Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Centralized discussion |
 |
| Discussions |
|---|
| Conclusions |
[edit] June 13
- 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.
speedy delete by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Morgan Wick 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bhong(UK)
This seems to be someones joke page. ScottNestle 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as vanity, patent nonsense, no assertion of notability, and a host of other reasons. It was created by User:Bhong. Aplomado talk 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Andeh 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, or speedy delete if possible --Grace 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:N and the other piece of policy concerning pages about yourself. (I forget the link at the moment)--SomeStranger(t|c) 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Tag Added
it's an attack page if you read it all,should be gone soon.--Andeh 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)- It's not an attack page just vandalism added, i reverted it and changed tag to bio/notability instead.--Andeh 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. As if I need to say it anyway, but per Andeh. MBob 00:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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
- 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. Metamagician3000 10:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Bartosh
 |
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
|
I hate to AfD an article right after the subject's died, but this page seems to be a memorial. It was created just after the death, and is the only page the author has edited. I don't think the subject is notable, but I'm hoping some people who know more about computers than me will have some more informed opinions. I'll abstain, for now. djrobgordon 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- *Keep* Computer authors and experts are notable enough, at least as notable as cricket players. It mainly needs more information about his achievements.Williamb 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Bad-faith nomination, article is featured on main page as todays featured article. --
Banana04131 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry. Actually the bad faith nomination of Phil Collins (todays featured article) actually just links hear. Disregard my previous vote. Banana04131 00:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- No offense, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. -- Kicking222 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- An IP vandal put AfD notices on a bunch of pages, including the aforementioned Phil Collins article, but the "this article's entry" link points here. I'm fixing them as I find them. GentlemanGhost 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- No offense, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. -- Kicking222 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — Based on his authorship of the (today's Amazon sales rank is #12,237), he is a notable writer on the topic of Mac OS. (Article could use some re-write.) —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Today's Amazon rank is almost certainly inflated because he just died. (FYI, I currently have no vote on this issue.) -- Kicking222 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable technical author. Sdedeo (tips) 01:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — Everyone deserves to be remembered. He's a published author, not necessarily an unknown person. MattWise 02:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Appreciate the sentiment that everyone deserves to be remembered, but that's what obituaries are for, not Wikipedia. Tychocat 03:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep, This was a person who was a well regarded technical expert in the Mac community. He co-wrote the authoritative technical book for Mac OS X Server. At the time of his death he was employed by Apple as a consultant in Japan. He was a former Apple employee who Apple regarded high enough to actually hire as a consultant (something Apple rarely does). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.224.58.160 (talk • contribs).
- *Keep* per Williamb. If author were a cricket player at the same level of success, he would probably have an article page, and a fan club. ॐ Priyanath 04:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The only people who would question his notability are not part the Mac community. He was definitely a notable author/person, and I am frankly surprised that he did not previously have a wikipedia page.--Briantemple 04:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- NOTE: Users 4th edit out of 5 in total whilst writing this.--Andeh 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- NOTE: Andeh, Apologies for being fairly new to the wikipedia contribution community. I stand by my comment/vote, but if my not having a ton of edits lessens the keep argument in any way, please disregard my edit on this afd.--Briantemple 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep O'Reilly books are usually big sellers, so I think that alone is probably enough to satisfy WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If he was any form of athlete we wouldnt be discussing this.--Kev62nesl 05:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep He has achieved a considerable amount of success in his area of work. Moreover, this article is verified and he is definitely not a non-notable person in the Mac community. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, he doesn't fail WP:BIO. However, the obituary part may need to be removed. --Coredesat 07:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Bad nomination, very notable article. — Wackymacs 09:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — He was one of the greatest in OS X Server knowledge, and well famous in the Mac community world wide. He deserved an article before he died. // hugin 09:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but I'd like to explicitly express my view that this was a model good faith AFD nomination - djrobgordon stated right up front that he/she wasn't qualified to judge and requested input from more knowledgeable editors. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. Random the Scrambled 11:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - for everything already mentioned 124.168.3.68
- Keep - published author of particular renown in his field. Zerbey 13:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, It is rather ludicrous to suggest this is a bad faith nomination. WP:AGF, but it is odd that he suddenly gets a write up after he passes away. Apparently nobody in the Mac community felt he was article worthy when he was actually writing all those books that qualify him under WP:BIO? As a content issue, suggest removing the obit at the end as it isn't really appropriate.--Isotope23 13:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is quite the norm that people are recognized for what they did when they die because of the amount of media attention reporting the death. — Wackymacs 13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:Bio.Englishrose 13:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Wencer 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable24.27.202.53 16:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We have a guideline for this: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Those voting "delete, non-notable", please explain why you believe he does not qualify for this. Those who want the article kept, providing sources that show he passes this guideline would be helpful. — Haeleth Talk 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, subject is obviously sufficiently notable according to WP:BIO guidelines. Silensor 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep well within the confines of Wikipedia's policies. Kthejoker 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Bartosh was a very well known and respected author, consultant, and trainer. The AFP548.com posting about his death received over 14,000 viewings in less than 24 hours.Macshome 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I disagree that this article passes WP:BIO. I found no evidence of multiple non-trivial publications written about him. For those who contend that he does meet WP:BIO, please explain why. Adambiswanger1 19:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, Adambiswanger1 - the above arguments for the article passing WP:BIO are based on the 'Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work' section, not the 'The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)' section.--Briantemple 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- True. That's actually the criterion I meant to use. I did spend about 10 minutes searching Google earlier, and I could not find any independent reviews other than those buyer feedbacks on Amazon.com. Wakemp has provided a review though, which is helpful to your case. In any event, I don't feel strongly about the delete, so I'm not going to pointlessly push my case. Thanks Adambiswanger1 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the books that are being used as the reason for 'notability' are widely regarded as definitive in their subject, which is common for O'Reilly titles. reviewed at Slashdot In Addition, Michael was a speaker at major conferences for O'Reilly and Apple over a the last 7 years. Archive presentation at Macenterprise.org Wakemp 21:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Published author, noted computer expert, sounds like enough to stay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.104.250.26 (talk • contribs).
- Keep AFP548.com has a review of his book as well. [1]. Multiple reviews - here are some more [2][3] - try this google search if you need more [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.188.173.253 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- *Keep* Why? From the guidelines; The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field: Within his field of Macintosh support and development, this is absolutely the case - his book 'Essential Mac OS X Panther Server Administration', published by O'Reilly (O'Reilly Media of course being considered the quintessential and ultimate source for technical resources) was considered the "bible" and last word on the subject. While it's difficult to provide sources that verify with certainty that he was respected within the community (unless you join the lists he frequented and contributed to), he regularly assisted fellow Macintosh support and development professionals with technical issues and his contribution is vast, articulate, accurate and on the whole, unquestionable. His articles, posts to lists and multiple presentations, seminars and training sessions are most certainly widely recognized within his field and in many cases archived for future reference by the community.
Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work: Reviews: [5] [6] [7] [8]
Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? Absolutely. Though there are more hits that are obituary-related now, even before his death, the subject had tens of pages full of unique hits. This is only a man "not notable" to those outside his profession, just as Marc Okrand is not notable to those neither nerd nor linguist. 216.254.21.13 05:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC) - *Strong Keep*, his contributions to the OS X community are very notable, along with the reasons to keep listed by other members. --Aika 14:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep
He seems to be notable enough to have an effect on society through computer software, if not than might as well get rid of people like Charles O'Hea who ever he is. Enlil Ninlil 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - A Google News search for him does not give any results in the mainstream media, and he does not appear to be notable enough to me. StuartH 07:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Josh McFarland
Vanity entry, entirely non-notable: googling "josh mcfarland" poker turns up one college link 2005 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. Wait until he becomes "...one of the best in the world someday."Ted 01:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Ted & nom.--blue520 01:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Does not meet WP:BIO. —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Failure to meet WP:BIO does not mean that this subject must not be included. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nonnotable NawlinWiki 01:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone else. --Slgrandson 01:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 02:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is obviously a vanity article. Moreover, there is a lack of references. These reasons should be enough to delete this article. However, failure to meet WP:BIO should not be a strong reason to delete this article. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN vanity. --Firsfron of Ronchester 05:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete CSD A7 Vanity. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 07:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Mr Stephen 10:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn -Mask
20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC) - strong delete not notable, hearsay, per above. Trm3 11:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Hardly notable, does not meet the requirements for WP:BIO and reads simply like a vanity page.--Auger Martel 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tier Ethics
Searching for "Mark Ballard" "tier ethics" is a google wack, only shows the wikipedia page; searching for "tier ethics" with google gives 53 hits, most of which use the concept in a different way that use in the article. -- Koffieyahoo 01:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. Given the similarity between "Mark Ballard" and the user who created the article, "Mark Ball," is is likely a vanity entry. Ted 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn and vanity. Sdedeo (tips) 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Sdedeo. —Khoikhoi 02:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Also looks to be original research, possibly a hoax. Tychocat 03:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN vanity. --Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom.24.27.202.53 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as nn. Adambiswanger1 19:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanity -Mask 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Finaghy Primary School
