikipedia Ryanfantastic 02:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- The above user has less than 10 edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- User's seventh edit. --InShaneee 16:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is popular, people like it. Plain and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.251.240.116 (talk • contribs).
-
- AFD is not a voting. It's a debate. Being popular doesn't equate to encyclopedic. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Strong Keep" Extremely popular internet phenomena, which is nonetheless a form of entertainment. All other forms of entertainment here are allowed legitimate background information and plot summaries; this is no exception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparkage (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- The above user had only three edits previous to this afd
- Wikipedia is not an entertainment website. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- User's fourth edit. Melchoir 22:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
you guys are haters. people know how to check contribs. it's not that serious. if nonies show up & what they say isn't weighted, it isn't weighted. it's not like you have to bring it to everyone's attention every time. (approx my 1583rd right here) Ka-zizzlMc 02:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's faster and easier to read the note than check contribs yourself, especially if you're a fellow newbie unaware of the tool. Melchoir 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I think the subject matter is worthy of inclusion due to it having the potential to be a popular internet fad, which are chronicled on this site. Beastdog75 03:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Above user has less than 10 edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note that AFD is not a vote. And having potential to be a fad is not an argument pro merit of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- it's "not a vote"? Ka-zizzlMc 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, see note at top. This is not a voting process t osee which gets more "votes" either keeps or deletes, which will decide what will be done with the articles. It's about arguments, and so far, arguments like "it's fun! it's popular! I like it!" are very weak building a case pro-keeping the article. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- it's "not a vote"? Ka-zizzlMc 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- generally, clearly, number of votes and quality of arguments both matter, but in this case - you'r right, anons/extra fresh noobs' votes don't weigh so heavily, even if their arguments seem smart. Their overall good intentions at 'pedia are have not been demonstrated. Ka-zizzlMc 04:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, all the significant aspects of the article are original research. No opposition to recreation when significance can be better established. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this is no Badger Badger Badger ALKIVAR™
06:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn until Marvel or Fox sues creators for copyvio -- Robocoder
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Four options are on the table, keep as is, merge with a more general list, convert into a category, or just delete. Merging into a more general list probably means annotating the entries which use the DVD-9 format (and I cannot be bothered to do that now, but if anyone thinks that is a good idea, go ahead). Conversion to category would mean losing the redlinked entries until we get articles on them. With no consensus for any of the four options, I will default this to the outright "keep" result without prejudice against a relisting later. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of PS2 DVD9 Games
 |
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
|
Listcruft Computerjoe's talk 07:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- To expand on my nomination, I'm going to quote Wikipedia:Listcruft as my grounds for deletion The list is of interest to a very limited number of people. Computerjoe's talk 18:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Either delete or change into a category or something :P —porges(talk) 07:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete listcruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. PJM 12:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep might help somebody 63.173.47.193 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Anon user. Computerjoe's talk 16:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as listcruft. I can't imagine who, if anyone, this list could possibly help. -- Kicking222 21:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A silly and useless list. Thunderbrand 22:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. Beno1000 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as prime listcruft-- Hirudo 07:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)- Merge with List of PlayStation 2 CD-ROM games into one list of PS2 games. -- Hirudo 08:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP I know of many people whom this list would help! Read the updated/expanded list introduction to see why it is relevant. This info is made more useful because PS2 games disk formats are NEVER provided by Sony or the game makers (though CD-based games can USUALLY be identified in stores since they often display the special CD logo on back). PS2 lasers are by far the most common failure on the system. Since the dense DVD-9 format requires dual-layer focusing and has only been in use since 2003, these disks have common read errors when switching layers. This list is a great complement to the extensive PS2 CD-ROM game list created 6 months ago List_of_PlayStation_2_CD-ROM_games -- Rory77 08:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Only 91 edits. This is first to this namespace. Computerjoe's talk 20:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment I'm feeling inclined to put List of PlayStation 2 CD-ROM games mentioned above up for Afd as well if this one results in deletion, unless anyone sees any additional value in that list -- Hirudo 22:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Might as well. I never look at it. Thunderbrand 01:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Bloated Response This is not useless information, but I can see I won't convince any of you serial-information-destroyers of this. The fact that we have a 20 year old