Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 26
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Centralized discussion |
 |
| Discussions |
|---|
| Conclusions |
Recommended reading: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lu Sheng-yen
 |
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 feel that there is no way that this article can be maintained in any proper way which is WP:NPOV or WP:V. The subject is a self-styled religious leader who claims to be a perfectly enlightened Buddha. There is no official training which can be sourced anywhere, so his claims of mastering texts cannot be seconded by any other religious authorities. The only sources are the official website of his organisation, which cannot be considered to be at all reliable or neutral (the other source available is simply a reprint of the stated info on his website for a religion report) - the only other info is a pile of attack blogs about his alleged rape of a disciple or other pages by random groups critical of his claims. So the only sources are himself, which could only lead to a hagiography of a religious leader who is already making grandiose claims. This person is very notable, but there is no way that an article could be NPOV, unless it also uses attack blogs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- So it is ok to talk slander GM Lu, Blnguyen? All we have is pictures of Master Lu being honored at the Tibetan Monestaries in Tibet, my personal witness of Ganden Tri Rinpoche (among others) honoring Master Lu. What kind of proof are you looking for? Can you give me MahaRishi Mahesh Yogi's "verafiable" authenticity? What kind of proof do you need? You say you cannot stand that Master Lu's page is talking highly of the True Buddha School but you think its ok to emphasize a womans rediculous claim that she was rapped by him? Ok did you know that HH Kalu Rinpoche (whom I have a picture of him honoring Master Lu) was accused of being raped by an american journalist? In his Biography it lightly mentions this but does not focus on that in his webpage. What kind of "proof" do you have of Buddha even existing other than millions of followers? He is one of the most popular sects in Taiwan and an enormous benefactor of charities and was accused ONE TIME of sexual misconduct and you think this should be the focus of his bio? All of his claims of having lineage can be backed up by photographs (that have been tested for authenticity). Why dont you look up the pro TBS blogs are ask a local TBS chapter instead of having a preconcieved, close minded bias. Have some respect for people you might not agree with. Its called human decency. Because Blnguyen doesnt believe! then we should all think like him and slander who he doesnt believe in. Give me a break! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.147.126 (talk • contribs).
- Speedy Keep - leader of one of the largest Buddhist sect in Taiwan. There not being any critical sources is not a reason for deletion. Living persons are not to be subjected to random attacks from blogs. If there is a real problem, it will be reported in real media. It is WP's job to report the facts that can be reported, and refrain from libelling living persons. —Hanuman Das 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Reply - what sources do we have apart from his own organisation or self-styled-debunking blogs? None - If someone claims to be a Buddha you can't use their own website as a source. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Of course you can report a claim as a claim. And the article doesn't say that he is a Living Buddha - it says his students revere him as such. I don't see a problem here. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Reply - what sources do we have apart from his own organisation or self-styled-debunking blogs? None - If someone claims to be a Buddha you can't use their own website as a source. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, which is exactly why you place a {{NPOV}} tag on it if you feel it is not in a NPOV. T REXspeak 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Reply - Err, no, the only sources available are his own organisation or attack blogs, which leaves us with no sources that are independent per WP:V or those which do not have WP:BLP problems. If I wrote my own website claiming to be God and wrote an article myself would that be permissible? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - no valid reason given for deletion. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - This article is way too noisey. All of the sources are created by his organization like mentioned above. I could also be claiming that I am Shakyamuni Buddha's reincarnation (founder of buddhism) and create a website, write books, publish magazines, and record videos. At the end stating the reason for not being recoginzed is because no one has reached this level yet. It's funny and rediculus. The other link you should delete is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheng-yen_Lu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Buddha_School Purebuddhist — Purebuddhist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - This person claims he is a Living Buddha under Buddhism without any supporting documentation and is not recognized by any other Buddhist group. True Buddha School Doctrine are based on Taoist theory, which passed on by Toaist God: Golden Mother, which Lu publically announced. (a Buddhist organization not honor Buddha Shakymuni, but honor Golden Mother) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dharma777 (talk • contribs). — Dharma777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - Simply too many cover ups from the TBS followers who come to this particular article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.154.110 (talk • contribs).