Non-notable primary school with no professed achievements. BlueValour 02:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable school, very little Google results. Kalani [talk] 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This doesn't appear to be an ordinary primary school, with students applying, the grant, and the large campus. If someone could expand on the notability (I believe there is some somewhere), this should stay. If there really is nothing more to say about the school, then delete. (Comment added after edit conflict: I must admit the Google results aren't promising) joturner 02:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Based on other AfD discussions ( as there is no current policy ), Active and sizeable schools are notable. For a school around since 1934 it's unlikely that there are not notable events and ex-students/staff - Peripitus (Talk) 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 04:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all school articles unless there is some compelling reason not to. BigDT 05:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it is a school and that is notable.--Kev62nesl 05:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per well established precedent. Given age, there's good potential for expansion. --Rob 05:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as there seems to be notability here (someone just needs to expand on it). This doesn't seem to be an ordinary primary school. --Coredesat 07:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Schools aren't automatically notable. crystal-ballism that a longer article will be notable. Tychocat 09:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a school, it is therefore notable. If you aren't interested in Finaghy Primary school, don't read the article. Markb 09:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: "If you aren't interested... don't read" is not a very nice thing to say on wiki. No one can assume that only school students and alumni would read the article. Who's to stop someone that clicks Special:Randompage from landing on the article? Kimchi.sg 10:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per reasons above. David L Rattigan 10:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand per Peripitus. Although I don't buy the idea that all schools are notable solely because they exist, a school that is 72 years old surely has a history long enough to be encyclopedic - it couldn't have been quietly collecting dust in that time.Delete the claim of the school being founded in 1934 is unsourced. Not even their website mentions it. [16] This erases my argument for keeping the article. Kimchi.sg 11:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Belfast Education and Library Board say it was founded in 1934 [www.belb.org.uk/publications/354.pdf ]. No particular reason for the schools own site to mention it - they don't have a History section. Dlyons493 12:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, their web site does mention it. --Rob 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Finaghy, as per the consensus reached on WP:SCH, which everyone promptly seemed to ignore. Wah wah, delete, delete, keep, keep, and every school, no matter how good an article, or how shitty, ends up as no consensus, and yet people still vote. What a waste of time. The article on the location the school is in needs WAY more work on it than the school article, and it's way more important, but people would rather edit the one on the school to prove some kind of stupid point. Proto||type 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, the article on Finaghy is so stubby and short, I've just merged the school article into it, as common sense and WP:SCH dictated. No doubt some fool will revert because it 'hadn't been discussed on the talk page', but I do not care. Proto||type 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Try actually clicking on WP:SCH, and see what's at the link you gave. Your unilateral action has been undone. Please read what the {{AFD}} notice says. Given that you haven't read WP:SCH in a long time, have no idea it 's tagged as rejected, you may wish to be cautious about use of the words "stupid" and "fool". --Rob 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rob, considering you yourself said - on Wikipedia_talk:Schools#Time_to_retire_this - I think changing the redirect may be a bad idea, as it retroactively changes the meaning/context of somebody's archived comments, such as "Do something per WP:SCH, that's a fairly astonishing bit of doublethink. Good work. Shortcuts should be immutable for that very reason, and whoever changed it shouldn't have. No matter. I stand by my vote - merge this unencyclopaedic yellow pages garbage on a school for under-10s into the article on the locality, as god knows it needs expanding. Proto||type 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the "doublethink". I see somebody who made an entirely understandable mistake, which would have been ignored, and sympathized with, if not for the use of insulting terms. --Rob 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rob, considering you yourself said - on Wikipedia_talk:Schools#Time_to_retire_this - I think changing the redirect may be a bad idea, as it retroactively changes the meaning/context of somebody's archived comments, such as "Do something per WP:SCH, that's a fairly astonishing bit of doublethink. Good work. Shortcuts should be immutable for that very reason, and whoever changed it shouldn't have. No matter. I stand by my vote - merge this unencyclopaedic yellow pages garbage on a school for under-10s into the article on the locality, as god knows it needs expanding. Proto||type 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Try actually clicking on WP:SCH, and see what's at the link you gave. Your unilateral action has been undone. Please read what the {{AFD}} notice says. Given that you haven't read WP:SCH in a long time, have no idea it 's tagged as rejected, you may wish to be cautious about use of the words "stupid" and "fool". --Rob 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, the article on Finaghy is so stubby and short, I've just merged the school article into it, as common sense and WP:SCH dictated. No doubt some fool will revert because it 'hadn't been discussed on the talk page', but I do not care. Proto||type 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 14:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: This article had a prior AFD in June 2005 which resulted in a keep. --Rob 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per well and long established precedent. Jcuk 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Primary schools are for 10 year olds and under - no precedent - the precedent is for high schools. BlueValour 15:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- It already says the age range in the article. Also, the precedent does include keeping elementary schools. See Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive and Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive/2005. You got to go back to August before you find any such deletion (excluding copyvio, attacks, or verifiability issues). Also *this* school was previously AFD'd already, and was kept. It's hard to argue schools like this are deleted when *this* very school was kept. That seems like a highly relevant precedent.--Rob 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Primary schools are for 10 year olds and under - no precedent - the precedent is for high schools. BlueValour 15:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - for the benefit of non-British readers, a primary school is a small school for children below the age of 10 (like kindergarten to fifth grade, I think ... I'm not great on US grades). Proto||type 15:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The nominator appears to be confused. Silensor 16:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Utterly non-notable. These school articles are the shame of Wikipedia, and have utterly destroyed its credibility as a serious encyclopedia. Do you see articles on schools like this in Britannica? Nope. Think there might be a reason for that? Ooh, I wonder. — Haeleth Talk 17:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- thank you for the logical fallacy, but most of what you find in Wikipedia will never appear in Britannica. There is a reason for that, but I think you misunderstand what that reason is. Silensor 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence that having schools articles have destroyed Wikipedia's credibility? We are the world's most used reference source by any measure and the source most used by media. The evidence is that having articles on topics outside what is in traditional encyclopedias has helped not hurt Wikipedia as shown by our Alexa rating. The responsibility is to make our articles as good as they could be. Capitalistroadster 21:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. ALKIVAR™
17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC) - Keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article has scope to be expanded. Stu ’Bout ye! 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs expansion, not deletion. -- Usgnus 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Finaghy, per Proto. Extraordinary Machine 00:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable school. CalJW 05:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep or merge Honestly, it is what we hashed out at WP:SCH back when we came the closest to consensus - however, the reason it would have worked is that you DON'T NEED AFD TO MERGE ARTICLES. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable and verifiable. Golfcam 17:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, most schools are notable. bbx 06:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Needs more content but verifiable, a subject of importance and has the potential to be a solid article.--Auger Martel 10:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --JJay 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete primary schools need to be notable in themselves. They are not automatically notable. Ydam 08:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I understand the position of those who consder that all schools are inherently notable. However, as far as I can tell, that is not an official WP policy. Therefore, to be included, a school should have a notable feature - something that marks it out from the ordinary. Sadly, I see nothing like that, here. TerriersFan 16:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nor is Notability an official WP policy. David L Rattigan 16:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hmm, also a good point. TerriersFan 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lyndale Primary School
Non-notable primary school with no listed achievements. BlueValour 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. Frankchn 02:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. --Hooperbloob 03:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is a school and that is notable. --Kev62nesl 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not notable, no real content either. I'd say high schools are notable, but not primary schools. --Rory096 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Rory096. --Coredesat 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Schools are not automatically notable. Tychocat 09:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Can someone please explain the logic behind the argument 'high/secondary schools are notable, but primary/elementary are not'? Bear in mind that for many communities around the world, only 'elementary' education is available. Markb 09:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose to me at least it's the maturity level of the students. High Schools are often a place where strong memories are formed; where the beginnings of a trade are learned, and they are typically larger institutions than primary/elementary schools—often graduating tens of thousands of students while they are in service. So I think there's a weak case for High Schools being called notable. I don't see one for primary/elementary schools, unless they're unique in some respect. — RJH (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't buy the notion that any schools, high schools included, have automatic, inherited "notability" or worthiness for an article. One could make a reasonably logical argument though for the cultural importance of high schools in American/Canadian culture as pointed out by RJH. 30 years from now, people will still be attending High School Reunions... nobody formally gets together with the people they attended middle/jr high with. Also consider that HS is the first level of schooling that gives students some sort of usable certification of learning (i.e. a diploma). Of course IMO, having a hard cutoff for HS leads into the possibility of systemic/cultural bias as pointed out by Markb above. Of course to me, it is preferable to judge each article on it's actual merits rather than blanket "school = keep" or "school = delete".--Isotope23 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose to me at least it's the maturity level of the students. High Schools are often a place where strong memories are formed; where the beginnings of a trade are learned, and they are typically larger institutions than primary/elementary schools—often graduating tens of thousands of students while they are in service. So I think there's a weak case for High Schools being called notable. I don't see one for primary/elementary schools, unless they're unique in some respect. — RJH (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Potential for expansion, and Wikipedia isn't paper. David L Rattigan 10:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Although it has been around since 1956 (according to the school's website [17] it appears to be devoid of notable past events or interesting features. In other words, non-notable. Kimchi.sg 10:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete while precedent has established that high schools are inherantly notable the same is not true of primary schools. Ydam 10:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nothing notable has been asserted or found about this primary school. Re: Ydam's comment, I'd like to know where a precedent has been set that high schools are inherently notable. - Motor (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents. I don't necessarily agree that high schools are inherently notable but nearly every one that comes to AFD gets kept. I would call that a precedent. Ydam 12:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the school AFDs resulting in "no consenus" is hardly what I'd call setting a precedent for being inherently notable. But this isn't the place to discuss it so... - Motor (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's a difference between a consensus and a precedent though, for instance legal rulings don't have to be unanimous by judges/juries to set a precedent, but anyway we digress... Ydam 13:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the school AFDs resulting in "no consenus" is hardly what I'd call setting a precedent for being inherently notable. But this isn't the place to discuss it so... - Motor (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents. I don't necessarily agree that high schools are inherently notable but nearly every one that comes to AFD gets kept. I would call that a precedent. Ydam 12:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete... no inherent notability for schools.