Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] December 4
- 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ecstatic
dictionary def --Bachrach44 01:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wiktionary. Or is that not allowed? RabidMonkeysEatGrass 01:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- We have a thing called Transwiki which moves it to another Wiki. However, Wiktionary is way ahead of us: wikt:Ecstatic and its link to wikt:Ecstasy do the job just fine already. -Splashtalk 04:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Possibly a redirect to somewhere is appropriate, and I'd support that. I think there is little chance of encyclopedic expansion of this article on its own beyond the dicdef it is at present. So redirect on condition of a decent target, else delete dicdef. -Splashtalk 04:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Transwikify to wiktionary. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I strongly oppose either redirecting or Transwikying this article. The point is that Wikipedia is strictly an encyclopedia, so there's no need for listing dictionary articles here (that's why we have Wiktionary) and then bothering with redirecting them. If we keep this practice, sooner or later all of Wiktionary would have to be contained in Wikipedia. Also, I doubt Transwikying this article is even possible since there's already [a more complete] article in Wiktionary. So I strongly recommend deleting this article. '''Aucaman''' 05:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Anything not already in wiktionary should be transwikified, but otherwise delete. worthawholebean talkcontribs 05:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- No Manual Redirects - Wikipedia should have an automatic system function to provide a link to the article in Wikitionary when it is available.--
--(U | T | C) 06:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC) - Delete as per above. Bryanmckay 06:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, dicdef Wiktionary already has. Ewok Slayer is correct. Any empty article offers a link to wiktionary for that term. Redirecting to Wiktionary in any other form is undesireable and will lead to Wikipedia turning into a dictionary. - Mgm|(talk) 16:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives), redirect to Ecstasy. Uncle G 18:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Uncle G Kappa 04:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, already covered in Wiktionary. 143.239.138.129 12:40, 7 December 2005 (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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] One Hand Clapping
group with one independantly released single in the 70's. Non-notable. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 03:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. Their then-bassist is moderately notable, but... rodii 03:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep No Parking, quit following my edit trail.-- --(U | T | C) 03:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. ‣ᓛᖁ
.gif)
ᑐ 03:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
*Merge relevant parts to Yngwie_Malmsteen and Blackmore's_Night Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - does meet condition 6 for Notability and Music Guidelines. It's well done and informative. -Meegs 04:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: if deleted, recreate as redirect to Koan —Wahoofive (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Fine Idea, but someone keeps deleting my version of how to clap with one hand in the Koan article.-- --(U | T | C) 04:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ewok Slayer, I'm afraid I have to agree that your description of actually clapping with the fingers of hand doesn't belong in the serious Koan article (nor this page about the rock band). It's immaterial, but I think it's also debatable whether that meets the definition of clapping too, though I've heard it from many sources. -Meegs 05:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fine Idea, but someone keeps deleting my version of how to clap with one hand in the Koan article.--
For Everyone's reference-Clap-v. tr.-To strike together with a sharp sound, as one hard surface on another-Dictionary.com-- --(U | T | C) 05:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Delete per nom. Don't think I've seen that density of redlinks before. Note that condition 6 for Notability and Music Guidelines states "...later joined a band that is extremely notable. Deep Purple was extremely notable; that doesn't mean that everything that Blackmoor touches is extremely notable.