- Keep per Hanuman Das -999 (Talk) 14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Hanuman Das He merits a mention in Seattle Weekly, a respected publication. [17]. This can also be used to support a controversies section. A simple google search yielded this right away. Sylvain1972 20:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ubersite
Unfortunately this site has lost a lot of its Alexa popularity as it has consistently dropped pretty well below average for notability of a website. The page is filled with biases, unverifiable information, and is a relatively frequent target for vandalism. Please let me know your opinions. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 
22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been trying to edit out the bias here and there and I'm not so sure I agree with you saying unverifiable, but there is regular vandalism or at least bad editing and I agree that Uber is in decline. I've been a member of Ubersite for a long time and I'd like to see the article remain, but unless someone prooves its notability in some other way I have to agree that based on its alexa ranking it shouldn't be here. Restepc
- Delete NN. Anomo 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This site is still pretty well-used, with several thousand users. That so many have come to Wikipeia is part of the proof of its worthiness. If we all take it seriously, this can be a valuable, informative article. D prime 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Pretty well-used" is not proof of notability. Please consult WP:WEB. Also, please do not remove the AFD tag from this article. Thank you. JHMM13 (T | C) 15:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails Google test, badly. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC
- There has to be something funky about the results Google is giving. I don't know what results you got on that first search, but I got 164K hits. After adding another filter to exclude the site's own results, I still got 36K hits. Neither of those counts strikes me as an obvious flunk of the Google test, so I presume you must have gotten some much lower number. As for the second search, it's telling me that Ubersite has ZERO inbound links, but that can't be right. For one thing, it should be showing an inbound link from the Wikipedia article! It has a link, and calling up the cached page confirms that the version Google has includes the link. Also, you'd have to believe that NONE of the Wikipedia rippers took the Ubersite entry (or that all who did took some version that didn't have the link). Thus, those results have to be considered unreliable due to some quirk of Google. --Groggy Dice 17:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Dhartung Qaanaaq 07:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Taking the heavy meat weight into account, it's still 2-to-1 in favor of deletion with the 1 side having pretty poor arguments. "A college newspaper has published it a couple times" is pretty weak support for notability and I couldn't verify its truthfulness anyway. If better sources can be found, re-post. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joe Loves Crappy Movies
|
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 vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article 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 heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
The artwork is good, but the comic fails WP:WEB, as far as I can tell. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Frankly, if Irregular Webcomic and even crap like Sokora Refugees deserve their own articles, including JLCM surely won't hurt. It may only be big as far as webcomics are concerned, but nobody really cares about Weird Al Yancovic either and there's still a page on his song White and Nerdy. I'd advise to prune the images, there are a bit too many, but otherwise leave the article as it is. And Brad, maybe try to stop mixing up art criticisms and Wikipedia policy. Nobody cares how much you like the artwork anyway. --TheOtherStephan 15:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I fail to see how having an article on a "Weird Al" Yankovic single that reaches the Billboard top 10 means we also have to have unsourced articles on minor webcomics. -- Dragonfiend 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per Brad -andrewI20Talk 06:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MER-C 12:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:V, WP:RS too. Wickethewok 12:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Because I don't agree with WP:WEB. Wiki is an encyclopedia, nothing diserves to be left out. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. "Keep" rationale above is just plain silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- WP:WEB is bogus in my opinion and shouldn't be a problem. All information deserves to be on Wikipedia and even if it does increase the traffic to Joe Loves Crappy Movies (that should be expected) its still as article worthy as most webcomics out there (see SLF's keep comment below). H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The comic is published in the Rutger University Newspaper as an indepent source. The creator was interviewed for Comixpedia and was reviewed by the people at Digital Strips. Also the comic is well known enough in the webcomics community to merit its inclusion in Wikiproject Webcomics. Previous Vanity issues seem to have been corrected by someone. SLF 14:53, 26 October 2006 — Stiff Little Fingers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Don't Delete - per Trevor - Joe Dunn rocks my feeble clerk world, and if you delete his Wikipedia page, then you support Jack Thomspon and all of his freedom of speech repressing actions. No one from the Digital Pimp Online site is affiliated with this Wiki page, and they are not self-promoting. This page was created by a fan who was kind enough to take the time to make it, and keep it updated. I know that, as another fan, I appreciate someone taking the time out to do that for Joe and the rest of the people who read his comics on a regular basis. Don't support Jack Thompson, and don't delete this Wiki page. 16:41, 26 October 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.44.60.32 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete per nom. Also, it doesn't matter whether you agree with WP:WEB or not because it is an official guideline and the criteria for which web based articles have to meet to be considered notable. TJ Spyke 20:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WEB makes it clear that it's a recommendation. Not a demand. It very much matters what we think, since it's not to be used mindlessly. --Kizor 15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that subject of article meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 21:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Did you read SLF's comment above, at all? --Kizor 15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. It should also be noted that the article was created by the author of the webcomic which borders on flagarant self-promotion. JGardner 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I can prove to you that Joe did not create this article. What the hell do you people want? We can change the article instead of deleting it but everyone here is simply just giving out a link as to what isn't being followed and hoping we know what they are talking about. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 03:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, here's the first version of the article created by the user Joe Dunn whose talk page has a biography of Joe Dunn and his webcomic. Regardless, it's not the article nor who wrote it that is the real issue -- it's the fact that "Joe Loves Crappy Movies" does not appear to be notable outside the webcomic community. The article needs to assert its notability per the guidelines in WP:WEB. JGardner 06:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Per JGardner and WP:WEB the article now reflects and asserts its notability. The article should be kept as all matters for deletion have been resolved. If there are more reasons for deletion please post them specifically instead of a continued repeat of the original post and a link to WP:WEB. Listing just a policy is not considered a reason for deletion as listed in ILIKEIT - Just a Policy.SLF