--Isotope23 13:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's just a primary school, and one with no established uniqueness or interesting qualities. -- Kicking222 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 14:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per long and well established precedent Jcuk 15:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Primary schools are for 10 year olds and under - no precedent - the precedent is for high schools. BlueValour 15:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Primary schools in the UK cover reception and years 1 - 6, that's up to age 11. A pupil spends more time in primary school than in secondary schools, with a leaving age of 16. Markb 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge Notable school - merge into district or town if appropriate Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not attempt to establish notability. -- Docether 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as this institution is notable to the community which it serves, WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, and per long established precedent. Silensor 16:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I don't see any "long established precedent" for keeping this article. And saying that it is notable to its community can be used to justify the inclusion of absolutely anything that all... you are effectively scrapping the notability requirements althogether. And Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete - Motor (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- What notability "requirements" are you referring to? Furthermore, if you can't see the long established precedent, dating back to May 2005, then I'm not sure we have much more to talk about. Silensor 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, my reading of those Wikipedia:Schools "proposals rejected by the community" that you linked to is obviously different from yours. I've also read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents and can't see a "Keep" precedent for schools there either... just a lot of arguments and indecision. Perhaps you could be a bit clearer where I can find this precedent? I was referring to notability guidelines like WP:WEB, WP:BIO, WP:CORP or any of the others... using your "notable to its own community" wording, it is possible to justify the inclusion of anything at all. - Motor (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The precedent for keeping all non-copyvio verifiable K-12 schools is at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. --Rob 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- This does not appear to be setting any kind of precedent. That is WikiProject to catalogue and coordinate the response whenever a school is put up for deletion... presumably, the first shot is to claim that there is a precedent for "Keep" when there isn't. - Motor (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Look at the list, it shows all verifiable real K-12 schools being kept (in the absence of copyvio). You seem to have some sort of alternate definition of the word precedent. --Rob 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see a list of articles that were block voted into (mostly) no consensus by a project that was set up to do just that. I see a Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents document that states clearly that "no consensus" is the usual result... you seem to be the one making up definitions here. There is no precedent for "Keep"... and despite the repeated misleading claims thrown around, there is nothing backing up statements that schools are inherently notable. - Motor (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Look at the list, it shows all verifiable real K-12 schools being kept (in the absence of copyvio). You seem to have some sort of alternate definition of the word precedent. --Rob 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- This does not appear to be setting any kind of precedent. That is WikiProject to catalogue and coordinate the response whenever a school is put up for deletion... presumably, the first shot is to claim that there is a precedent for "Keep" when there isn't. - Motor (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The precedent for keeping all non-copyvio verifiable K-12 schools is at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. --Rob 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, my reading of those Wikipedia:Schools "proposals rejected by the community" that you linked to is obviously different from yours. I've also read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents and can't see a "Keep" precedent for schools there either... just a lot of arguments and indecision. Perhaps you could be a bit clearer where I can find this precedent? I was referring to notability guidelines like WP:WEB, WP:BIO, WP:CORP or any of the others... using your "notable to its own community" wording, it is possible to justify the inclusion of anything at all. - Motor (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- What notability "requirements" are you referring to? Furthermore, if you can't see the long established precedent, dating back to May 2005, then I'm not sure we have much more to talk about. Silensor 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I don't see any "long established precedent" for keeping this article. And saying that it is notable to its community can be used to justify the inclusion of absolutely anything that all... you are effectively scrapping the notability requirements althogether. And Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete - Motor (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Utterly non-notable. These school articles are the shame of Wikipedia, and have utterly destroyed its credibility as a serious encyclopedia. Do you see articles on schools like this in Britannica? Nope. Think there might be a reason for that? Ooh, I wonder. — Haeleth Talk 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you're ashamed of Wikipedia, and prefer Britanica, you're welcome to go try and write for Britanica. Given their lack of articles and readers, compared to Wikipedia, they could probably use all the support they can get. --Rob 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. ALKIVAR™ 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, and equally Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. - Motor (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. This was hashed out well over a year ago, there is no consensus to delete non-copyvio articles about verifiable schools, they are notable and WP:NOT the Encyclopedia Brittanica. You may want to look into a more productive use of your time. Silensor 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- This was not "hashed" out. A discussion happened, and no decision was reached. This is very different from you running around making claims that precendents were set, and that schools are somehow inherently notable. The reason there is often no consensus on these votes is because you have an organised project to show up and block vote them into stalemate. However, I do appreciate your sincere concern over how I use my time though. I like to make a suggestion of my own. Maybe you should spend your time more productively, say, by not making false assertions about past discussions in order to mislead people planning to vote here? Thanks. - Motor (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. This was hashed out well over a year ago, there is no consensus to delete non-copyvio articles about verifiable schools, they are notable and WP:NOT the Encyclopedia Brittanica. You may want to look into a more productive use of your time. Silensor 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, and equally Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. - Motor (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs expansion, not deletion. -- Usgnus 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Schools are notable in my opinion. HighInBC 20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this is notable really we are not britannica Yuckfoo 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as per Usgnus: "Needs expansion, not deletion." --Stephane Charette 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Dandenong North, Victoria. Its very short, and the school doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own article. Extraordinary Machine 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable school. CalJW 05:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable and verifiable. Golfcam 17:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth; perfectly verifiable, perfectly notable. Bahn Mi 00:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Kimchi.sg and Motor's comments above; coming soon, articles on kindergartens. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable school and is certainly verifiable.--Auger Martel 10:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid topic- needs time to develop. --JJay 19:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Annieville Elementary School
I am also nominating the following schools for deletion for the same reason. --Danielrocks123 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Beach Grove Elementary School
- Boundary Beach Elementary School
- Brooke Elementary School
- Chalmers Elementary School
- Cliff Drive Elementary School
- Cougar Canyon Elementary School
- Delta Manor Elementary School
- Devon Gardens Elementary School
- English Bluff Elementary School
- Gibson Elementary School
- Gray Elementary School
- Hawthorne Elementary School
- Heath Elementary School
- Hellings Elementary School
- Holly Elementary School
- Jarvis Elementary School
- Ladner Elementary School
- McCloskey Elementary School
- Neilson Grove Elementary School
- Pebble Hill Elementary School
- Pinewood Elementary School
- Port Guichon Elementary School
- Richardson Elementary School
- South Park Elementary School
- Sunshine Hills Elementary School
Delete. Elementary schools are not notable. --Danielrocks123 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this page has been being created and will be expanded as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada Wakemp 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all per well established precedent. If there are any individual cases where verifiability is an issue, a separate AFD would be appropriate. --Rob 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all as per Thivierr. Mass-nominations of these sort are never helpful. Silensor 17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as part of an ongoing and very active effort in Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada. --Stephane Charette 17:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per precedent. -- Usgnus 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ardenn 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. ALKIVAR™ 18:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Please note that this is one part of an article which also includes Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. --Danielrocks123 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. School articles like this are the shame of Wikipedia. Our critics point at them, and their endless trivialities about the most utterly banal things, and their endless duplication of "facts" which are the same for every one of millions of identical schools across the world, as evidence that Wikipedia is good only for children. They are essentially wrecking our dreams of gaining some credibility as a serious encyclopedia. Do you see hundreds of articles about individual elementary schools in Britannica or Encarta? Nope. Think there could be a reason for that? Hmmm, I wonder. — Haeleth Talk 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you're ashamed of Wikipedia, and prefer those other encyclopedias, you should go buy them. They need the sales. People aren't buying enough, because they get what they need here instead. Why on Earth are you editing an encyclopedia with over a million articles, if you hate the existance of those very articles? --Rob 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't see the need for WP to pander to our detractors. Besides, their main cause of derision is the edit this page link on every page, something which is WP's major distinction and strength. Having articles that neither encyclopedia will touch is a part of WP's charm and a major distinction between them. I don't see a need for WP to turn into a clone of either. hateless 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is the world's most widely used reference site. If Haeleth has some actual evidence to support his statement, he should produce it.Capitalistroadster 21:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unless an elementary school has a claim to fame it doesn't need an article here. They are often carbon copies of each other with little if anything to set them apart. --Crossmr 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, absent a Wikipedia:Schools policy or guideline, schools are generally notable. It doesn't seem appropriate to delete schools on a piecemeal basis when the community has not arrived at consensus on a policy or guideline. A policy discussion seems to be erupting here but this isn't an appropriate place for it to occur. Accurizer 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep, as per precedent. Antmoney85 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, schools are notable per precedent. hateless 18:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per precedent. Stu ’Bout ye! 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nomination. Schools have no inherent notability. No individual notability or importance for any of these schools has been suggested or advanced. That said, I still don't like these mass noms, and I'd be willing to reconsider any individual article where someone can show verifiable proof that any particular school listed here is notable or distinct enough from the average school to merit an article (though I don't suppose that will actually be necessary, nor will it likely influence the eventual outcome).--Isotope23 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless any of these schools have distinguishing characteristics such as teaching methods, notable founder, etc. The local elementary school is about as notable as the local PTA, the local pizza place, that one intersection down the road that doesn't have a stop sign but ought to, etc. Opabinia regalis 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep em all as I am against mass nomination of articles. If you wish to argue for a new policy on elementary schools, do it elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 21:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep all of these please and argue about policy elsewhere Yuckfoo 22:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per usual... Rich Farmbrough 23:00 13 June 2006 (GMT).