admin commenting on this list means I'm 99% sure you will delete this list and probably the other (CD-ROM) list I mentioned above. I knew full well your deletion fetish may lead to the CD-ROM list being axed as well, but risked it to provide you with more info. The PS2 is one of the only systems in history where games have confusingly been released in more than one medium. Additionally, there are VERY FEW conceivable high-level/obvious lists or classifications for PS2 games, but among them would be such things as genre (there are many pages for game genres that list game examples for each system), developer, release year, networkability, and disk media. There are currently 2 lists for PS2 networked games. You guys better delete both of them while you are at it too. Since none of YOU have ever looked at these lists before, I'm sure that means they are useless information. Seriously, a list only takes a few kilobytes on the Wiki-drive and each of these lists I mentioned are NEARLY COMPLETE (I personally flagged both lists as "incomplete" to encourage users to update them and not take them as 100% definititive). The lists don't even show up on the Wikipedia search listing yet, so please allow users some time to find and utilize them before they are deleted as cruft. Please re-consider your actions. -- Rory77 12:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment - This list belongs on a PS2 fansite, not on Wikipedia. Especially the DVD9 and CD-ROM part of it. You may be able to find more support for just a general list of PS2 games (which could then have DVD9/CD-ROM annotations), but personally I don't think we need one of those either -- Hirudo 14:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to make a comment, but I agree with what Hirudo said above. Thunderbrand 15:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think those voting delete have presenting their arguments very poorly. Saying "listcruft" is not enough. The content is clearly useful to some people and should be merged into the broader article. Pcb21 Pete 08:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Useful is not enough to be worth a Wikipedia article. A lot of the things in WP:NOT are useful to plenty of people. -- Hirudo 08:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- So why should we expunge this content from Wikipedia? Pcb21 Pete 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion because it's just not important enough (especially the distinct DVD9/CD-ROM lists, as stated above). -- Hirudo 08:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Importance is in the eye of the beholder. Would you support my idea of merging, so that the merged article has a "critical mass" of importance. It'd be sad to lose verifiable information like this. Pcb21 Pete 09:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Correct about eye of the beholder. I see that enough people seem to care about this, so I'll be happy enough if you can merge the two media lists into one. -- Hirudo 09:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Importance is in the eye of the beholder. Would you support my idea of merging, so that the merged article has a "critical mass" of importance. It'd be sad to lose verifiable information like this. Pcb21 Pete 09:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion because it's just not important enough (especially the distinct DVD9/CD-ROM lists, as stated above). -- Hirudo 08:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- So why should we expunge this content from Wikipedia? Pcb21 Pete 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Useful is not enough to be worth a Wikipedia article. A lot of the things in WP:NOT are useful to plenty of people. -- Hirudo 08:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is it the redirect page that is up for deletion, the page that is referenced redirect to a different titled page. I would say to keep as it the list has a clear purpose and scope. Ansell 09:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with List_of_PlayStation_2_CD-ROM_games into another PS/2 article or transwiki or something. Don't just delete it because you don't like it. It's useful and IMO quite encyclopedic, based on what Rory77 has said above. Alphax τεχ 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment IMO, listcruft is not uncivil despite claims made on my talk page. However, AFD is not the place to discuss civility - if you wish to discuss the civility of my nominations please use my talk page. Thank you. Computerjoe's talk 14:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious KEEP. There is nothing in this article (or list) that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. "Listcruft" is a lame attempt to circumvent the need of presenting any real argument for deletion. "Not important" is a dubious claim, as the material on this list probably has vastly greater influence on today's society than, say, Bertrada of Laon (just a random example). – Timwi 16:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Convert to category. This sort of thing is exactly what categories are intended for; lists aren't supposed to have minimal entries like this. --maru (talk) contribs 18:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn listcruft. Eusebeus 22:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Convert to category. Does not present much scope for additional structuring, so a category is better than a list. Loom91 05:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. Firstly read Wikipedia:Listcruft again: the perception that an article is listcruft can be a contributing factor to someone voting for deletion, but it may not be the sole factor, which means that almost all of the "delete" votes above fail this test; I would remind you furthermore that Wikipedia:Listcruft is not policy or even a guideline, it is a personal essay. Second, the calls to convert the list into a Category miss the major differences between categories and lists: the former are not capable of referencing yet-to-be-written articles, which the latter can accommodate in addition to further annotation which increases value. I call upon the closing admin to take these points into serious consideration when evaluating the votes above. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Keeping this list would open the door for things like List of G-rated PC Games on 3" disks, List of R-rated PC Games release on both 3" and 5" disks etc. (And yes I'm obviously exaggerating of course). Since enough people seem to want a list of games (though I still don't understand why), I've changed my vote to merge the DVD9 and CDROM lists. Can I convince you to do the same ? -- Hirudo 08:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to Comment: that might be a possible compromise, although I would be more inclined to support this proposal if it went further. From a quick perusal of the various lists on offer, it would appear that unifying the various "by format" lists into List of PlayStation 2 games, adding much annotation as to format/networking/etc, accompanied by splitting that list into sub-lists by initial letter (List of PlayStation 2 games: A, etc) would be the best long-run solution which subsumes all other possibilities. In the even-longer-term, this is a possible application for wikidata or something similar. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Keeping this list would open the door for things like List of G-rated PC Games on 3" disks, List of R-rated PC Games release on both 3" and 5" disks etc. (And yes I'm obviously exaggerating of course). Since enough people seem to want a list of games (though I still don't understand why), I've changed my vote to merge the DVD9 and CDROM lists. Can I convince you to do the same ? -- Hirudo 08:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into List of PlayStation 2 games per Phil above, and/or convert to category. Both would be fine. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James R. Gillespie
Not notable; hoax; unsourced. The claim for notability involves Gillespie receiving the "National Award for Student/Teacher Excellence" for defeating a child abuser with his Israeli martial art. The only evidence [24] for his even receiving the award (Is there such an award at all?) is the Wikipedia article on the high school. Wikipedia is not a place to tease your math teacher. Septentrionalis 14:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nominator vote. Septentrionalis 14:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete although the article's talk page did make me laugh. Tyrenius 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. --BillC 21:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete Image:Gillespie.jpg along with it; also a hoax as it has been changed between two different individuals. --BillC 09:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax, though maybe BJAODN, at least the talk page. --Deville (Talk) 00:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unverified, hoax. Jonathunder 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brutal Youth
Non-notable band, that was form this year, that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, the article barely states anything about the band other than the names of the members names(really the articles more about the members than the band), their songs, and the general genres they play. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib|
21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Spearhead 21:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Flapdragon 23:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. 15 and non-notable. Could redirect to Elvis Costello -- GWO
- Comment I think if we were to make it a redirect it should to Brutal Youth (Elvis Costello album), instead of Elvis Costello.--πᎠᏢ462090λE=mc² 18:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good catch. GWO
- Comment I think if we were to make it a redirect it should to Brutal Youth (Elvis Costello album), instead of Elvis Costello.--πᎠᏢ462090λE=mc² 18:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of people with absolute pitch
Unencyclopedic, unverifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. My grandmother had absolute pitch, and the guy standing next to me in the choir has it too. Unmaintainable list because potentially far far too large. And unencyclopedic: In professional musicians and composers, having absolute pitch is commonplace, and in other people it just doesn't matter very much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, how would one go about verifying this? --Deville (Talk) 01:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Could work as a category. Can't work as a list. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 29 April 2006 @ 03:03 UTC
- Delete: POV (too many musicians!). No more lists! Besides, it's perfect pitch. --die Baumfabrik 07:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Difficult to see (if 1 in 20 have this) how this would not grow without bound, although information on who does and does not have it is encyclopedic. Trim non notable and non verified people from the list and then merge back to Absolute pitch. Support the idea of a category as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just a comment. I took this out of absolute pitch (as per article talk) because the list was growing out of control and wasn't of much value to the article anyway, figuring that if anyone cared about the list so much they could maintain it (source, verify, etc). As this hasn't been done I don't care what happens to it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete just because a list can grow to infinity, does not mean it ought to be deleted -- see the List of people from California, List of left-handed people and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, e.g. And just because Nana and the guy next to you have perfect pitch doesn't make them notable enough for inclusion in the list, just like had they been left-handed or lesbian/gay or from California instead. And bias toward musicians is not problematic -- the quality is more rewarded in music than say, a boxer with perfect pitch <sarcasm> of course a pitcher with perfect pitch may be worth noting </sarcasm>, just as the left-handers list tends to overinclude sports professionals. All that aside, unless someone (Mindspillage?) is going to source the folks with citations like they do at the gay-lesbian list, it is probably better to see this one off to the bit-bin. Carlossuarez46 22:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hatebeak
band that claims notability because "the lead singer, Waldo, is an African Grey Parrot". does not otherwise meet WP:BAND Spearhead 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, on a side-note "the lead singer, Waldo, is an African Grey Parrot", is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.--Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 22:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just two remarks: (a) Which band does not claim notability and (b) who defines what is stupid in art? I do not see any reason to delete this article.