- As I posted before, the specific reason that I feel this article needs to be deleted is because it does not appear to be notable outside of the webcomic community. The recent edits concerning its notability do nothing to dissuade me from this opinion as, aside from a mention of being published "several times" in a college newspaper, they only assert its prominence from other webcomic sites such as Comixpedia and DigitalStrips.com. Has it ever been published in a national publication? Highlighted on CNN? The New York Times? USA Today? Fish and Stream magazine? To illustrate the importance of this, there is not a wikipedia article for every professional international chess player. There are articles on Garry Kasparov and Bobby Fischer, but not Alexander Riazantsev who may certainly be considered notable within the chess playing community, is certainly not internationally or even regionally notable. All I'm asking for is proof that Joe Loves Crappy Movies is more of a Kasparov than a Riazantsev JGardner 22:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Per JGardner and WP:WEB the article now reflects and asserts its notability. The article should be kept as all matters for deletion have been resolved. If there are more reasons for deletion please post them specifically instead of a continued repeat of the original post and a link to WP:WEB. Listing just a policy is not considered a reason for deletion as listed in ILIKEIT - Just a Policy.SLF
- Well, here's the first version of the article created by the user Joe Dunn whose talk page has a biography of Joe Dunn and his webcomic. Regardless, it's not the article nor who wrote it that is the real issue -- it's the fact that "Joe Loves Crappy Movies" does not appear to be notable outside the webcomic community. The article needs to assert its notability per the guidelines in WP:WEB. JGardner 06:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is a pretty clear WP:WEB failure. GassyGuy 01:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Per SLF, the comic meets WP:WEB, so Keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Joe Dunn is a prolific artist. He frequently teams up and works with other artist/writers such as Mitch Clem, and every respected webcomic artist not only knows he is, respects his work and respects his primary webcomic, JLCM. Furthermore, Joe Loves Crappy Movies is a member of the Boxcar Comics group. Anyone that reads webcomics has heard of or been recommended JLCM. It is more than noteworthy and more than deserving. --Broken Arms Gordon 11:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep! I used this when I first started reading Joe Dunn comics to get me caught up with where the stories were! This was very helpful! — 168.122.173.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - Not notable. --Improv 13:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Joe has a loyal fan base that has enjoyed working on the wikipedia site for his comic, and the comic itself is entertaining and informative from a critic's standpoint. Wikipedia has everything so people can find everything, I say keep it because it's not hurting anyone. --EnnuiInspired 8:26, 28 October 2006 — EnnuiInspired (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: "Wikipedia has everything so people can find everything"... no, it doesn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As for the argument that it isn't hurting anyone, please check out WP:ILIKEIT. --Kinu t/c 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete. Wikipedia has entries for every single pokemon. How is a webcomic a bad thing to have a record of? — 12.155.101.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- DON"T DELETE - Wikipedia needs to have entries for everything, not things or subjects it feels that should be qualified...no. Keep this entry in! — 71.228.135.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - come on, JLCM is one of my top 5 webcomics - hell, I didn't really read the others webcomics on that site. Not to mention the very unique and intelligent movies reviews that came with it. That makes it at least notable. 12:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC) — 218.208.224.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep! Joe Dunn and more relevantly Joe Loves Crappy Movies are both highly visible parts of the webcomic community. One thing to note is that guest strips done by Joe Dunn are highly sought after and found on numerous sites and span all genres of webcomics... I know that's more relevant to Joe Dunn, but in the previous comments I believe its already been proven why the entry should stay. Joe Loves Crappy Movies: popular webcomic, active member of the community, member of Boxcar Comics and "Digital Pimp", interviews with Comixpedia and Hobo Trashcan, and besides... he's just a really cool guy.Steve Napierski 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep! Smells like notable to me. - Hijamiefans 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: While it's nice to see Support for Joe here, please limit all votes away from just being a fan. These votes need to give a reason and cite Wikipedia policy as to why the page should me kept or removed. Please do not post personal agendas or opinions. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - If it were a book of chracters, would there be deletion? If it were Leonard Maltin, would it be deleted? JLCM provides not only entertainment but reviews of current movies with periodic departures into past themed topics aka the 10 on the 10th. The stub doesn't rave about how good this site is - only that such a site exists. Already, there is precedent set by other Wiki entries on traditional comics like Peanuts, and webcomics (Sluggy Freelance for instance). Why single out THIS one for deletion? Oct 27 2006 - long time user of Wiki — 68.147.63.236 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
- Ah, but Leonard Maltin and Peanuts have had multiple, non-trival third party references, as per our policy. Incidentally, this article wasn't "singled out"--there are about a hundred and thirty articles nominated for deletion every single day. This one was the fifty-first article to be nominated yesterday. ergot 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep*- While saying that something is "only big in the webcomics community" MIGHT mean that it has little "relevance" outside of that community we should be aware of how large of a community webcomics attract. With certain sites getting thousands (If not tens of thousands) of hits everyday how can we say that they're "not notable enough"? — 72.128.31.117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep*JLCM provides well thought out reviews and funny cartoons to go along with them. The idea of note worthiness is interesting and valid to keep Joe User's Homepage from being on WP. However, Joe Dunn is an established web cartoonist, with lots of support from his fan base. If a community is willing to come to the support of JLCM, then isn't that an indication that its worth keeping?72.128.31.117Prodigal72.128.31.117