-
- Comment: Blackmoor might not be extremely notable, buy Yngwie Malmsteen is. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - changing my vote to keep, based on WP:MUSIC criteria 6. Sorry, didn't realise it was a criteria as IMO this band in itself is not sufficiently notable to warrant a keep. But policy is policy... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think the word you are actually looking for (and the word actually used at WP:MUSIC) is guideline, not policy, so we don't have to keep. Even if it was policy, I think this would be a fine time to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Saberwyn 10:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, guideline 6 recommends redirect to Deep Purple or Blackmoor or Yngwie Malmsteen or whatever. And so do I. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Google searches for "one hand clapping" "nick pepper" and "one hand clapping" "felix warre" return 1 and 0 hits respectively, and that one hit is this Wikipedia article. As the article is not otherwise sourced, I don't think we can even prove this band existed. ESkog | Talk 18:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Guideline 6 states, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.". This is what we are arguing over here essentially. Given that the band itself isn't notable, but one of its members are. It seems that guideline 6 can be taken either as a "keep" or as a "redirect", so I think that we will have to use our own interpretation on that one. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- A few hits for "One Hand Clapping" + "curve of the earth", eg [5] or [6]. Still not obviously notable enough for its own page, as opposed to a paragraph elsewhere, but seems to be real. Ben Aveling 02:17, 5 December 2005 (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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griphennus
- 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. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Slug books
This article's about an independent bookstore in Santa Cruz, California that sells textbooks for UC Santa Cruz students. As a UCSC graduate, I bought my books there. It's not notable. Bookstores shouldn't get a Wikipedia article unless they're world famous. Szyslak (
[ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 07:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jasmol 00:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Picture is probably copyvio too. Herostratus 01:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Slugbooks is notable mainly by the way it is set up. It's a student owned and run coop. It's not notable in the world sense but it does set a model in its business model. I won't vote on this because a) I work there and b) i created this article. Enzokrew
- 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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page'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, defaulting to keep. ^demon[omg plz] 17:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- DRV overturns to delete. (NB: As a commenter below, I didn't close the DRV; I'm just noting it.) Xoloz 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of people by name and subpages
- Request - I would like to request a bot be used to list, on a single page all the articles listed on these pages (unless there are simpler methods). This would allow comparison with existing lists and categories, and allow gradual progression from this system to a more maintainable one that would, ultimately, use the transclusion list of {{WPBiography}} to generate an alphabetical index of all the biographies on Wikipedia. That index would then be our equivalent of the index found at the back of biographical dictionaries, such as the Dictionary of National Biography. While such discussions were proceding, these pages would be kept, as they are not actively harming anything. Once the new system was in place, these pages could be deleted or put up for MfD/AfD again. Carcharoth 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, but that would create a page that would be far to large to effectively load or edit, unless I am misunderstanding what you are proposing. A better way would be to request that some back-end gap analysis be done via direct queries against the database in order to scope out the problem. If I were experienced in this particular database's details, I'd offer to do these queries myself (hmm, I should get that knowledge under my belt sometime ...). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I guess what I am asking for is a way to query Wikipedia and get back the result: "List of people with names beginning with B", or whatever letter you want to chose. Or even "Ba", or "Ch" or "Fra". This is not an unreasonable request, and I suspect it can be done fairly easily. If we can have Category:Living people, why not Category:Biographical articles? The closest we have at the moment is Category:Biography articles by quality. The subcategories of that should, theoretically, contain all the articles that transclude {{WPBiography}}. Let's have a quick look... No. I forgot the "200 articles" display limit. But I did find that Category:Unassessed biography articles has a similar set-up to the pages used here. It has links to the "Fr", "Go", "Ff", etc. sections of the category. So both systems (list and categories) are trying to do similar things, but as far as I can tell, both systems are failing. The list is out-of-date and practically impossible to maintain. The category system doesn't have a single overarching category for Biographies, but splits them up by assessment. Carcharoth 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- It might put a big load on the servers, but I'm going to ask if Category:Biographical articles can be added to {{WPBiography}}. Then that category can be created and the {{largeCategoryTOC}} used to browse it. That is one way to access the Biographical articles by name. Then there is only the small problem of pipe-sorting to fix... Carcharoth 01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I guess what I am asking for is a way to query Wikipedia and get back the result: "List of people with names beginning with B", or whatever letter you want to chose. Or even "Ba", or "Ch" or "Fra". This is not an unreasonable request, and I suspect it can be done fairly easily. If we can have Category:Living people, why not Category:Biographical articles? The closest we have at the moment is Category:Biography articles by quality. The subcategories of that should, theoretically, contain all the articles that transclude {{WPBiography}}. Let's have a quick look... No. I forgot the "200 articles" display limit. But I did find that Category:Unassessed biography articles has a similar set-up to the pages used here. It has links to the "Fr", "Go", "Ff", etc. sections of the category. So both systems (list and categories) are trying to do similar things, but as far as I can tell, both systems are failing. The list is out-of-date and practically impossible to maintain. The category system doesn't have a single overarching category for Biographies, but splits them up by assessment. Carcharoth 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, but that would create a page that would be far to large to effectively load or edit, unless I am misunderstanding what you are proposing. A better way would be to request that some back-end gap analysis be done via direct queries against the database in order to scope out the problem. If I were experienced in this particular database's details, I'd offer to do these queries myself (hmm, I should get that knowledge under my belt sometime ...). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Discussion Suspended
This MfD/AfD process involves procedural irregularities too extensive to either
- tolerate in light of their potential for functioning as de facto precedents, or
- enumerate clearly in the time i have left to edit in the next 24 hours or so.
Until i can find time to explain thoroughly and propose remedies, i am protecting this page, lest those too hurried to catch this notice, or too impatient to respect it, waste their own or others time and effort by continuing to pursue the discussion in this tainted present context.