- Delete them all as per nom Bwithh 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reluctant Weak Delete. My reluctance isn't that I'd be sorry to see these articles go, but because of the broad-block nomination. I'd rather be making a strong statement one way or another. While I believe schools are not inherently notable, and there is no policy on keeping or deleting schools, I also concede that some schools may, for very specific reasons, be notable. Until there is a firm policy, I'd prefer to consider each article on its own merits, notability, or non-notability. That all said, none of these articles appears to be about an encyclopedic or notable school. Agent 86 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Canadianshoper 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep All these schools are notable. CalJW 05:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Either merge into the appropriate district article (I believe this is School District 37 Delta, but they were starting to blur together) or weak keep and expand. I continue my belief that elementary/middle schools' claim to notability is weaker than that of high schools, but I also prefer more info than just a list entry with no further info. Also, block noms of this type are unhelpful, some of these had more info than others. Please start a policy discussion off AfD if you want to change what seems to be current consensus on these articles. BryanG(talk) 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep or merge all Per near agreement at WP:SCH, keep or merge all. Merges do not require AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per CalJW Thankyoubaby 15:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep How do we know that there isn't one that's exceptional in here? Check them all? No thanks. Golfcam 17:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Keep as per Golfcam. YUL89YYZ 18:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to say the same thing I say every time schools come up on AFD now: I don't particularly like the established consensus in favour of elementary and high school articles, but the consensus is what it is and there's no particular reason to single Canadian schools out as somehow less notable than schools elsewhere. If you'd like to pitch for a rethink of the whole shebang, start a policy discussion (and good luck trying), but in the absence of that there are no valid reasons to treat these differently than other schools. Keep. Bearcat 00:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Pardon my ignorance, but where can I find the established consensus on elementary and high school articles? As far as I've found, there isn't one, but if there is, I may have to reconsider how I respond to these school nominations. Agent 86 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the lot and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for all. Well established precedent has elementary schools being given their own pages. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. - pm_shef 03:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's simple, a merge gets counded as a keep so it is the right vote that results in a wrong action. WP:SCH resulted in no consensus not a justification to keep. Vegaswikian 05:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Strong precedent to include schools, notable subject.--Auger Martel 11:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Schools are considered notable, elementary or not. Jgamekeeper 11:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Schools are all important. We need more school stubs, not less. --JJay 19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I agree that it doesn't seem appropriate to delete schools on a piecemeal basis when the community has not arrived at consensus on a policy or guideline. I further agree that this is not the place for said policy discussion. The merge or keep and expand comment has good merit however again, this is not the place for policy discussion whether that policy is pro- or anti-deletion. BigNate37 06:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If students' interest in knowledge is increased slightly because they can find their school here, then let Wikipedia err to their benefit. Deet 04:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Center School (Connecticut)
Non-notable Kindergarten to 1st grade with no obvious redeeming features. BlueValour 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all existing schools are notable; see Wikiproject schools. Where (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If you could specifically point out where Wikiproject schools says anything about "all existing schools are notable," I'd appreciate it. As far as I can tell, the only reference there is in the context of suggesting that articles about "notable schools" (which implies that there are nonnotable schools ... otherwise, why the distinction?) should be formatted in a certain way. Unless, of course, you're referring to the rejected proposal having to do with schools, which does address notability but has the unfortunate characteristic of being proposed-but-rejected and thus non-policy. Please advise. -- Docether 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Who said every school is notable? People throw up a page with one sentence and think they're offering something useful. This is a waste of server space. I think these one sentence wonders should be wiped out. Might motivate people to write an article for a change! george 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Kindergarten schools are notable? You might as well consider each individual Starbucks location notable. At best, merge it into Brookfield, Connecticut. Ted 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly! george 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. My comments above notwithstanding, this school is nonnotable given the information included in the article. -- Docether 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete kindergarten is almost inherently non-notable. Opabinia regalis 20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this isn't a school, it's a glorified kindergarden, and neither jouralists nor researchers usually cover spesific kindergardens (nor schools below college level) so you can forget about reliable sources. --Eivindt@c 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Schools are not inherently notable. WP:SCHOOL "was rejected by the community". Until there is a firm policy, articles on schools should be considered on their own merits. Regarding this specific school, it would have to be an extra-ordinary school for it to be notable. The article itself fails to disclose any reason why this should be kept. Agent 86 02:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am sick and tired of these false assertions that the rejection of WP:SCHOOL was a victory for the school deletionists. That is a travesty of what actally happened, which was that it was watered down and watered down until it was default keep all and it still wasn't inclusionist enough to obtain consensus. CalJW 05:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't lump me in with one side or another. I also made no comment as to whether or not anyone achieved a "victory" of any kind. My point remains that until there is a firm policy, each school article ought to be considered on its merits within the broader policies and considerations, and not a blind application of Wikiproject schools or WP:SCHOOL. I will and have commented "keep" where warranted. In this particular case, I did not. Agent 86 19:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am sick and tired of these false assertions that the rejection of WP:SCHOOL was a victory for the school deletionists. That is a travesty of what actally happened, which was that it was watered down and watered down until it was default keep all and it still wasn't inclusionist enough to obtain consensus. CalJW 05:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Article has been rewritten using reliable sources. Silensor 06:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable School Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth. The school name dates back to the 18th century and appears to hold a historical importance. Bahn Mi 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, most schools are notable. Besides, this article is off to at good start already. bbx 06:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all schools are notable in a truely great encyclopedia. ALKIVAR™ 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this is historic information erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 00:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There exists a strong precedent to keep school related articles. Verifiable and as Bahn Mi has stated, should be allowed for organic growth.--Auger Martel 11:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- comment This is a kindergarten not a school despite its title!! I wonder if the 'keeps' have looked further than the title? BlueValour 17:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a high school Ydam 08:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cal dining
|
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
|
As a rule, I don't think information about dining conditions or arrangements at any particular university are at all notable, and this article certainly doesn't assert notability in any way. Also, it's most likely original research, and it is certainly entirely unsourced. -- Captain Disdain 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on the Nomination The article is now completely sourced and very different than the original one that was read at the time of the nomination. Please do take the time to actually read the article itself. It can be found at the link above. Presidank 06:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per my own nomination. -- Captain Disdain 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into University of California, Berkeley; there is some good info here, and it is probably only unsourced since it is a firsthand account; thus, it is an issue of just pestering the person to cite it as such Where 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep "As a rule" something based upon your own opinions does not make that thing a rule. Also this article was just created and I have not had to the time to link the proper citations. Please be patient.
- In addition, on the note of notability, there is already an article on the housing facilities at UC Berkeley, why should there not be an article on its vast and multifaceted dining facilties as well? This article is still a stub and I am sorry that I forgot to note it as such.
- Please be patient as I also have other things I am currently working on, but I will make every effort to expand this stub to a detailed and well citied article. - Presidank 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per User:Where. Sounds a bit crufty to me. Morgan Wick 01:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have done my best for now to update and cite the article, more will follow soon. Please reconsider based on new version of article. Thanks. - Presidank 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I reread it, and I don't think that changes my opinion on the matter. It's a well-written and informative article, don't get me wrong, I just don't think the subject matter is encyclopedic, unless this is something that university dining facilities are modeled after the world over or something. It's just where people eat. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, and I don't think it meets WP:CORP, either. I realize that the housing facilities have their own article as well, but I'm thinking of AfD'ing that one, too, pretty much for the same reasons I AfD'd this one (although I think that a long-standing living arrangement that stretches back fifty years is inherently a little more notable than dining arrangements). -- Captain Disdain 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is not just an article on a place where people go to eat. This is an article about an organization which runs the dining facilities at UC Berkeley. They are a legitimate business that provides catering services to people outside of the UC as well. Also there has been press coverage about this company, which has been around just as long as the housing facilites, in fact they are under the same umbrella group, qualifying it for notability under WP:CORP. The exact lines read:
- I reread it, and I don't think that changes my opinion on the matter. It's a well-written and informative article, don't get me wrong, I just don't think the subject matter is encyclopedic, unless this is something that university dining facilities are modeled after the world over or something. It's just where people eat. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, and I don't think it meets WP:CORP, either. I realize that the housing facilities have their own article as well, but I'm thinking of AfD'ing that one, too, pretty much for the same reasons I AfD'd this one (although I think that a long-standing living arrangement that stretches back fifty years is inherently a little more notable than dining arrangements). -- Captain Disdain 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
- The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
- This criterion excludes:
- Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.
- Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
- This criterion excludes:
- The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies.
- The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.
- The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
- A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
-
-
-
- Clearly the company meets one of these. Presidank 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You have two tiny little problem there: 1) Cal Dining is NOT a corporation, a company, or the least bit divisible from UC Berkeley; 2) You've copied and pasted passages from WP:CORP but haven't made the least attempt to connect them to the subject of this article, or explain how they apply, other than the hadwaving "clearly they apply". No, it's not clear. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as campus-cruft. As a rule, I pay no attention to arguments relying upon the nitpicking of the wording of nominations, as opposed to, say, discussing the actual value or potential of an article. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat 04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on Notability of Article Non-notable? Has anyone even looked at the article? Cal Dining created the first certified organic residential dining salad bar in the nation, paving the way for sustainability and setting the standard by which other campuses are soon to follow. How is that not as notable as something like an aritcle on a fictional World of Warcraft zone or something of the sort? Forgive me if I sound a bit annoyed at this judgment, but I have put effort into citing sources and writting the article within WP:NPOV. How can there be an article on the housing facilities at UC Berkeley and not one on its dining facilities? Please actually take the time to look over the article as it is thus far and take time to read the news sources.
- Campus cruft? If this article is crufty, than I would have to say the same argument applies to articles pertaining to other esoteric communities such as the Starcraft and Warcraft universes. Why are there so many articles allowed for non-existant locations, but there cannot even be an article on an organization that actually exists in real life?
- Please do comment, all input is apperciated. - Presidank 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- As a rule, I also pay no attention to arguments relying upon the hackneyed formula, "If [unimportant subject but utterly unrelated topic] has an article, so should [my unimportant subject]". We're not discussing other, unrelated articles, we're discussing this one.
-
- The number of sources you use or the amount of work you do on an article is immaterial if the topic isn't worth a separate article to begin with. This level of detail is pointlessly trivial, and if incoming UC students need this level of information, that's the rightful province of the UC Campus Housing Office and their webpage. --Calton | Talk 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I think that this can potentially be very helpful for new UC Berkeley students. First of all, it is a good introduction to what Cal Berkeley represents. For example, potential students can see that our dining facilities serve only organic food. This reflects not only our emphasis on personal health, but also of the well-being of the environment and farmers. There are also many places to eat on campus that many students don't know about. For example, students most commonly eat at the dining halls or the Golden Bear Cafe, but there are other on campus locations such as Ramona's or Pat Brown's Grill that provide food. I have met many students that have never been to these locations and didn't even know about them. All in all, I believe that this article can be very useful for not only new/enrolled students to see what Berkeley has to offer, but offer an unbiased (something not written by the University) opinion. Also, it can be linked to from the Berkeley main site in order to show, more in-depth, the great facilities that are offered at this university other than the best education in the world. PavementIstRad 04:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edits
- User's only edits are to this article.
- Keep As a student of UC Berkeley, I can vouch that this article is very accurate. It would be very helpful to incoming freshmen, especially if it was linked to from the UC Berkeley page. msodrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.224.16.91 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment by an IP, of which the user doesn't even have any edit history.
- Keep This article is not only notable but provides valuable information. I found that this article partained to my own school and my own dining experiences and not just Cal dining alone. I was able to compare my experience with campus dining to the one offered on this campus. I feel this article embodies the very purpose of this page by illuminating a different perspective. Dangerkitten 06:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- User's only edit.
- Delete Put it into an article about UC. User's comming to say 'keep' are probably all students. If it can't provide encyclopedia to anyone but new students, why would it be in an encyclopedia? It sounds like something that should go on fliers around campus. Its not the content of the article, its the subject at hand. Kevin_b_er 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Oh and if I ever get the proper time, those World of warcraft articles will end up under the AfD magnifying glass. There's way too much misc data on video games and every minute detail of a TV show on wikipedia, but that's because there's an overwhelming number of editors who keep editing it. Kevin_b_er 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The overall arguments for deletion have been clearly addressed and refuted, and as a rule, I pay no attention to people that repeat their arguments. This article is of much importance, not only because it describes the possible dining situations at UC Berkeley, but also Cal Dining's contributions for the community.