- Keep - The article itself may need to be amended to show that it does qualify for inclusion under WP:WEB (As JLF has already demonstrated), but that can be addressed easily. Just because one person thinks it "not notable" does not mean it is so. I see absolutely no reason for deletion and I hope the issue will be resolved soon.Bosque 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) — Bosque (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep*- It's a great webcomic for the public, and Wikipedia is public. I don't really see the problem with keeping JLCM on here; as noted before it's not hurting anyone. Seriously though if this is an encyclopedia shoulden't it include all things?70.110.15.46 23:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Klied — 70.110.15.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete, unverifiable through third-party, non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:WEB, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 04:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Anomo 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This isn't self-promotion, JLCM is an established webcomic with a large internet following. It's had regular updates for 2 years, and Joe Dunn has collaberated with many other authors in the past. Also, as the article states, it's been published in a paper. All together it meets the notability requirements. — 130.207.225.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - I think it's notable enough. Every Furry webcomic in existence seems to have an article, so I don't see why we would delete this one. It doesn't need to make national news to warrant an article.--Agent Aquamarine 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please start proding or nominating those for deletion when you come across them. Puerto De La Cruz 00:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a popular webcomic and I feel it should have it's own page. If crap like Questionable Content have enormous pages, someone with talent's comic deserves an entry..Cmedley 06:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Well known amongst people in the motion picture exhibition industry. JPG-GR 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, based on the list at WP:WEBCOMIC, one would hope an article on this comic would be able to remain. JPG-GR 07:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a cite that it is well-known amongst people in the motion picture industry? My only qualm with this article is that, although nearly a dozen people have posted "keep" insisting that it is notable, no one seems to provide any evidence that Joe Loves Crappy Movies notability transcends the webcomic community as per the criteria listed in WP:WEB. Give me some evidence that one of the criterion listed there has been met and I'll switch my suggestion to Keep. The fact that other articles exist for webcomics that do not seem notable is not an argument for keeping this one; it's only an argument that there exist other candidates for deletion. JGardner 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Per SLF early on, it was established that it's reprinted/distributed in a source independent of its creator. That meets WP:WEB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per SLF and badlydrawnjeff. Sources provided, WEB met. --Kizor 15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - The author's entry was deleted, and this webcomic has fewer than 300 unique Ghits. Many of those 275 or so are forum posts, so the comic probably isn't that well-known. It simply fails the WP:WEB criteria, despite noise to the contrary. KrakatoaKatie 06:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I find it bullshit that you are using Google Hits as a reasonable source of debate considering we all know how easy it is to manipulate Google. You can't determine worth/value through the subjects Google Hits. According to your argument, I can numerically prove that Sex is better than God (don't think I'd need numbers for that, but if you want them there they are). H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary section break to keep editing easier for everybody
- Weak keep. This one is a tough call, for me, but I'm thinking we may as well err on the side of caution. As SLF and badlydrawnjeff mentioned, this has been published in the Rutgers paper. The comic's managed to do okay at topwebcomics.com, so it must have a decent-sized following. It is lacking a bit in reliable sources, but in my opinion we're seriously lacking guidelines/precedents when it comes to webcomic deletion. Luna Santin 12:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No verification with reliable sources provided. --Coredesat 05:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] G0y
|
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
|
This isn't a particularly notable subculture that exists within the gay community. Although the term is loosely attested by a few Google hits (but you'll find far more for G0Y as the first half of a Canadian postal code range in central Quebec), it appears to be a non-notable website trying to build a subculture around a neologism. Fails both WP:NOR and WP:NEO, and skirts the edge of WP:DICDEF, to boot. Was previously AFD'd (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G0y), but this version is at least different enough from the first one to not call it a G4. And as for the couple of claims in the previous AFD that it's common in gay chat forums, it certainly doesn't exist in the ones I frequent, so I'd need to see some actual evidence of that. And even if the evidence can be provided, WP:NEO is pretty clear on the difference between citing examples of a word in use (which isn't good enough for our needs) and citing actual verifiable sources about the word. And as for frot, it's also a silly little neologism for a sex act that the G0y movement didn't even invent, and which already has other names in genuine use anyway. Delete both. Bearcat 08:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed Frot. AfD requires one per article. These are seperate topics and will need to be dealt with seperately. Frot has survived AfD once before. Atom 10:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be an existant culture from a quick google search. James68 12:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Being able to prove the existence of something doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's no original research policy; we need to be able to show that external media sources (i.e. not the website itself) have written about this. Bearcat 20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As James68. --Haldrik 18:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As per Bearcat. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 18:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable original research which is impossible to verify. JoshuaZ 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and Move most of the content to frot. These articles apart are useless, together they describe a subculture. CaveatLectorTalk 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per James68 — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Commenters may be interested in:
as well as the previous AfD at this name listed in the nomination. This still isn't well-sourced and should still be deleted. GassyGuy 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- delete Also, check speedy criteria 4. This article is not a substancial improvement over prior deletions, and simple renames (G0yz/G0ys/G0y) appear to be an attempt to get around this problem. This same subject has been deleted before, and nothing has changed in it to make it more notable. --Jayron32 06:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or move content to frot. --142.163.78.108 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable now, but if it becomes notable in the future take it to deletion review and may be it can be re-created. The consensus here seems to be in favour of deletion. As of today, there doesn't seem to be anything that has increased its notability. --SunStar Net 10:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above.--Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above --66.32.66.195 19:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Especially the self-described straight females, right? A few things to keep in mind: WP:CIVILITY dictates that it would be a good idea not to make accusations against other people expressing opinions. Another is that, when you want to keep something, it's best to address the issue in terms of WP policies, whichever are being raised. As of right now, the one in question is verifiability. The charge is that this has not received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If you can show that this is not the case, then you'll have many more people swayed than by making blind accusations. GassyGuy 06:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Z388 03:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this is concise and true to the g0y philosophy why allow gays who are afraid of our message to delete what a large subset of guys identify with. I Personally think this discrimination by the gay community needs to stop. I see it all day long monitoring the Yahoo answers GLBT section. Keep this and let us have our space we do not try to remove the gay section. This is rediculous to even have this discussion.