Please keep the discussion of these measures on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name. Unsigned by User:Jerzy
- Struck out; over-ruled. Sorry, but you cannot suspend an xfD which you are a participant in under poorly-explained "procedural" grounds and contextual objections. You protect the page for three days, promise to come back in 24 hours, but you do not even provide us with a brief summary as to what is going on?(!) Your comment below reads, in part: Procedural comment: It is quite true that the many Keep votes do not establish a binding precedent in the way that precedents function in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Nevertheless, if this process should end with a Delete result, i will insist on its review via WP:VPP, for the following reasons that AFAIK would each make this case unique on WP...[list follows] Well, procedural violations are contested on WP:DRV, and much of the rest of the comment is, frankly, somewhat less than intelligible. And what is up with the odd capitalization, by the way — would you mind using normal capitalization? It makes reading your thoughts difficults. At any rate, I am taking it upon myself to unprotect this xfD so as to permit the discussion to resume. I strongly caution against wheel-warring (I certainly do not intend to revert if the page becomes re-protected), but I urge Jerzy to re-evaluate his or her approach. Please limit discussion of this protection/suspension to the talk page, everyone. Thanks. El_C 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have to agree with El_C in principle that it's not a good idea to suspend discussion just because there are some procedural concerns. If there is concern that the outcome of the discussion has been compromised by a procedural lapse, that is what Wikipedia:Deletion review is for. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- – (View discussion)
Since this is an index page rather than article content, I'm listing it on MFD (it's on AFD too). This page and its subpages purport to be a list of all people with articles in Wikipedia. In that, they're hopelessly outdated since, unlike categories, they need manual upkeep. In previous discussions, it was kept on grounds that it's useful and that some people like it, but as indices go we really have a lot better to offer than this. Wikipedia contains about 400,000 articles on people, making this list unwieldy at best and original research at worst. >Radiant< 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The scope of these lists is about 25% of Wikipedia, and if that's not indiscriminate (WP:NOT) I don't know what is. They are, however, nowhere near complete, making their usefulness moot and possibly even entering the realms of original research. --kingboyk 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a year later, we have 1.7 million articles, an index that needs manual updating simply won't work. -Amarkov moo! 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete The page is extremely hard to understand, I agree with Amarkov's comments, it would be too hard to maintain if kept. Regards - The Sunshine Man 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)- I'm not sure I agree with the justification for listing this at MfD. Even though the main page is an index, collectively, this is a list not too much different (except in size) from other lists, and I tend to think that AfD would be a better place for the debate. However, whereever its debated, I agree that it's certainly unmaintained, almost certainly unmaintainable, and fully deleteable. Xtifr tälk 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Delete - Delete At last guess-ta-ment I believe there were over 3 “Billion” individuals. Does Wikipedia have enough space to list everyone.Shoessss 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it would not include everybody, only people whose inclusion is merited by notability guidelines. When I am adding people to the list, I consider anyone sufficiently notable to have a WP article that survives, is notable enough to be included in the list. --Slyguy (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete That's what the search bar is for ROASTYTOAST 02:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason for deletion. The list is indeed useful to readers (let me know when we are no longer attempting to make a useful encyclopedia). This is a perfectly reasonable list of well-defined scope. It is no harder to maintain than any other article on Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- And the claim that this is original research seems utterly unfounded. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course this is harder to maintain. The pages required to host this list fill two pages of Special:PrefixIndex. And it's terribly incomplete. Few if any of the ancient Roman consuls are included, or the Chaplains of the United States Senate or any of probably a thousand other lists of people in the encyclopedia already. And that doesn't begin to touch all the one-off biography articles scattered about the article space. Simply, it is not successfully being maintained, and probably could never successfully be maintained to any degree of completeness in regard to the rest of Wikipedia. Serpent's Choice 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- If by "maintain" you mean preserve in an complete or close to complete state, then we aren't maintaining more than 1% of our existing articles. This page remains functional and useful despite being incomplete, just as history is useful despite being seriously incomplete and not very well done. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course this is harder to maintain. The pages required to host this list fill two pages of Special:PrefixIndex. And it's terribly incomplete. Few if any of the ancient Roman consuls are included, or the Chaplains of the United States Senate or any of probably a thousand other lists of people in the encyclopedia already. And that doesn't begin to touch all the one-off biography articles scattered about the article space. Simply, it is not successfully being maintained, and probably could never successfully be maintained to any degree of completeness in regard to the rest of Wikipedia. Serpent's Choice 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- And the claim that this is original research seems utterly unfounded. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I know that a lot of work has been put into this, but the problems seem insurmountable. At its core, this does not meet the needs of Wikipedia's lists. From WP:LIST, lists are for information, navigation, and development. Because this system of lists includes roughly 25% of the encyclopedia's scope, it seems unlikely to serve a purpose for information. It is too close to being wholly indiscriminate. Because it cannot hope to be complete, even against existing articles, it is of questionable value as a navigation tool. Additionally, the category system already serves to allow navigation on a large scope. And both of these problems — incompleteness and scale — prevent it from being valuable for development. Additionally, there may be BLP problems. One redlinked entry from this sublist reads "American criminal". Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. I have no idea how long it has been there (it predates the last subpage-shuffling on 24 Mar 2007) nor who added it. How many other entries present this same problem? How would we know? I'm not a deletionist, and I'm always hesitant to recommend deleting old or large content, and this is both. But I think its the right choice, for a lot of reasons. Serpent's Choice 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Gobonobo T C 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This has been up for deletion and kept at least 8 times. It appears that this page set is going the way of other perennially nominated pages and it will, eventually, be deleted simply as a matter of time. Radiant's bringing it here is pretty much a death knell for the page set as this is a highly respected contributor and admin. Therefore, though I personally find the pages useful in anti-vandalism efforts, there is simply no way it can be kept for the long term owing to continued attempts to delete by persons who vigorously oppose its existence. It is not original research, it is not useless, and it is not unmaintainable but it is unpopular - and that is the reason why it is ultimately doomed to deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Honest question. How do these lists assist in anti-vandalism work? They are very, very large and change regularly, so it would seem that their related changes lists would be unwieldy? Is there some way to employ these for anti-vandalism that is more efficient or effective than watchlisting articles? Serpent's Choice 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- responding comment actually, the number of related changes is quite modest for each terminal page as biographical articles are not heavily edited as a class. There is a balance to be struck in keeping the pages to a particular size range that helps in this respect (though I've personally not given much thought to the mathematics that could be used to determine optimum size). Take a look at some of the related changes pages, such as Dj-Dn and Willa-Willh and San (these were chosen randomly based on using hte random_article feature); I find the related changes pages to be reasonably sized morsels for compartmentalized and directed anti-vandalism surveillance in an area - biography - where vandalism has a magnified impact. Thank you for asking for some explanation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Honest question. How do these lists assist in anti-vandalism work? They are very, very large and change regularly, so it would seem that their related changes lists would be unwieldy? Is there some way to employ these for anti-vandalism that is more efficient or effective than watchlisting articles? Serpent's Choice 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per my same argument in the last AfD at the end of December: Wholly indiscriminate list, completely impossible to maintain. Categories and lists of specific groups serve as a much better means of organizing and indexing articles about people on Wikipedia. Resolute 04:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - It seems to me that deleting pages such as this, which people probably put a lot of time into, and that could be seen as fitting into Wikipedia were some of you to have a different outlook and be more familiar with different guidelines, such as list guidelines, the community might not risk losing editors by deleting their good faith contributions. Furthermore, many of these pages have been updated recently. Additionally, there are not 6.5 billion notable people to list on Wikipedia. There are only so many notable people, and in fact, the list might actually be rather manageable, relatively speaking. It may not actually be as amorphous as some see it as being. Eventually, it could be relatively complete, or at least stable to the point of only newly notable people are being added and non-notable people being taken off. And as another user comments, it will be useful to at least one of the other, maybe 6.496 billion, non-notable — people probably many more. --Remi 10:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Too grand to be useful. After eading all the comments above, I tested the pages with Neville Duke, a page that has existed since October 2006. No link. OK, that's only one, but if an article that is seven months old has not found its way how many others are there? Well, here's a few more Nevilles: Neville Cardus, Richard Neville (singer), Richard Neville (writer), Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury. That's six missing references found in less than six minutes. Unmaintainable. Emeraude 11:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the time-to-entry in this list, the earl's article linked above has existed since June 2003. Serpent's Choice 11:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, strongly. The notion that the fact that editors have found a page "useful" is considered by some to be a weak reason for keeping it is so wrongheaded that it shocks the conscience. It may be that the maintenance of these pages is a task best suited for a bot of some kind. But indexing and reader friendliness remain weaknesses of the project in general. Search functions not only eat up resources; they also are unhelpful to people who need to see a list in text to remind themselves of what exactly it was they were looking for. Lists like this serve that purpose. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- We could, in theory, use a bot to slap everything from Category:People onto a list. But that would be a much worse waste of resources than using the search function is, and we still wouldn't be able to get uncategorized articles, making people think that we don't have an article when we do. Oh, and I have never met anyone who honestly prefers to manually look though a big list, when they could type the thing they want into a box and have a computer look for them. - Amarkov moo! 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are many occasions where a text list is more helpful than a search function: it next to impossible to find "quahog" or "leukocyte" or "Psammetichus I" in a search engine unless you already know how to spell them, but on a text list you can recognize what you are looking for. If I'm trying to find out what's out there, I'd rather read a text index than try to formulate a search query that will call forth the desired result. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that you will not necessarily find what's there; you will find what's on an incomplete list of things which are there. If someone actually got a bot to update the list, I might change my opinion, but I find it highly unlikely that such a bot would be allowed to run. Anyway, as it is, this list misrepresents what we have. -Amarkov moo! 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- People who don't know how to spell something won't be able to find it in a list either. If you look in the list for "Cuahog", "Reukocyte" or "Sammetichus I", all perfectly plausible mispelings, you won't find them either. >Radiant< 08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that you will not necessarily find what's there; you will find what's on an incomplete list of things which are there. If someone actually got a bot to update the list, I might change my opinion, but I find it highly unlikely that such a bot would be allowed to run. Anyway, as it is, this list misrepresents what we have. -Amarkov moo! 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are many occasions where a text list is more helpful than a search function: it next to impossible to find "quahog" or "leukocyte" or "Psammetichus I" in a search engine unless you already know how to spell them, but on a text list you can recognize what you are looking for. If I'm trying to find out what's out there, I'd rather read a text index than try to formulate a search query that will call forth the desired result. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- We could, in theory, use a bot to slap everything from Category:People onto a list. But that would be a much worse waste of resources than using the search function is, and we still wouldn't be able to get uncategorized articles, making people think that we don't have an article when we do. Oh, and I have never met anyone who honestly prefers to manually look though a big list, when they could type the thing they want into a box and have a computer look for them. - Amarkov moo! 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete on the basis the list requires manual updating, which isn't realistic. If someone created a bot to maintain this, it could be a useful navigational aid. Addhoc 15:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I am unsure how a list of this nature could ever truly be maintainable. Even then I fail to see how it is even remotely encyclopedic. Arkyan • (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per Serpent's Choice. wikipediatrix 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Two main points. As another user noted, this article (and those like it) has been up for deletion countless times in the past. Is there any sort of rule as to how many times an article can be proposed for deletion until it is finally decided that it will definitely be kept, or how much time must elapse from one deletion proposal to the next? (I did a brief search for such a rule, but cannot find one.) The last time this article was up for deletion, in December-January, numerous detailed, sound arguments were given for keeping in the discussion. Secondly, as for this list being "unmaintainable" manually, in the past few months I have added several thousand names to the list. Now, if at some point, we could get a large enough group of people to work together, the list could be populated relatively quickly (with names of people who satisfy notability guidelines and have an article on WP). Lastly, no one has yet explained how this is original research. --Slyguy (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- You do understand that WikiProject Biography has identified nearly 400,000 biographical articles, and that there's possibly many more than that? How could a list of that size possibly be maintained manually? What use is an incomplete list? Finally, it doesn't matter what happened in previous deletion debates; times change and the makeup of the community changes, and thus consensus can change. Probably now that we have some numbers people will see how unmaintainable this is. --kingboyk 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)
- There is no Wikipedia guideline or policy that limits either the number or timeframes for deletions. The only guideline I know of is that a FA cannot be nominated for deletion while it is a FA. Slavlin 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Really? I didn't know FAs were exempt... --kingboyk 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- He probably means that they are exempt in practice if they are being displayed on the main page. There's no explicit policy for this, but (again, in practice) all such nominations are bad-faith and are quickly closed (and the afd templates get taken off, since they are seen as vandalism). It's not blanket protection for all FAs; that's just imprecise language. Gavia immer (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Really? I didn't know FAs were exempt... --kingboyk 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with the nominator and per Serpent's Choice above. There are BLP concerns here too. So let's delete it.--Docg 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Waiting for someone to nominate this. Didn't want to do it myself. Horvat Den 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. LaraLoveT/C 19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as hopelessly unmaintainable. Spend your time adding to the encyclopedia instead. Punkmorten 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Lemonflash(t)/(c) 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. The retention arguments i & others have made before are still valid, and i think it is appropriate to "include them by reference" here (see first box on Talk:List of people by name) and expect that unless each of them is specifically refuted by Del voters, the nomination will fail via ignoring of Del votes on grounds of low quality of their arguments.
--Jerzy•t 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC) - Procedural comment: It is quite true that the many Keep votes do not establish a binding precedent in the way that precedents function in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Nevertheless, if this process should end with a Delete result, i will insist on its review via WP:VPP, for the following reasons that AFAIK would each make this case unique on WP:
-
- A mandate for such a page that goes back further than WP:WikiProjects, and (tho i think it has been moved, or omitted in a rewrite of the page) was on record in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography for years, from soon after the concept (of WikiProjects) was brought forward.