- Smaller locations are noted alongside the well-known dining halls, providing awareness of the possible eating options for this international school (information which I propose to be expanded). An incredibly high number of people (not just students) are on this campus a day, and knowledge of these restaurants will be helpful during their stay at Berkeley. Cal Dining's efforts towards organic foods and an environmentally friendly program are of particular significance at a time when people have finally begun to realize the importance of environmental-friendly practices. The article's inclusion of these efforts enlightens others on what can be done and serves as a model for any other similar facilities.
- Incoming UC students will undoubtedly find this information helpful, as well as tourists, parents, professors, international dignitaries, and the like. Information about Cal Dining serves a world-wide audience and an article is very much needed to carry this information to readers.
- The motivating factor for one disagreeing member is to mop "up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical." This article is accurate, concise, and far from extreme. It is difficult to imagine why people would have a problem with such articles. Apook 06:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to his user page and this AfD.
-
- The overall arguments for deletion have been clearly addressed and refuted Ah, that old stand-by, the unilateral declaration of victory. Uh, no.
- An incredibly high number of people (not just students) are on this campus a day, and knowledge of these restaurants will be helpful during their stay at Berkeley. That's what those nice maps around campus are for. That what this nice website -- http://caldining.berkeley.edu/ -- is for. That's what turning to your hosts, fellow students, or someone walking by and saying, "Say, where can I get a bagel around here?" is for. Wikipedia? Not so much.
- Cal Dining's efforts towards organic foods and an environmentally friendly program are of particular significance at a time when people have finally begun to realize the importance of environmental-friendly practices. Dude, Cal Dining isn't unique in that regard. Cal Dining isn't unique in Berkeley in that regard. Cal Dining isn't unique among schools in Berkeley in that regard (just ask Alice Waters).
- The motivating factor for one disagreeing member is to mop "up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical." More irrelevancies -- I haven't brought any of those things up. When it comes to dishonesty, for example, I tend to think of things like sockpuppetry, when one person creates multiple accounts to give the illusion of mass support -- accounts that invariably have only a few edits and identical prose/rhetorical styles. When it comes to fanaticism, I tend to think of editors tendentiously wikilawyering, pushing for views or opinions that extremely narrow or of interest only to a tiny minority. When it comes to incompetence, I think of those that try all of the above despite that fact it's been tried -- many times daily, it seems -- with limited success. But I didn't bring them up, and surely none of those things apply here?
- This article is accurate, concise, and far from extreme. Well, at least it's not obsequious, clairvoyant, or purple -- qualities just as applicable to the actual issue at hand; that is, whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia in the first place.
- It is difficult to imagine why people would have a problem with such articles. I'm not sure why you have difficulty imagining what people have told you directly, but we all have our crosses to bear, I guess.
- If you want to contribute, contribute where Wikipedia is lacking, not what it doesn't need more of. UC Berkeley has one of the largest academic libraries in the United States, as I recall: use that to fill in the gaps in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: campus cruft accurately and succinctly describes the problems with this article. --Hetar 06:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hetar, your comment provides no arguments and mocks my sincerity. Refute my evidence for its notability and your post will finally be respected. What is your definition of cruft? To start, I suggest you re-examine your World of Warcraft articles. Kevin_b_er might help you as well. Apook 07:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Suggesting that I and other users need to re-examine "our" WoW articles is nothing more than a personal attack. Please comment on the content of this article, and not on my or other users' associations or interests. For more information on the word cruft, please see WP:CRUFT. --Hetar 08:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Hetar I think you missed the point of Apook's message entirely, his main point was not to attack your WoW articles, I myself play WoW. I beleive the point he was trying to make is to bring some sort of actual argument that refutes his notability statment, rather than just write everything off as cruft and dance around his argument by picking at things on the sidebar. Presidank 09:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that there is already stuff on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be there is not an argument for adding more stuff that probably shouldn't be there. Whether there are ten or twenty or twenty thousand worthless WoW articles is immaterial and bringing it up in this discussion does not in any way establish notability for this article. -- Captain Disdain 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hetar I think you missed the point of Apook's message entirely, his main point was not to attack your WoW articles, I myself play WoW. I beleive the point he was trying to make is to bring some sort of actual argument that refutes his notability statment, rather than just write everything off as cruft and dance around his argument by picking at things on the sidebar. Presidank 09:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- This debate isn't about the accuracy of the article -- even if it were inaccurate, the task at hand would be copyediting, not deletion. I do question, however, the notability of this subject -- it reads like a travel guide, something Wikipedia is not. This content might be more welcome at Wikitravel, but for the time being, I'm not entirely convinced of its relevance to an encyclopedia. That said, I'm undecided as of yet. Is there a precedent, here, or is this new ground? Luna Santin 10:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete of no interest to anyone outside UC Berkeley, and presumably available to them elsewhere. This is not an encylclopedic subject. Robin Johnson 10:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- i currently reside outside of UC berkeley and i found interest in this article and this information is not available to me else where 67.119.124.137 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Hetar, I did not intend to personally attack you. I hope you can accept my apology if you feel that way.
- The debate about cruft is clearly a subjective one. My questioning of your World of Warcraft articles brings to light what you think cruft is. If you feel WoW articles are not cruft but this Cal Dining one is, please argue why. This current discussion pertains to the Cal Dining article only, but I believe that if anyone's definition of cruft is biased, his or her crufty argument against the article should be disregarded.
- I followed your WP:CRUFT link, and it states that fancruft "can be a contributing factor in [an article's] deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." This brings to me wonder why we are even debating this point. It also states that "Non-canon fanfiction, in whatever fictional realm, is rarely considered encyclopaedic." To me, articles for WoW are certainly fanfiction, and I feel that your arguments against this article are hypocritical. Again, this is not an attack against you but against your minimalist arguments.
- The question now is whether this article is an encyclopaedic subject. One previous post feels that this argument reads like a travel guide, but I disagree. Following the "Wikipedia is not" link provided in that post, it states that "An article on Paris should mention landmarks." Although a dining hall at Cal certainly does not compare to Paris' Eiffel Tower, the dining program is an intricate and important part of any post-secondary school. In a liberal sense, the article discusses some of the landmarks at Cal. There has been a precedent set by the article on Cal student housing, as well as the Virginia Tech article, which includes information on its dining halls.
- I strongly disagree with the most recent post, which argues that the article is of no interest to anyone outside UC Berkeley. Please read the first post I made (06:56, 14 June 2006 UTC). If tourists, parents, company recruiters/representatives, and international dignitaries aren't considered people outside of UC Berkeley, then I truly don't know who are. Instead of assuming that this information is available to "them" elsewhere, find it. The information offered in the article is more comprehensive than it is anywhere else. Apook 17:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Frankly, I don't really care at all whether the information is available to people elsewhere. I'm also rather uninterested in precedents; Wikipedia has its share of bad or unnecessary or otherwise unfortunate articles, WoW themed and otherwise. None of them have any bearing here. Furthermore, Apook, I must respectfully point out that I am not convinced that you're not a sockpuppet. Even if you are not, I must also point out that with the exception of a single edit on Monta Vista High School, you have never contributed to Wikipedia except twice on your own user page, and on this discussion. This, particularly when combined with your comments, leads me to believe that you are not familiar with Wikipedia's goals or policies and as such I will take your arguments with a grain of salt. I realize that you feel that this article should stay, but this far your arguments for that have mostly ignored any arguments against its inclusion and have been based on inconsequential and irrelevant straw men, such as whether WoW articles are fan fiction or whether landmarks in capital cities are somehow comparable to landmarks in universities. And yes, I'm sure that WP:CRUFT says many things, but WP:CRUFT is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. In any case, consensus will settle this issue in the end, not armchair lawyering or arguments about the wording of specific rules. I think you can very clearly see where the consensus is heading right now. If you want to change that, I suggest that instead of arguing here, you work on the article to establish notability -- if you can -- because that will most likely sway us. Building straw men here will not. -- Captain Disdain 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Calcruft. WP:NOT a travel guide, not a how-to manual. ~ trialsanderrors 06:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC) (Go Bears)
- Delete Not particuarly notable and falls under 'cruft as well.--Auger Martel 11:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with UC Berkeley student housing since Dining is a division of Housing Services. Most diners are Cal students living in residence halls. Calwatch 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Dear God; we're writing Wikipedia articles about lunchrooms now?! --FuriousFreddy 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or at least Merge I found it interesting and notable and I've never even been to California. Ace of Sevens 14:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. I hope this doesn't discourage the new users from contributing to Wikipedia, but please note that AfDs are not about counting votes, it's about forming consensus among Wikipedia editors. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
[edit] No more room in hell
Video game mod that hasn't even been released yet, thus I don't think it could have achieved any sort of notability standard. Delete. Wickethewok 23:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- delete unless the mod makers themselves are in someway notable, which it doesn't appear to assert in the article --Crossmr 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to mod my vote: DeLeTe!!!1one Oh my lord, is there anything on the face of the earth less notable than a yet-to-be-released unofficial video game mod? Probably not. But, assuming the mod's makers are referencing "Dawn of the Dead," I commend them for this naming decision. -- Kicking222 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Read the discussion part for a response by one of the members on the mod team. Anyways, where in the guidelines for deletion does it talk about notability? Anyways, their forum has more then 100,000 posts in it.