-
- What discrimination? Chances are, Anonymous, that you're White, cisgendered male and of an income that can be described as Middle or Upper Proletarian Class and you also probably "look straight". Gawd, this is like when that girl friend of mine who runs a Hairy Armpits forum was telling me about this influx of guys who feel "persecuted" by adverts in fashion magazines because a model trying to sell them colonge has a shaved body. Get over yourself! This is not about how "gays get to have their space while persecuting g0yz" -- it's about the lack of legitimate and original sources bringing the validity of this article into question. Wikipedia is not a message-board nor is it an Internet community like LiveJournal where "everybody" gets to have their say (within reason), no matter how asinine one feels another's opinions are. Wikipedia is an information website working hard to be seen as a legitimate alternative to the traditional paper encyclopaedias -- and that can't happen if every fringe-group with a a dozen yahoo! e-mail lists started claiming themselves a genuine subculture.RJ 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or merge with Frot I've recently taken an active interest in "g0y" as a subculture, but I totally agree that no, there is not enough appropriate evidence to cite as sources for this article. Of course, most guys who consider themselves "g0y" have a major persecution complex and stupifyingly elaborate conspracy theories about how the Kinsey 6 "minority", together with *feminists* (yes, feminists get blamed for a lot of their "persecution") are all somehow threatened by their masculinity and how all gay men (who aren't g0y, of course) just want to be women. Considering this, even if this article *does* get deleted, I'm sure, like, the one of them who actually understands how Wikipedia works will try and devise a way around this (again!) and, as usual, do it without citing valid sources.RJ 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- G0y cant be merged with Frot, because altho they are related culturally they arent the same thing. A person who prefers frot, can still have anal sex too, whereas someone who is G0y will never have anal sex. One is a specific method of sex, the other is a philosophy opposing a specific method of sex. Not the same thing. --Haldrik 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Of course it isn't the same thing, but it can also be argued that gay and anal sex are also topics that have only the most superficial connections, but try getting that across on any of the g0y yahoo lists. The point I'm trying to get across here is that the two topics are related AND that the topics can be merged in an effort to make G0y more relevant to certain persons.RJ 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- There is a community of self described masculine, anti anal men built around the concept of frot. They never refer to themselves as "g0y" but the two communities are near identical. 142.163.78.108 00:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete I am sorry to say that after checking thru various LGBT and Bi groups, so far no one has EVER heard of these people. In fact it has been widely suggested to me that this is either some sort of prank or perhaps a money-making scheme, (some sort of sex club/ dating service or something). While I am not ready to agree with that and will give these people the benefit of the doubt that they actually exist, I can't say that I see any evidence that this is either a "movement" or at all "notable". CyntWorkStuff 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment It has also been pointed out that the name is a (mild) racial slur (please see Goy), which adds to the "it's probably a prank" theory. CyntWorkStuff 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable website/event. (aeropagitica) 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Smosh Survivor
|
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 vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article 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 heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Absolutely non-notable per WP:WEB, especially on its own. One ghit, which is WP's article on Smosh: [Check Google hits]. (|-- UlTiMuS 12:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fails to assert notability in the article. Speedy delete as {{db-web}}. Tonywalton | Talk 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete No notability asserted, as no notability exists. -- Kicking222 13:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - No notability, and what the heck is smosh? To give the creating editor some credit, there are some other headings in the article, it looks like it may be a work in process? Maybe give them a day or 2 to expand the article to see if it becomes something more notable, or at least more descriptive to what it is. There are not alot of "spam" links at the bottom, so I am leaning towards a weak delete.Chris Kreider 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment this is what a smosh is. Smosh's videos have been seen by millions of people worldwide and have even appeared on mainstream television. It says here. Tonywalton | Talk 14:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link! I still have to recomend a delete unless somebody adds substantian content to the article. Chris Kreider 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment this is what a smosh is. Smosh's videos have been seen by millions of people worldwide and have even appeared on mainstream television. It says here. Tonywalton | Talk 14:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- keep It's being updated, give it a couple days, it is indeed notable. --71.193.47.23 01:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Weak Merge. As it is, this article should be deleted completely. It doesn't do what an encyclopedia article is supposed to do. It doesn't inform someone about a topic that they have not heard of before. It's confusing. It looks like an "inside joke." It doesn't explain to the outsider what is going on, and why anyone outside the Smosh.com forum participants would even care. Even with the promised updates the best we can hope for is a MERGE, but I'm not holding my breath.OfficeGirl 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete for obvious reasons. --- RockMFR 14:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete: There's a lot of information on this and there is too much to merge it into the Smosh Article.--Ngard039 14:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete as a blatant advertisement. --Coredesat 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Learning magic
|
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
|
This, and a bunch of redirects, were created by User:Matsimons as pretty much a forum advertisement. The original article, MAD Magical Arts Domain (now a redirect) was speedy deleted G12 for copyvio. There's no reliable sources, and the forum itself doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. Not sure if the current article is the same as before, which is why this is going to AfD. ColourBurst 16:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and also delete the MAD redirect per nom. -- Kicking222 16:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this and the several redirects, per above. NawlinWiki 16:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Not a how to site. Appears to be no value from reading. Chris Kreider 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This "article" doesn't really tell us anything, and could easily be summarized thusly: "Previously it was hard to learn about magic because magicians kept their secrets. Then there were books, but the books were supplanted by videos because they are more modern. Then there were clubs and societies that people could join to learn magic. Then there were web discussion boards and you can visit this one right now. It's your choice." It takes up an awful lot of space to say absolutely nothing at all. The same user has also posted exactly the same text in its own section in Magic (illusion), which also needs to be deleted. There's nothing to learn here.OfficeGirl 07:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep
Matsimons 09:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(The original article, MAD Magical Arts Domain)
That was my first ever article at wikipedia, I was not aware of rules and regulations. So this time I made very sure that I followed every rule, THe article is informative, and does stick to all regulations, and is a very different article to the origanal one that I made, infact it has nothing to do with MAD, it only gives a usefull refernce to it.
(and the forum itself doesn't satisfy WP:WEB.)
Yes it does!
(Not a how to site.)
its exaclty what it is, learning and sharing how to.
Nothing to learn if your not interested in magic and learning magic, the lnik is not a redirect, not in the slightest, the link goes to the header page, that explains what exaclty MAD is, giving people the option to join or not. I followed Wikipedias own policy on supplying an external link if relevant to the article. I would expect others to add more links, to books, magic clubs and so on.