- Delete, but keep the parrot bit for in the bad jokes section. Big in albania 11:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Genevieve Lawrence
Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think anything is established other than, she's worked at BBC since 1991. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, aaaand of course the link is a 404. --Deville (Talk) 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no sign of notability --Ajdz 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed the link, she's a real BBC person, and seems to be the sister of Jeremy Paxman ... that said, I agree with the Delete per nom (hard to believe, innit? :-) ) AnonEMouse 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] John Smith (BBC)
Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 21:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep You cannot be serious. We keep articles about newscasters from local stations in Boise, Idaho, but you want to delete one of the top few people at one of the main media organizations in the world!!!!???? According to his BBC profile he is the chief executive of the BBC's commercial arm, which made profits last year of £145 million (about US$ 260 million), so it must have had revenue of many times that, and that is only part of his responsibilities. Sumahoy 03:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh no! So now every middle manager on the planet is going to have their own Wikipedia article??? Lord preserve us. What are our criteria of notability for managers? Chief Execs of FTSE100 companies: yes. But head of a division of a public company - in effect a civil servant - I need convinced. --Mais oui! 05:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't feel all that strongly in this particular case, but being one of the top movers and shakers in a mega-major public organisation like the BBC seems to me a lot more notable than being some bunch of kids who've done one or two obscure CDs but admittedly with a genuine commercial label, or being some obscure writer who has nonetheless had a few (not-very-well-known) novels from reputable commercial publishers with reasonable print runs. Then there are all the articles about relatively obscure fictional characters in the better-known comic books (I've created a few article stubs like that myself). All of those are uncontroversially notable. As for civil servants — civil servants at the highest levels of the administrations of sizeable countries wield vast power and influence, and should certainly be considered notable IMHO. This is not directed at you, but a comment about the Wikipedia culture in general — don't you think we sometimes judge things too much from the viewpoint of what is important to adolescents, rather than from an adult perspective on the world? That said, this article can stand or fall on its merits, and I won't lose sleep, but your comment got me thinking. Metamagician3000 06:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Metamagician3000 04:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Sumahoy. He's not a middle manager! --Eivindt@c 06:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Sumahoy's info should be added to the actual article, though. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep! Let's put these septics in their place! User:Sumahoy and User:Metamagician appear to be two of the few wikipedians with a sense of perspective. --die Baumfabrik 07:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with an established article on notable figures in the Beeb. I might add Sumahoy's info later, but would encourage others to do it first, as I'm rather hungry and not up for merging info into articles right now. Captainktainer 09:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I think we have room to the, occasional, civil servant. -- GWO
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jana Bennett
Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Eminent (BBC) media executive. Way, way over the notablity bar. It just needs expansion. Sumahoy 03:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- What are our criteria of notability for managers? I just find it so depressing thinking that tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of managers are now going to get their own article. BBC managers are in effect civil servants: which is even less notable that managers working in real industries. There is also a massive risk of systematic geographical bias here: how many Japanese, Bolivian or Iranian TV execs are ever going to have a Wikipedia article? It is a silly precedent to set. --Mais oui! 05:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I could add some Swedish TV executives at some point (not that I think I will do so anytime soon, but who knows?). I see no reason we shouldn't have Japanese, Iranian and Bolivian ones, as well. In terms of long-term influence, TV executives may be far more important than the anchorpeople, presenters etc who may be more familiar to the viewers. u p p l a n d 07:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would have thought that the BBC has more influence than all but a handful of commercial companies in the world. And i think you have the systematic bias argument completely the wrong way round. It is a reason to try harder to get articles about neglected topics, never a reason to delete existing articles. Sumahoy 16:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Director of Television at BBC seems pretty important to me. "Jana Bennett" bbc gets 24,800 Google hits.[33] Probably beats the average professional footballer in terms of individual significance to society. u p p l a n d 07:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. The BBC is such an important and influential organisation, and being a director certainly passes the notability bar. Let's worry about these "tens of thousands" of non-notable articles when they get created. — sjorford (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Agree with Mais Oui; the job is in-and-of itself non-notable and to maintain otherwise is a position that, in extenso, is untenable. Eusebeus 22:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Hunn
Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 21:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Burping. The man isn't notable as other than the world record, since we have an article on what the world record is in, this would be good for a paragraph there. AnonEMouse 16:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per anonemouse M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jack Altman
Speedy Delete - The article Jack Altman is clearly a hoax - see the evidence I have gathered. The article is already at PROD, but I'm really trying to push for a speedy. This kind of article does not deserve a space in Wikipedia, as it clearly is a hoax. TDS email 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete he developed a cure for cancer? Damn, what do I do with these flying pigs and frozen Hell then? _-M o P-_ 00:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete very quickly, as prodder, per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ASAP Complete hoax --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax, and not one of the more subtle ones I've seen of late --Deville (Talk) 01:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. u p p l a n d 05:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. WP:HOAX, WP:V. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 10:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete obvious hoax.Amcfreely 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a hoax, if someone discovered that it would be all over the news. πᎠᏢ462090λE=mc² 18:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