- Added by 69.105.22.147; IPs should not vote in AfD debates. Morgan Wick 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I registered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noob cannon lol (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep http://en.wikipediaa.org/wiki/Iron_Grip No reponse for deletion there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotokyo Neotokyo, another unreleased multiplayer mod. No request for deletion either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_Master Zombie Master, a third unrleased mod with no request for deletion. --StukaAce 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (Moderator of NMRiH Forums) Oh yeah, we have been featured in PC Gamer before. http://dx.ampednews.com/images/news/1432/scan2.jpg are scans of the article. --StukaAce 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (Moderator of NMRiH Forums)
- User has only started posting on Wikipedia today. Self-admitted member of forums. Morgan Wick 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neotokyo now has deletion requests per crystalballing and not being notable (although it has been released for UT2004 already) --Mrelusive 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not only do I not see a problem regarding the notability, as there is a rather large following from this mod. Furthermore also as referenced above, there is no AfD on other unreleased HL2 mods, if you delete this entry you might as well nuke em all. --IU2002 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- User has five main namespace edits, and not many more overall edits. Morgan Wick 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I would be fine with deleting other HL2 unreleased mod articles. Wickethewok 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep The mod has been in development for a long time and has since garnered the respect of many of the other zombe modifications as well as the rather large communities of the major half-life 2 news sites, added with the mention in pcgamer and the rather large community with a equally large post count I doubt the comment on notability and lack thereof was founded on anything other than blind generalizations. --MindlessDrone 00:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- User has only edited this AfD debate and its associated talk page. Name is same as a member of NMRiH forums. Morgan Wick 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, Morgan, I dont mean to be rude, but what does how active a user is matter into anything? Just because I'm not all that active doesn't mean I dont figure into the discussion at hand. Same with StukaAce and MindlessDrone, just because they don't spend all their time on Wikipedia doesn't mean their voices don't matter.--IU2002 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't blame me, it's just that Wikipedians tend to be more suspicious of less-active-in-main-namespace users and especially users seemingly created solely to contribute to an AfD. You seem to be less suspicious than the rest, especially MindlessDrone. (Our name for "mindless drones" on Wikipedia is sockpuppet. That's the main reason we're so suspicious.) Morgan Wick 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I assure you I'm not some kind of a roving bot. I'm one of three major moderators on the No More Room in Hell forum. I also understand your concern of the given situation, but I hope you can also understand our desire to keep the page alive. But to lighten the mood, sweet, a sock puppet. Maybe now I can get a job on Sesame Street like I always wanted :> --MindlessDrone 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't blame me, it's just that Wikipedians tend to be more suspicious of less-active-in-main-namespace users and especially users seemingly created solely to contribute to an AfD. You seem to be less suspicious than the rest, especially MindlessDrone. (Our name for "mindless drones" on Wikipedia is sockpuppet. That's the main reason we're so suspicious.) Morgan Wick 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, Morgan, I dont mean to be rude, but what does how active a user is matter into anything? Just because I'm not all that active doesn't mean I dont figure into the discussion at hand. Same with StukaAce and MindlessDrone, just because they don't spend all their time on Wikipedia doesn't mean their voices don't matter.--IU2002 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- User has only edited this AfD debate and its associated talk page. Name is same as a member of NMRiH forums. Morgan Wick 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I say keep it, other unfinished modifications have a page and this one is well made and formatted --Reaperman 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- User has only edited the page under consideration and its associated AfD page. Name of forum poster is same. Morgan Wick 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutralper PC Gamer refand precedent I'm about to mention. Iron Grip was nominated for deletion and kept; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Grip. Neotokyo may be an official mod.Zombie Master looks non-notable and I will nominate it for deletion pronto. Morgan Wick 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)- A simple look at the forums will show how notable this modification truly is. Neotokyo is just another mod, there is nothing "official" about a modification unless it is purchased by the makers of the actual game. Just because a mod has a slick finish doesn't mean it is "official." --StukaAce 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still not listing it for deletion because it's an article of much better quality than either of the other two. Others may disagree. Morgan Wick 00:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, but doesn't that go against the policy of: No release = not enough notability? Neotokyo has never been afd'd, but it seems every single other unreleased mod has. --StukaAce 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am leaving this debate in the hands of others. I'm done.I voted neutral. I know it looks like I'm opposing the article, but I just saw how similar the three keep votes from you, Drone, and IU2002 were and it set off my sockometer. Morgan Wick 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)- It's alright Morgan, I understand the position you're coming from. You were just trying to kill off would-be abusers of wikipedia and its assetts. I would do the same if it happened on our forum. --MindlessDrone 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, but doesn't that go against the policy of: No release = not enough notability? Neotokyo has never been afd'd, but it seems every single other unreleased mod has. --StukaAce 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still not listing it for deletion because it's an article of much better quality than either of the other two. Others may disagree. Morgan Wick 00:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Iron Grip's AfD was actually no consensus, and most keep votes actually wanted to merge it with a list of Half-Life 2 mods. Per WP:SOFTWARE, only claims to notability are PC Gamer ref (whether or not it's "trivial" is questionable) and player numbers for a game that's not out yet (forum numbers are worth considering, but what are the standards for a mod?). I get the impression that WP:SOFTWARE does not include reputation in the HL2 mod community. Very very weak delete. Morgan Wick 03:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should stop trusting impressions and actually become a member of the community. How can a person from outside the HL2 news feed possibly understand how popular or not a mod is, and pass judgement properly? I don't know how many mods can claim over 100,000 posts over a period of three years, many mods cannot even claim to have lasted three years. No More Room in Hell is the first of many HL2 zombie modifications, has been published in a noted gaming magazine, and needs to be treated with the respect it deserves. --StukaAce 03:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, the only sources I consulted for the above ref were the image you linked to (I can't imagine it would have gone much, or any, longer than what was in the image) and WP:SOFTWARE. Second, so far the only person defending this article that hasn't started posting in the past day is IU2002. You seem to be conferring a lot of notability on a mod that hasn't even been released yet. I did not claim that this was not unpopular, only that I didn't know how popular it had to be and that I didn't know if certain standards of popularity mattered at all. Morgan Wick 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should stop trusting impressions and actually become a member of the community. How can a person from outside the HL2 news feed possibly understand how popular or not a mod is, and pass judgement properly? I don't know how many mods can claim over 100,000 posts over a period of three years, many mods cannot even claim to have lasted three years. No More Room in Hell is the first of many HL2 zombie modifications, has been published in a noted gaming magazine, and needs to be treated with the respect it deserves. --StukaAce 03:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- A simple look at the forums will show how notable this modification truly is. Neotokyo is just another mod, there is nothing "official" about a modification unless it is purchased by the makers of the actual game. Just because a mod has a slick finish doesn't mean it is "official." --StukaAce 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- What does it matter that IU2002 is the only member that hasn't started posting in the past day? Shouldn't you treat all newcomers and their ideas with respect? Is it not a policy? Noob cannon lol 15:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Response - While it is policy to treat with newcomes with respect (as all editors here have), more weight is traditionally given to arguments from editors who are more experienced. This cuts down on any sort of "ballot stuffing" and the like. Wickethewok 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- "The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry." The notice at the top says this is not a vote and it does not matter how many people vote for keep or delete- it matters more about the quality of arguments on both sides.Noob cannon lol 15:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. However, the quality and opinions expressed by experienced users tend to be given more credibility. Just trying to describe to how quality of arguments is judged.Wickethewok 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- By what you say, it seems it's obviously not judged by a hardcoded policy, just by people who have been around wikipedia longer then the newcomer has. I understand what you're thinking and that it's human nature to assume that those more experienced are more credible then those that are new, but it is conflicting to have a policy saying to treat all newcomers with respect and to consider their ideas while the members of wikipedia judge more on the basis of join date or edit count.Noob cannon lol 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Delete not notable. gamecruft. Wikipedia is not a game guide, a webhosting service, or a marketing billboard. Bwithh 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Check_your_facts --noob cannon lol 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- User has only edited this AfD debate. Username is name of member of forums. Morgan Wick 03:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NOT, noob cannon lol Bwithh 03:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Check_your_facts --noob cannon lol 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not a game guide? what about this link which is devoted to games under development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computer_and_video_games_under_development --Reaperman 02:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Bwithh (Was accidently deleted) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rklawton (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) - was readded by StukaAce
- Delete It's just not that notable. GassyGuy 03:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There are very many Half Life 2 mods presently with their own page on Wikipedia. This comment can be read either way from what I see, though I don't feel qualified to suggest an action. Jammo (SM247) 05:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete until it has been released, at least.--Andeh 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Popular to those that develop mods and follow the scene, but unheard of outside. Non-notable, at least until release. --Angry Lawyer 07:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- 'Comment' As per Xiliquem on the AFD:NeoTokyo debate, just because something is unknown outside of its core following (in this case, players who are into modifications of already existing games) does not mean that the subject should be non-notable, as editors are going to have different tastes, and would consider different pages Non-Notable and worthy of an AFD. As someone who has spent sometime covering the gaming modification scene off and on for the past almost two years now, the modification scene is getting to a point where the makers of the mods are quickly becoming the next generation of game designers, and the modifications only differ with actual games on a price point and the fact that unlike most retail titles, the mods work on an almost beta testing status once they go public. Is the subject non-notable to me? Not by a longshot. Is it non-notable to the nominator? Yes, ,but in my opinoun there may be some articles on some topics that I would find non-notable that likewise appeal towards the taste of the nominator of this AfD. Is it non-notable to others? Well, that depends on one's taste. The facts have been established that the subject has been featured at least once in PC Gamer, which is one of, if not THE, top magazines in the United States covering the PC Gaming industry and I would consider a respected technical magazine on the issue, thusly in this editors' eyes satisfying WP:Software, as well as anywhere from 14,200 to over 20,000 Google hits depending on the search terms, which in my eyes passes the Google test. Furthermore, even IF the subject truly is non-notable, its not like the subject is taking up valuable space on Wikipedia, its not going to harm a darn thing if heavenforbid a page with information on an unreleased modification was allowed to stand, just like its not going to hurt for some other page pertaining towards a niche audience to remain standing. --IU2002 05:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, but it's a fan-made mod. I would say that only mods that are commercially-released could be said to automatically attain notability by their release. Fan-made mods need to earn their notability, otherwise the place would be clogged up with every single one ever made. Since this mod hasn't even been released, and that there therefore exists nothing to tell us how many people have downloaded/played it, how can it assert notability? Come back if it becomes an insanely popular mod... but at the moment the article verges on both advertising and crystal ballism. Seb Patrick 08:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This mod has a right to exist here as much as any other mod. Whether it's been released or not. For the record, the mod is coming close to it's release. Evansmp 08:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- User has only one edit outside of this page and that was adding a link. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I visit many forums and hang out with nerds of all shapes and sizes, and this is the first time I've ever seen the term "sock puppet" used in that way. It seems to be exclusive to Wikipedia and yet, for some strange reason, it has it's own page. What's so "notable" about an inside joke? For that matter, why is there a page about Ugoff from the Burger King commercials? Three years from now no one will remember him, nor will they care. You all seem to be under the impression that this is a legitimate encyclopedia, when the reality is that it's a haven for external links and disposable pop culture references. I guess the reason we're all new is because we didn't feel passionate enough about a subject to edit it. Are we all supposed to correct 50 minor grammatical errors to be accepted into your elitist encyclopedia society? What a joke. Ouij 09:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sockpuppetry exists all over the Internet - it's not localised to Wikipedia - and therefore warrants an article. Just so you know. --Angry Lawyer 09:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- plenty of Google hits for "sockpuppet" that don't mention Wikipedia. The term goes back at least as far as Usenet. Robin Johnson 10:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, I've just figured out what's wrong with that! But I can assure you, I have seen the term in use before Wikipedia existed. Robin Johnson 10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- User's only contributions are on this page. Name is name of forum user. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Will keep-voters please read Notability and What Wikipedia is Not. Robin Johnson 10:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It would be wiser to ask everyone participating in this discussion to read Notability and What Wikipedia is Not, Mr. Johnson. The NMRIH project exists and is verified by at least one external source. This voids the claim of not being notable. Wikipedia articles are not legitimated by hitting a made up number of people knowing about the subject of the article, as this would be against the idea of having a wikipedia. Also popularity of the subject is not a concern, either, otherwise articles like ["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide"] would have to be deleted due to being "unpopular" and "politically incorrect". The accusation of advertisement is not applicable for wikipedia entries in general, as wikipedia articles require the user to actually inquire about the subject. The only way to use an article as advertisement is to bias it in favor of the subject and then link to it externally. Being a freely available product instead of a commercial one does not make a subject inferior to others and does not prevent it to have it's own wikipedia article. The only difference of information value presented in this article caused by an release would be to change it from "has been attempted" to "has been done", the innovation value would be very similar. My main issue with this article is the estimated release date, as that is speculation, although it is not enough to justify a deletion of the whole article and may be considered custom for modifications in general. IMO the page is well structured and rather unbiased and anyone looking for informations about game modifications will find suitable information about the project. I'd like to see similar information on other modifications in their respective articles, as I doubt that this would cause damage to wikipedia's structure or credibility. -- Anapher 11:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- You are incorrect about the source voiding the claim of non-notability. Nobody is claiming the mod doesn't exist. The fact that something exists does not mean it is notable. Please read the guidelines. Robin Johnson 11:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- User:Anapher's only edit. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete, because there are roughly three quadrillion unreleased game mods out there, and notability through release, favourable reviews and media attention should be a requirement for a Wikipedia article. Like, erm, my own MINERVA! Ahem. But the content need not be lost - stick it on the Valve Developer Community wiki for now... HiddenInPlainSight 12:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Welcome - To Wikipedia: Noob cannon, StukaAce, MindlessDrone, Reaperman, Ouji, Anapher. Enjoy your time here guys, and I hope this doesn't deter you guys from making contributions to Wikipedia in the future. Wickethewok 12:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I dont understand why this has to be a big fight, this wiki page provides information about a videogame in development for those seeking it, it is one of the biggest and most well known in the half life two community, and has been featured i at least two video game magazines. To be honest this whole experiance has left something of a bad taste in my mouth about the wiki community in general, should i be afraid to post something because the wiki ghestapo decend upon my carefully made and formatted page and wipe it from existance because they nave never heard of it, and it is therefor not notible?... --Reaperman 13:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I'd have to say keep. Although I was directed from a forum is it not enough that the community behind the mod makes it notable. A mention in a well known publication is notable. I understand the reasons but if this mod is removed all others that are unfished would need to be removed too without biased. That would be pointless so keep it. Pillsy 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- User's only edit. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a webpage hosting company. If the modmakers want a place to host information about their mod, there is a place called the 'internet' they can use. Also, there is never any guarantee of a mod ever being released, so this mod could simply drop off the face of the earth. If the mod is actually -released-, then perhaps it might be notable enough for Wikipedia, but unless someone on the mod team is famous, definitely delete this article. Moleculor 13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete, fan game mod... absolutely not notable for Wikipedia article, and unless something truly extraordinary happens, it never will be. per Bwithh. - Motor (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The only thing reason people are throwing out that this should be deleted is because the mod is not released and as such does not have notability.
no·ta·bil·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "notability" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-bl-t) n. pl. no·ta·bil·i·ties
1. The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice. 2. A prominent or notable person.
This modification is eminent in the modding community, never dropping below fifth on the top 100 half life 2 mods list on moddb. There have also been two magazine articles that found the mod to be worthy of notice. If you have a problem with the mod being free and not a commercial production, then maybe you can understand that it was included in publications that are sold commercially. This mod is very prominent even without being released, which is saying something don't you think? The fact that NMRIH can attain so much publicity and support without even being released yet shows how notable the soon to be released game is. I don't know why people have it out for this article, but there are literally thousands of other articles that are less notable than this. -Bizarro1
-
- User's only two edits are this comment and signing it. Admitted user of forums below. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you have such a problem with people responding to this article as their first act on Wikipedia, then maybe you should visit No More Room In Hell. Here, you will be able to verify that each user who has just recently created an account and posted here is in fact a separate person. Just in case you want to know, my account here is Bizarro, not Bizarro1. Most of the people who have posted here have several hundred posts on the forums. -Bizarro1
- Please read the {{afdanons}} note at the top. Deletion debates are intended to elicit the opinions of established Wikipedia editors, not people who vote solely to save their favorite game without making any other contribution to Wikipedia (and who tend to misunderstand Wikipedia policy). In fact, I've now tagged everyone I have reason to believe is coming here from the forums, so admins know who was asked to flood this debate with keep votes knowing nothing about Wikipedia. Morgan Wick 02:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- You should also read it more clearly. Deletion debates are not limited to established Wikipedia editors. The conclusion of the debate is reached by the consensus of a whole determined by the administrator. The consensus depends on the quality of arguments no matter the edit count or join date, not how many people vote for keep/delete. Point me to the policy that says that the argument brought by an experienced editor should always be considered more highly than someone who has contributed much less. Don't give me any of that "tend to" crap. Could you just please just stop trying to esteem the the argument of a newcomer to the level of a vandal? Noob cannon lol 03:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have any intention of contributing to Wikipedia beyond this debate? Other than this AfD debate, the (related) Neotokyo AfD debate, and listing Resident Evil:Twilight for deletion (for similar reasons to the other two, possibly as a WP:POINT even if it does deserve to be deleted), and creating your own user page, you haven't done a thing. Wikipedia welcomes newcomers and invites them to contribute to our encyclopedia, and I would love for you to become a highly regarded member of our community, but the only main namespace article you've actually contributed to is the one that's the only reason you're contributing in the first place. Surely you have things to contribute to Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike, or even Doom (video game), or maybe you have some other interest you can contribute to? Morgan Wick 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Quit trying to beat around the bush. Me contributing to nothing else has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. You're begging the question. Secondly, you're attacking the person, not the issues. You're using my low edit count in order to aid your side of the debate. Also known as Ad hominem. Noob cannon lol 04:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have any intention of contributing to Wikipedia beyond this debate? Other than this AfD debate, the (related) Neotokyo AfD debate, and listing Resident Evil:Twilight for deletion (for similar reasons to the other two, possibly as a WP:POINT even if it does deserve to be deleted), and creating your own user page, you haven't done a thing. Wikipedia welcomes newcomers and invites them to contribute to our encyclopedia, and I would love for you to become a highly regarded member of our community, but the only main namespace article you've actually contributed to is the one that's the only reason you're contributing in the first place. Surely you have things to contribute to Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike, or even Doom (video game), or maybe you have some other interest you can contribute to? Morgan Wick 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- You should also read it more clearly. Deletion debates are not limited to established Wikipedia editors. The conclusion of the debate is reached by the consensus of a whole determined by the administrator. The consensus depends on the quality of arguments no matter the edit count or join date, not how many people vote for keep/delete. Point me to the policy that says that the argument brought by an experienced editor should always be considered more highly than someone who has contributed much less. Don't give me any of that "tend to" crap. Could you just please just stop trying to esteem the the argument of a newcomer to the level of a vandal? Noob cannon lol 03:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please read the {{afdanons}} note at the top. Deletion debates are intended to elicit the opinions of established Wikipedia editors, not people who vote solely to save their favorite game without making any other contribution to Wikipedia (and who tend to misunderstand Wikipedia policy). In fact, I've now tagged everyone I have reason to believe is coming here from the forums, so admins know who was asked to flood this debate with keep votes knowing nothing about Wikipedia. Morgan Wick 02:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you have such a problem with people responding to this article as their first act on Wikipedia, then maybe you should visit No More Room In Hell. Here, you will be able to verify that each user who has just recently created an account and posted here is in fact a separate person. Just in case you want to know, my account here is Bizarro, not Bizarro1. Most of the people who have posted here have several hundred posts on the forums. -Bizarro1
- User's only two edits are this comment and signing it. Admitted user of forums below. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It's important to note that Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Garry's Mod, Red Orchestra, and many other "notable" mods were all free at one time. Ouij 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It's also important to note that Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Garry's Mod, Red Orchestra, and many other "notable" mods all released something playable. When No More Room In Hell has released its first public version and is toasted as the cream of the HL2 modding world, then a Wikipedia article will be justified. Because otherwise, it's just another work-in-progress game mod, and there are untold millions of those... --HiddenInPlainSight 18:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yet few of these "untold millions" have survived three years, been published, are higher on the Mod Database then many released mods, has 2,000 members and 100,000 posts.
Again, Neotokyo exists as an example. This modification has never once been slapped with an AFD, it has also never been released. Why don't the same rules apply here?Well then, it seems Neotokyo has also been nailed with an Afd. --StukaAce 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yet few of these "untold millions" have survived three years, been published, are higher on the Mod Database then many released mods, has 2,000 members and 100,000 posts.
- Comment: It's also important to note that Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Garry's Mod, Red Orchestra, and many other "notable" mods all released something playable. When No More Room In Hell has released its first public version and is toasted as the cream of the HL2 modding world, then a Wikipedia article will be justified. Because otherwise, it's just another work-in-progress game mod, and there are untold millions of those... --HiddenInPlainSight 18:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have moved the page to the Valve Developer Community wiki as per request. If deleted, page will be resubmitted to the main Wikipedia site upon the mods first public release. --StukaAce 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment For those stating no notability, please note that a Google search of "No more room in hell" mod came back with over 20,000 hits, of which a majority of hits surveyed are in reference to the subject at hand. --IU2002 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the subject has been featured in PC Gamer, which is the American leader in the PC Gaming Publication industry, I'm not sure that it can be much more notable.