(This "article" doesn't really tell us anything,) It certanly explains to those who have tryed to learn magic before how and why it was so difacult, and then goes on to give them information on how they could now get into the world of magic a lot more easly.
(The same user has also posted exactly the same text in its own section in Magic (illusion))
Becasue its very relevant, and folows a post on magic ethics. maybe the text could be replaced with a link to learning magic, but in context to the rest of the magic illusion article I thought and think others will find it very relevant.
-
- Comment How does the article satisfy WP:WEB? Which criteria does it satisfy? Where are the reliable sources? ColourBurst 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep How can Chris Kreider say that it is not a "how to" site. Have you actually looked at the site. It is stuffed full of precise instructions on how to perform magic effects. I would also like to point out that neither this article, website nor the previous article in any way constitutes a copyright violation. Can someone please point out to me where the alleged copyright violation exists? GWidley 09:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Copyright problem explained at User Talk:Matsimons, where it appears that it may have been fixed. However there are plenty of other reasons to stop the spam campaign. Hu 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I would not like or appreciate this being removed as Iam VERY into learning and performing magic properley and before now there has been no leads for me to go on to learn. In fact I was considering "hanging up my wand". I would also like to know where the violation exists? JBelmont
- Delete: Fluff, and part of a spam campaign. I was leaning towards a "weak" delete, since if someone really wanted they could make a real article out of it, but I changed my mind to "definite delete" when I uncovered the campaign. This is one of several vehicles for link spam for the MAD commercial site which: 1) requires registration, 2) has prominent Google ads. Neither one is fatal, but they each raise a hurdle (Wikipedia:External Links that the user must overcome if they want to justify inclusion of the link, and it is higher since both strikes are against the link. The user (User:Matsimons contribs, talk) attempted (multiple times) to get the link into these articles: MAD, Magic (illusion), Magic (paranormal), Magic, Magician, Street magic, and Exposure (magic). The user also tried to get the link inserted as 192.93.164.20 contribs (talk). Additionally the user put the poorly written fluff text into Magic (illusion) and Magician. Delete all of it. Hu 10:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as part of spam campaign and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Matsimons, you should also read Wikipedia:Meatpuppets#Meatpuppets. -- Renesis (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Matsimons 11:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(Delete: Fluff, and part of a spam campaign.)
Total rubbish and a slur on my name
(This is one of several vehicles for link spam for the MAD commercial site)
It is not a commercial site in the slightest, it is a help forum that is free
(which: 1) requires registration, 2))
Yes the forum requires registration, only so that we do not have magic seekers and exposure hunters joining. But the link in the article is a link to a page that describes exactly what MAD is, so you can decide if you wnat to sign up or not
(ha1s prominent Google ads.)
WE dont have any google adverts, we dont have any adverts anywhere, you are obviously jumping to conclusions without researching very well. . .
((User:Matsimons contribs, talk) attempted (multiple times))
The link is part of the article, so why would it not be included?
(Delete all of it)
Before making such a sweeping statment you really should research correctly, to make accusations that are false only makes yourself look ignorant. Helping keep Wikipedia free from fluff and spam is a good thing, but make sure you have your facts correct first.
The whole issue here seems to be about link to a very relevant forum to the context of the article. The article itself is justified and so is an example of a forum, examples of books and magic clubs can be added, but I didnt want to add to many urls, I thought I would give others a chance so as not to be biased.
- False: It definitely does have Google ads right here. I checked now and half an hour ago. Google ads both times: http://magicartsdomain.proboards105.com/index.cgi/. Hu 11:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- True: Please show me where the google ads are as I have clicked the link and the only "ad" I could see was at the bottom stating keep the board ad-free. Iam willing to be proven wrong but at the moment I see nothing to back up your above statement. JBelmont
Matsimons 11:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I assumed the OP accusing of google adds was talking about adds at google advertising the forum, maybe the OP should have made it more clear, however I am sorry if I missunderstood, If you are talking about the forum itself having adverts this has nothing to do with the forum creators, we use a free forum supplier called proboards, they insert the adverts, not us. In no way is the site a commercial site for those who created it, we get a free servicem the service supplier has to recope that somehow. But there is no monetry gain for any of the creators or users of the forum. And if you did sign upto the forum just to check, you broke the rules of the forum, where we ask people not to sign up unless they want to be magicians. So I would ask you to remove your profile before i deleate it, unless of course you are interested in magic, and if thats the case we would be happuy to have you abourd.
- These are Google ads: Image:Wp-mad.jpg. Hu 11:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Matsimons 11:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
by all means show the add, as i said before its nothing to do with MAD itself. However are you not breaking copyright law by showing an image of the MAD logo that you do not have permision to use? As I hold allrights to that logo, I ask you to remove it from the screen grab. Thank you.
- This is fair use because it is for a debate which is a news use. It is simply documenting a fact that is in public dispute. Furthermore, when you yourself uploaded the logo to Wikipedia, that gives permission to use it in this kind of educational context. The use of the logo here is to give the bona fide that it really is the page, since apparently one of the users above could look at the page linked and still did not see the ads (note how "ads" is spelled). You spammed Wikipedia, then you deny everything in the debate, and then you grudgingly admit you were wrong and then you attempt to suppress the evidence and control the debate. Hu 11:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Matsimons 12:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC) sigh, again false information, I did not uplaod That image to wikipedia. And yes its fair use, but its still my right to ask you to remove it, even if you dont have to. Also the user you refer to may not have seen the adds, they do not pop up every time. I have denied nothing, infact I think you will see im disputing matters. I did not admit i was wrong, I admited that the issue was not to clear so I misunderstood, but I was happy to apologise. In will not alow false accusations of spamming and such go un answered. I also do not want to argue, I will dispute false claims and ask advice on how to correct them when I get it wrong.