- The number of non-Rdr main-namespace pages involved, which is approaching 1000 (including both name-bearing pages and pages that serve only for navigation within the tree). (One aspect is the effort required to cleanly delete it, or to restore it if undeletion should be mandated; in this regard one must note that while LoPbN's template-namespace infrastructure is also significant:
- _ _ a couple hundred of them are lk'd from Template:List of people by name exhaustive page-index (sectioned) by (almost always) a minimum of three name-bearing pages,
- _ _ nearly as many are (for now, tho they could be phased out at any time that that became a priority), and
- _ _ another couple hundred template-talk namespace pages are important for supporting modification of their accompanying template pages to support growth of subtrees below their corresponding index-only pages.)
- The number of LoPbN AfDs that have failed: a successful AfD would purport to have been the single process to make the right decision among a probably unprecedented number of deletion debates with the same substance; that would be an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary evidence.
- The quantity of content and effort devoted to the tree in good-faith edits.
- The importance of its function of facilitating access to a central portion of the project: the bios
- _ _ are (it seems safe to say) the single largest topic area at over 20% of articles,
- _ _ tend to be significant tools for studying every area of human knowledge (and crucial for many important areas), bcz human knowledge is added to and structured by people, and
- _ _ contribute to the connectedness among articles (an issue i haven't heard discussed lately, tho one whose importance was recognized early on and has not likely receded).
- These are all factors not anticipated in the deletion policies, and rare enough that the failure to consider them has had little chance to be identified as a problem; it is fair to say that there is no settled policy that AfD is competent to decide this question.
--Jerzy•t 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor is it a democracy. Consensus can change as times change. Quite simply, Wikipedia has outgrown this list and no number of big words alters that "fact". --kingboyk 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment regarding maintainability: There are at any given time a (large but) finite number of notable persons in history. During any period of time, a small number of persons become notable. At present, articles on notable persons are being added to Wikipedia faster than persons are becoming notable. However, this trend cannot be expected to continue. Over time, the rate of new notable person articles will approach the rate of new notable persons. I submit that the rate of new notable persons is low enough that, although it may be difficult to 'maintain' this list now, in the future maintaining it will become trivial. — The Storm Surfer 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep And I want to point out that the nominator seems to have deliberately misrepresented the contents of the previous deletion discussions. Rather than take the noms word for it, I went through and read the discussions myself. There's a lot more than "I think it's useful" and "I likee" going on in those previous discussions, in fact these were very heavily discussed deletions with many valid and interesting points on both sides, and I think it was downright dishonest to suggest otherwise. This discussion amounts to "what are appropriate ways to index content in Wikipedia" -- this isn't just some list about Family Guy episodes. --JayHenry 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now - delete if and only if currently existing categories can be used to generate an equivalent list. Seriously, I see people saying that categories serve the purpose of this list. In fact, categories and lists have always been separate things. Can anyone, right now, create a full list from Category:People and its subcategories, or a list of all articles linking to the WP:WPBIO talk page template? If so, can they (a) post that 'category' list somewhere; (b) do something similar for the 'list' pages nominated for deletion here; (c) cross-reference the two lists. The annotations on this list can be deleted as far as I am concerned, but the fundamental reason behind this sort of list is the limitations of the category system. See what I did in the blurb at Category:Earthquakes. That is an incredibly clunky and outdated way of generating a list, but it was the only way I could think of listing all the earthquake articles in that category and its subcategories. Something similar needs to be done for the biographical articles. I agree the current set-up of pages is not it, but please preserve and compare the two sets of information before assuming that one duplicates the other. Carcharoth 01:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strange. Is this really saying that {{WPBiography}} links to over 2,000,000 articles (see the "from=2052537" bit of the URL)? Regardless, can anyone tell me how many article talk pages transclude WPBiography, and how many people are on this list that is proposed for deletion? If not, then information is being lost. Carcharoth 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Until the Wikipedia search function is improved to find pages that users cannot spell correctly, this will be a useful list. It seems very tedious to maintain, but obviously there are people willing to try. The notability of biographies which are not yet included on the list will continue to decrease over time as we approach the deadline. The fact that new articles may not be included on the list for quite some time is not a reason to delete it. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 02:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- A list won't help users locate something either if they don't know how to spell it. >Radiant< 08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, kinboyk and Amarkov, among others. --Iamunknown 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Carcharoth's and Jerzy's concerns. Seems inherently incomplete and unmaintainable and indiscriminate to me, but the idea of deleting this kind of critical mass of good faith contribution is also boggling. And the fact that it's already survived numerous AfD's makes me reticent to vote for deletion. I get that consensus can change over time, but at a point I think repeated noms can kind of be like trying and re-trying a criminal for the same offense until you find a jury who'll convict. My larger concern is this: the idea that this list is useful to people on Wikipedia who can't spell is contingent on people actually being able to find this index. I've been typing away at Wikipedia a solid year now and this AfD is the first time I'm hearing such a thing exists. And I think it's safe to say that the same thing goes for the attentive wikipedians I know who can't spell their way out of a wet paper bag. I am in no way convinced that this index is even remotely useful, but I'm also not convinced that it's not. And in a case like this, I think doubt has to equal retention of the article. Ford MF 07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - so, is anyone up to the challenge of making a single list from these pages and a single list from the category system and/or the pages transcluding {{WPBiography}}? Surely someone, plus a computer, can do this? It can't be that difficult can it? Carcharoth 09:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Way too long to be any use to anyone in finding a biography. Sam Blacketer 11:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - completely unmaintainable, and so unwieldly it's untrue. Users here are saying it's "useful", but there's very little insight as to what it is actually useful for. - fchd 14:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it all as per above comments. Bearian 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, there is some additional information provided by the lists vs. a category "People", that is some immediate biographic detail: "German swimmer (b. - d.)" which is not possible in a category. Carlossuarez46 20:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It would seem to me that the huge effort that would be required to make this complete (and maintain it as such) would be far better spent on the articles themselves. There may be some use to it but I think it is decidedly limited. Petros471 11:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nominater, too unpractical. Garion96 (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this useless bunch of articles. Once upon a time they may have had a purpose but by now they are simply an unmaintainable morass that duplicates functionality much better served by subject-specific lists and categories. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Amarkov says above "We could, in theory, use a bot to slap everything from Category:People onto a list" - I would love to be able to browse such a list, but unfortunately that is not possible at the moment as no-one seems to want to provide this funtionality for Wikipedia readers. As an example, consider someone who wants to browse the articles Wikipedia has on earthquakes. They can try and browse Category:Earthquakes, but the earthquake articles there are hidden away in separate subcategories that are many clicks apart. Now consider the (now-outdated) list I generated and deposited here. My point is that sometimes browsing a category is the best option, sometimes browsing a list is the best option, and sometimes browsing a set of search results is the best option. Now apply this to people. I would love to be able to click "X" in an alphabetical index and see a set of biographical articles on people who's names begin with X. Currently, that list is at List of people by name: X. The category system, however, can't (at the moment) produce anything like that. Carcharoth 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - too much effort for something marginally useful. Renata 14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - per Carcharoth - CarolGray 20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It would not be unreasonable to propose a major revision to the way in which disambiguation of personal names is done such that LoPbN becomes the default disambiguation point for personal names. For instance, the page William White could be retired in favor of a reference to List of people by name: Wh. (P.S. I do know it's not as simple as this (for instance, what to do with fictional 'William White's), but I think the concept as a whole has merit though the implementation would need sigificant thought.) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is an excellent point. I knew I'd seen lists like this already somewhere. All the "name" disambiguation pages look like these pages already, though many disambiguation more than just the names of people, so that would be a problem. Carcharoth 01:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If this page were deleted, would we go through and add all the Fry, Firstnames, for instance, to Fry, the DAB page for the term? If they weren't re-added somewhere else, Wikipedia would lose a valuable listing. Also, a comment above mentioned that this article, unlike categories, must be maintained manually. Why not create a Category:Surnames beginning with F or Category:People named Fry? That could easily solve the problem of manual upkeep. PaladinWhite 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Responding Comment The issue of whether to disambiguate on first names has been a contentious one for some time. I think the current consensus is that one typically doesn't list all persons with first (given) naems that are identical except under those circumstances where they are colloqially referred to by their first name. For instance, the cases of 'Arnold' (er, 'Ahnold' perhaps) and 'Bill' come to mind for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill Clinton; on the flip side, Johnny Mathis isn't colloquially known simply as 'Johnny'. It's a grey area in the "dab canon". (P.S. it says something weird that I could type Arnold's last name correctly the first time) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Responding Comment No, I meant all persons with the same surname, not first name. PaladinWhite 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hey! I just noticed you moved some of those names from the disambiguation page to the LoPbN list. See this edit. That led me to believe that LoPbN in that