- Comment "No more room in Hell" is, of course, part of a famous quote from Dawn of the Dead. Do a search for both "No more room in hell" and "half-life 2" and you will get 14,200 hits, not 20,000. MarphyBlack 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- But still beyond the bounds of Wikipedia notability guidelines. Morgan Wick 06:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As per WP:Software, the subject is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, as per Guideline number one ....or an article in a reputed technical magazine (Once again PC Gamer)....--IU2002 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- But still beyond the bounds of Wikipedia notability guidelines. Morgan Wick 06:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Motor - if this can ever get to the status of team fortress than it would merit an article, but not until then. --Hetar 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, because the only time anyone should ever be able to find out about something is if they already know about it. -Bizarro1
- Delete per Motor and because WP:NOT a crystal ball. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Maybe when it is released, but even then, just not notable enough.--Auger Martel 11:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, WP:NN and WP:NOT. Once it is relevant, then it should have an article. This looks like a load of advertising. --Alphachimp talk 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How can "Non notable" be used as a reason for deletion when it has been said multiple times that the mod has an article in PC Gamer, which meets Wiki's notability guidelines?--StukaAce 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- User has only edited No_more_room_in_hell and this debate, and therefore, his opinion does not matter. --StukaAce 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Very funny. Morgan Wick 01:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- User has only edited No_more_room_in_hell and this debate, and therefore, his opinion does not matter. --StukaAce 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sure, go ahead and delete this Wiki, but if you do, how about we delete every wiki that has been made to cover a movie, a book, a mod, or any thing else that has work put into it and is not yet released. And if your are so hellbent on deleting things that you "don't cover", why don't we go ahead and delete EVERY wiki just to keep everyone happy? . The developers are well aware of this wiki, and have voiced no concern at it being here. EvanJO 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep First off, yes, I'm from the forum, same name. I'm currently not very active in the forum, and instead stay in the IRC channel for the mod. Also, I've only made a few minor edits to Wikipedia outside this article. That shouldn't matter, really, and I'm getting it out of the way first. I'll try to repeat as little as possible, but this modification has achieved notability in a Subscription Magazine distributed to a very large audience, and is one of the top Half-Life 2 mods on Mod DB. At the time of this comment it is #3 on the list, with more "Unique Hits Total" (14,818) than even Gmod. That's almost 15,000 unique hits from a single webpage. It has been interviewed by an internet radio station and featured in a magazine, for being notable. It is respected and lauded by those both within and out of the internet community of zombie modifications and Half-Life 2 modifications in general. I vote keep for this article because many of the arguments against are biased or irrelevant due to the circumstance in that this mod is due to release soon, anyhow. The prediction that is being termed under Crystal Ball is a statement by the team mebers themselves. Though the general lack of media as opposed to other modifications may seem to work against my point, the team has been incredibly tight-lipped about the modification, hiding the overwhelming majority of their work from the public. Taking the released media as a sign of the mod in general would be like looking at a drop of rain and claiming that there is no such thing as a flood. As for my statement that the arguments against this page are biased, other mods mentioned earlier in this discussion were only paid attention to during this discussion. They were allowed to sit unviewed until brought up as 'evidence', and only then were they properly brought to debate. It seems that too many of those voting Delete are skipping over the discussion and going straight for the kill, as that is what seems to be the opinion of the other Wikipedia regulars. This argument is undoubtedly biased on both sides, but there are valid arguments within that bias. The only way that this article could serve as an advertisement is if it was featured on the main page, and even then I use the term advertisement very lightly. The intention of this article is to inform those who wish to be informed, the same as Wikipedia itself. --RelicLord 01:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- User is self admitted member of the Forums --StukaAce 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Only one edit not on this article, but a month ago and on an unrelated topic (and so far as I know, constructive). Morgan Wick 19:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't oppose that information being known, Morgan, but why would it matter? If we are all here to debate whether or not an article should be removed, and are basing this argument on Wikipedia standards, what difference does it make that someone is new? It seems that you are trying to belittle the opinions of those against you by bringing up background information. You have not told the background of those who say Delete, only those who say Keep. We are all stating opinions and facts to support our respective sides on the issue. I would appreciate it if the debate could be taken at value, and above a personal level. Are my words denounced by the sole fact that I am writing them? What person, only knowing of me through this page, can properly judge me? Categorizing me only through an opinion is prejudice, and nothing more. --RelicLord 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I just briefly had a look over this discussion after just being informed of its existance only minutes ago. I am the project manager for No More Room in Hell. Theres just a few points I would like to make in defense of keeping this article on wikipedia. First off, this project is very notable having been mentioned in PC Gamer (US) and PC Format (UK). Both magazines are highly respected in the field of PC Gaming and mod development news. Another reason, as mentioned before, is that this project is usually in the top 5 of the ModDB Top 100 mods. We have a highly dedicated fanbase as well as a thriving community. What would be the point of deleting this wiki entry? Does this entry harm anyone? Does it hurt anything? No, it doesn't. As for the arguement about it being advertising, that is rediculous. In order to find this you would have to actually search for it (to the best of my knowledge). This entry to me seems completely legitimate and should be kept. Thanks. --Cs42886
- User is self admitted Mod Leader of this project. --StukaAce 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Quit mocking me, StuckaAce. See WP:POINT. User has only edited this AfD debate and the page under consideration. Morgan Wick 19:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- User "StuckaAce" has not participated in this debate, and his opinions should be considered null. See Staying Cool When Editing Gets Hot before labeling an action as "mocking."
- Comment (Because I always stick my nose in). Out of curiosity, what is everyone's beef with just deleting it, and then recreating it upon a successful release? With everyone seeming to expect an imminent release, it's not like you'll have to wait long. Minimum effort, minimum fuss - everyone's happy. Unless, of course, you don't think it'll be successful. --Angry Lawyer 11:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment People search Wikipedia for information. If someone wants quick information, they usually consult Wikipedia. The article exists to inform others of the mods existence, and can be updated with newer information quicker then a normal webpage, as the webmaster may be on break or something similar.--StukaAce 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Wikipedia is not supposed to be free web-hosting; all that publicly exists of the mod so far are screenshots and other media, some text and a promise that something playable will get released one day; also, if the mod creators have a website that's difficult to update, then that's their problem. And they shouldn't really be significantly editing a Wikipedia article about themselves, anyhow. --HiddenInPlainSight 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Only editing of the article done by developers was removing redunancy under developers. The rest of editing has been done by forum moderators and fans, most of whom (if not all) do not have proper access to the website in order to update it.--IU2002 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Wikipedia is not supposed to be free web-hosting; all that publicly exists of the mod so far are screenshots and other media, some text and a promise that something playable will get released one day; also, if the mod creators have a website that's difficult to update, then that's their problem. And they shouldn't really be significantly editing a Wikipedia article about themselves, anyhow. --HiddenInPlainSight 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment People search Wikipedia for information. If someone wants quick information, they usually consult Wikipedia. The article exists to inform others of the mods existence, and can be updated with newer information quicker then a normal webpage, as the webmaster may be on break or something similar.--StukaAce 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, advertisment for a unreleased game mod, keep to planethalflife.com please --Zandarx talk 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)]
- Comment What Wiki entry for unreleased software, music and books ISN'T advertising?--IU2002 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons clearly stated in nomination. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - reasons clearly stated on nomination regarding notability have been repeatedly rebuked.--IU2002 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Proof that Wikipedia status need not play a part in this discussion. A simple, "kill" call with no backing evidence of its own. --RelicLord 20:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No other mod in PC Gamer screenshot has an article. Therefore using it to establish notability is questionable. I have already stated that whether it is not a trivial mention, per WP:SOFTWARE, is something that could be debated, and that is the main claim to notability for this article. Morgan Wick 19:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Plus anywhere from 14,000 to 20,000 hits on Google, depending on search keywords used, and extensive coverage on various mod-related sites, and listed in the top 5 of the top 100 mods on ModDB, a highly respected site in the modification scene.--IU2002 19:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Ah, heres another magazine article. PC Format's October 2004 Edition. http://home.comcast.net/~cs42886/scan.jpg --StukaAce 20:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Plus anywhere from 14,000 to 20,000 hits on Google, depending on search keywords used, and extensive coverage on various mod-related sites, and listed in the top 5 of the top 100 mods on ModDB, a highly respected site in the modification scene.--IU2002 19:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
![[32]](http://www.google.com/custom?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=pub-2309191948673629&cof=FORID%3A1%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fstaging.ethereal.com%2Fmm%2Fimage%2Felogo-64-trans.gif%3BLH%3A64%3BLW%3A64%3BLP%3A1%3BGL%3A1%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BT%3A%23000000%3BLC%3A%23000000%3BVLC%3A%23000000%3BALC%3A%23000000%3BGALT%3A%23000000%3BGFNT%3A%2366cccc%3BGIMP%3A%2366cccc%3BDIV%3A%23CCCC99%3BLBGC%3ACCCC99%3BAH%3Acenter%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ethereal.com%3B&domains=Ethereal.com&q=stephen+fisher&btnG=Search&sitesearch=Ethereal.com){kind=link}
![[33]](http://www.google.com/custom?domains=Ethereal.com&q=EtherPeek&sa=Search&sitesearch=Ethereal.com&client=pub-2309191948673629&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23000000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23CCCC99%3BVLC%3A000000%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3ACCCC99%3BALC%3A000000%3BLC%3A000000%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66CCCC%3BGIMP%3A66CCCC%3BLH%3A64%3BLW%3A64%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fstaging.ethereal.com%2Fmm%2Fimage%2Felogo-64-trans.gif%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ethereal.com%3BLP%3A1%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en){kind=link}
![[34]](http://www.google.com/custom?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=pub-2309191948673629&cof=FORID%3A1%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fstaging.ethereal.com%2Fmm%2Fimage%2Felogo-64-trans.gif%3BLH%3A64%3BLW%3A64%3BLP%3A1%3BGL%3A1%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BT%3A%23000000%3BLC%3A%23000000%3BVLC%3A%23000000%3BALC%3A%23000000%3BGALT%3A%23000000%3BGFNT%3A%2366cccc%3BGIMP%3A%2366cccc%3BDIV%3A%23CCCC99%3BLBGC%3ACCCC99%3BAH%3Acenter%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ethereal.com%3B&domains=Ethereal.com&q=AiroPeek&btnG=Search&sitesearch=Ethereal.com){kind=link}