80.5.91.220 13:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Excuse me but I think you'll find the spelling of "ads" is correct as "Ads" is short for advertisements of which there are no additional d's. And quite why you chose to bring it up confuses me. You almost seem to be inflammitory and provoking a response which I find wholly unnecessary. As an additional point, I have been refreshing the "MAD" site and up until now have found NO evidence of the screenshot you submitted. If I were to be inflammitory back I could say you doctored the picture to reinforce your point when for the last 30 minutes at least I have refreshed the page and found no advertisements appearing. JBelmont
- I did not claim that it was you, JBelmont, who did not spell "ads" incorrectly, so you can relax. I would have thought it was as clear from the context as it is from the text itself that it was Matsimons who did, several times, so it was not a typo. However, since you are interested in spelling, you might like to know that you (JBelmont in this case, to be clear) have spelled "inflammatory" incorrectly twice, so that was not a typo, either.
- If you click the link I posted in the line above where you made your reply headed "True" on this issue, you will see the Google ads. I have clicked that link four times half an hour apart each time, and seen the ads, as illustrated, four times out of four. I have not heard of a browser with blockers installed against Google ads, but I suppose they could exist. The ads do not depend on popups (I block popups). Here is the link again: http://magicartsdomain.proboards105.com/index.cgi/. You can see the ads under the login banner that says "Welcome guest". There are two or three that appear at a time in black text on a white background in a box. Just below the box to the left, there is a little tag that says "Ads by Google". To the lower right of the box, it says "Advertise on this site".
- To get back to the issue of why the article and the spam links should be deleted, writers here have explained that:
- The article is not very informative and is basically obvious commonsense that is unnecessary in an encyclopedia.
- The site link that is supposedly inseparable and integral to the article is non-notable.
- The site fails the "no registration" criteria of the Wikipedia policy on external links.
- The site fails the policy against links to sites that depend on advertising, even to support a free service.
- The article has been duplicated word for word twice in two other articles.
- The article has no sources or references.
- The writer argues vehemently that the link is inseparable and integral, which leads to the conclusion that the purpose of the article and all the links that were posted to the articles noted above are just to publicize the site.
- This has been a long debate (so far), but I have tried to clarify all the issues and answer all the questions in support of the nomination and those urging delete. Hu 13:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
80.5.91.220 13:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC) * I was not interested in spelling I took offence when you quoted "since apparently one of the users above could look at the page linked and still did not see the ads (note how "ads" is spelled). which to me is implying there was some problem in the way I spelt "ads", due to the fact you were quoting someone not being able to see the "ads" which is myself. Additionally I have clicked and refreshed the new link you sent and still to the point of writing this reply do not see any "ads". So what happens? Do we agree to disagree as I only have your word that that screenshot is genuine.
- Oh and by the way "publicize" is not spelled with a z. It is an s.
- I still see no reason to delete the site when there are plenty of others which seem to get away with more violations than this site does. JBelmont
Wikipedia policy is to use British English for articles about British subjects and American English for articles about American subjects. The "-ize" versus "-ise" ending depends on which of those two you use. Since this debate is not in the article space, you should use either one as you feel comfortable and both are acceptable.
Regarding the ads on the site, people reading this debate will click the link (the same link, no change) and form their own conclusions. I begin to suspect that the ads do not appear in the U.K. or France, but do appear in the U.S. I'll be interested to hear some feedback on this. I think that Matsimons may be in France and you (JBelmont) may be in the U.K., based on your "brooks-no-argument" attitude regarding the "ise" ending.
I eagerly invite you to please point out the plenty of other links that you know of which have more violations, and we will be glad to inspect them and delete them if they are not appropriate according to Wikipedia policies. As I stated above, it is possible for a site to have advertising and/or registration, but to clear those hurdles, they have to show extraordinary usefulness. Hu 14:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Matsimons 14:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(* If you click the link I posted in the line above where you made your reply headed "True" on this issue, you will see the Google ads.)
Yes exaclty the link that you supplied, not me.
(I have clicked that link four times half an hour apart each time, and seen the ads)
Again, not a link I supplied, but to prove my previous point, I clicked the link that YOU supplied ten times and not once did I get adverts. you can check the screen grab here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:No_adds.jpg. Also I asked 5 work colleages to do the same, some got adds and some didnt.
(The article is not very informative and is basically obvious commonsense that is unnecessary in an encyclopedia.)
Not all of the information in the article is obvious, how would a new comer to learning magic know that some magic groups would not let you join unless you already had some magic knowledge, or that there are diferent types of forums, Wikipedia maybe the first point of reference, to sugest that its commonsense to know so is in my opinion a arogant statement and derogative towards magic new comers.
(o The site link that is supposedly inseparable and integral to the article is non-notable.)
I never sugested that it was, I was merely supplying a link that was relative to the context of the article to one of the discrbed forums. I didnt want to add more links to books or magic groups becasue I could not confim there credability, and was hopng others would do so at some point.
(o The site fails the "no registration" criteria of the Wikipedia policy on external links.)
I did not supply a link to a site that requires registration, I supplied a link to a information header page, that would then give the reader the opertunity to then decide whether or not to continue and join the forum.
(o The site fails the policy against links to sites that depend on advertising, even to support a free service.)
Again you are talking about a link that you supplied and not I, the information header page has no advertising and is certnaly not a redirect page.
(o The article has been duplicated word for word twice in two other articles.)
I do not dispute this, I didnt realise it was wrong to do so, If only a link to the article in question is permited then that all I would supply, I did however at the time think that the contect of the post was very relevant to the article that I posted in. This is my downfall on not knowing all Wikipedia rules, and I will comply to them when it is sugested froma creditable sourse.
(* This has been a long debate (so far), but I have tried to clarify all the issues and answer all the questions in support of the nomination and those urging delete. Hu 13:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC))
I agree, but to make your issues worthy, you need to adress this issue with the url you are supplying and the url I supplied. Also the fact that I do not think that the inseparable and integral to the article, but that I supplied the link because I thought it was relevant and would be helpfull to any one looking to learn magic as this is what the article is about. -- User:Matsimons
- I have addressed it above where I wrote: I begin to suspect that the ads do not appear in the U.K. or France, but do appear in the U.S. I'll be interested to hear some feedback on this. I think that Matsimons may be in France and you (JBelmont) may be in the U.K. I await your reply. Are you in Europe? Hu 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
80.5.91.220 14:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC) * Iam aware of the American English and British English seperation, you felt you had to make a point to me regarding an incorrect spelling for no reason I can see other than "teaching me a lesson" of which I find quite childish. Iam in the UK you are correct, I cannot speak for Matsimons as I have no idea where he is, but I do not see why any advertisement would appear only in the U.S and not in the U.K. There are no advertisement blockers on my system at all so if the advertisment is there, I should see it. I can only go on what I see or do not see, and still I do not see the advertisments in question.
- I find this whole debate is being diluted into petty nit-picking so returning to the point: I disagree on your point of saying it is uninformative, I DO find it informative and others have aswell, I find it arrogant of you to dismiss the whole site because in your personal opinion it not informative.
- Finally I may list the sites in the future to you, but at this moment I do not feel it is necessary to the cause in hand which is whether or not the site in question is to be deleted or not. JBelmont
I have tried to bring it back to the topic at hand, the deletion, when I summarized the arguments for it, above, but that seems to have escaped you. With regard to the ads, the ad servers like google look up the IP address of the destination and when they find that it is located in the UK, they direct ads targeted for that audience according to the settings the advertisers have chosen. There are fewer Google advertisers targeting the UK than the US. Thus you see few or no ads. Matsimons colleagues do see some ads. You can drop the personal attacks where you call me arrogant and childish. I have not applied any adjectives to you and I don't think it is nessary to apply any to me. By not labelling you, it is another way I do my part to keep the debate on track. Hu 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Matsimons 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(Are you in Europe?)
yes I am in europe but not Franc?, the adverts do appear but not all the time. And the same goes for elsewhere in the world, sometimes you get them and sometimes you dont. This discusion has come up many times in proboard forums. But the real big issue is the link that I supplied does not have adverts. You keep refering to a link you are suppliyng. I now understand the rules about what links can and cant be supplied, thats why I supplied a link to the Information page that is hosted by me. I was asked by some of the admin at the forum to create a page that did not have advertising and that gave information about the forum so people could decide to join or not. It was that information that I placed int he first article MAD Magical Arts Domain. The only reason that that article was taken down was for copy right reasons, I failed to clarify that I had created the graphic, and that I had been given permision to use the text. That was my first ever article at Wikipedia and at the time did not realise what I had to citate or how to do it. -- Matsimons 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not about the link page, but it is the site that you wish to link to that has the ads and the registration. Read the Wikipedia policy link that I gave above. Now is better late than never. Hu 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I did not say the site was uninformative, though I suspect based on what others have said that it is not very useful. What I did say is that the article, here, on Wikipedia, is uninformative. Hu 15:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The link above requires javascript to make the ads in question. Any browser that blocks the script from running will not see the ads. Dimitrii 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thanks for the feedback! Hu 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Matsimons 15:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(It's not about the link page, but it is the site that you wish to link to)
This is exaclty the point, it is not a link page as you sugest it is, its a information page. Who said I wish to link to the forum, I was linking to an information site about the forum. You cant make judgments on what other links are at a site supplied,if that was the case at what level of referls what you stop at, as long as the link supplied conforms to Wikipedias rules thats all that matters surely.
(though I suspect based on what others have said that it is not very useful) How would they know? the rules of the forum are to only join if you want to be a dedicated magician. You should make your own conclusions rather than relying on false inforamtion given to you by others. Especialy when making such a dispute as you are. There are over 300 members of that forum who would totaly disagree.
I seem to be repeating myself again and again here. So untill anything new that has not been covered comes up or that adresses my answers to said questions I shall refrain from posting. -- Matsimons 15:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- ColourBurst asked you a question marked Comment, above, Matsimons. Also, the wikipedia way: Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~, at the end of them, not the front. Hu 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment To reiterate: How does the article satisfy WP:WEB? Which criteria does it satisfy? Where are the reliable sources? The article's contents aren't even substantiated by the link you gave (which is just a promotion of the forum - and don't give the line "it's only information about the forum, people can choose to go or not", it's still a promotion. Even if it wasn't, it's still not a reliable source. By pointing to a site about the forum and inserting the content in multiple articles, some of which have little to do with sleight of hand magic, then denying you're promoting the forum, you're straining WP:AGF.), so it's totally original research. And your link does not conform to WP:EL, it's unverifiable research. ColourBurst 17:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB and is part of a series of articles designed as advertising for the site. Shell babelfish 17:00, 28 October 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 result was merge to Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. --Ezeu 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm reopening this debate. I disagree with the decision to merge. Understanding the Jack Abramoff scandal is hard enough without being able to have useful summaries of different information. Forgive me if I'm not reopening this the right way -- I'm not sure of the right way to do it. Feel free to correct. --The Cunctator 19:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