case had important information. The arguemtn still holds, because undoubtedly there are other pages like that. It is partly my fault, but creating that impression during a deletion discussion is misleading, and it would be better if you mention edits like this, as otherwise people misunderstand the history of the pages in question. Carcharoth 14:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Responding Comment Actually, I made the edit and then followed the links to this discussion, not the other way around. That movement of names was one thing that motivated me to post here; I thought, "How would the deletion or permanence of this article affect what I had just done? Would the names be lost?" PaladinWhite 02:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hey! I just noticed you moved some of those names from the disambiguation page to the LoPbN list. See this edit. That led me to believe that LoPbN in that case had important information. The arguemtn still holds, because undoubtedly there are other pages like that. It is partly my fault, but creating that impression during a deletion discussion is misleading, and it would be better if you mention edits like this, as otherwise people misunderstand the history of the pages in question. Carcharoth 14:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Responding Comment No, I meant all persons with the same surname, not first name. PaladinWhite 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Responding Comment The issue of whether to disambiguate on first names has been a contentious one for some time. I think the current consensus is that one typically doesn't list all persons with first (given) naems that are identical except under those circumstances where they are colloqially referred to by their first name. For instance, the cases of 'Arnold' (er, 'Ahnold' perhaps) and 'Bill' come to mind for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill Clinton; on the flip side, Johnny Mathis isn't colloquially known simply as 'Johnny'. It's a grey area in the "dab canon". (P.S. it says something weird that I could type Arnold's last name correctly the first time) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I actually use Wikipedia regularly to look up names of obscure historical people. Sometimes the name I type in or search for is not there. But I don't give up. I try combinations of the Wikipedia search results, Wikipedia disambiguation pages and Google results. Sometimes I find that disambiguation pages are woefully incomplete, and there are 5-6 people with the same surname missing from the list. If I could reliably get a list of all the articles with "Fraser" in the title, that would be fine, but that is difficult at the moment. I could look at Fraser and see if the A. W. Fraser I want is there. I could look at A. W. Fraser, or I could try searching for A. W. Fraser, or I could Google A. W. Fraser and Wikipedia, or I could look at List of people by name: Fra-Frd#Frase. In fact, the A. W. Fraser I want is the oil contractor from the 1890s (see History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part one), and not Alexander William Fraser (17-year-old who is 231st in line to the British throne). But this sort of thing demonstrates some of the problems inherent in maintaining disambiguation for names in Wikipedia. Carcharoth 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - It's simply a waste of resources. The amount of maintenance that would be necessary to make it a valuable resource would be unbelievable. -- Sophia™ [ talk | contribs ] 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- What about the disambiguation information on many of these pages? Deleting all these pages would lose that information. Look at Fry and note the link to List of people by name: Frf-Frz#Fru - Fry (one of the pages proposed for deletion). Now, without looking at the page being proposed for deletion, can you easily find the 20 people named Fry who have Wikipedia articles? Bonus points if you can find any extra people called Fry with Wikipedia articles. Carcharoth 08:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- But we could load that information back into the disambiguation pages themselves, explicitly, rather than simply referring to part of LoPbN. Also, how many "bonus points" do I earn for: Arthur Fry, Barry Fry, Bertha Fry, Birkett D. Fry, Caroline Fry, Cecil Roderick Fry, Chance Fry, Colin Fry, Daniel Fry, Douglas Fry, Edward Fry, Hedy Fry, Jacob Fry, Jr., James Barnet Fry, Jeremy Fry, Joan Mary Fry, Johnny Fry, Jordan Fry, Joseph Fry, Jr., Joseph Storrs Fry, Joseph Storrs Fry II, Joshua Fry, Margery Fry, Martin Fry, Matt Fry, Maxwell Fry, Nick Fry, Peter Fry, Ryan Fry, Scott Fry, Sherry Edmundson Fry, Russell Fry, Taylor Fry or the fact that William Fry itself links to a disambiguation page? LoPbN is not working. Serpent's Choice 10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- LOL! You get <counts> 15 bonus points! :-) I agree, LoPbN is not working, and I agree that the disambiguation information should be put back into separate disambiguation pages for each name (though in some ways that is less efficient). Question is, how do we do that if the pages are deleted? Carcharoth 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- They were worth one point apiece? Sweet! Seriously, though, my real suggestion for dealing with this is to disassemble it. There is useful information in LoPbN; it's just the format that's a real problem. The "Fry" information, for example, can be moved over to the Fry disambiguation page. In some cases (the "van ..." people, below), the people may need to be split off into one or two sub-disambiguation pages. That's an editorial issue, and its fairly complex, but its neither here nor there. Obviously, even assuming that this M/AFD finds for deletion, the pages won't literally be deleted immediately. Just like the closure/deletion of Esperanza, there would be a transition period wherein a team of people (impromptu Wikiproject formation?) section the content up to distribute it to standard disambiguation pages. In the process, this will also greatly improve the status and structure of WP's sorry-state disambiguation system. Serpent's Choice 13:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is reassuring to hear. And those Fry's you found mustn't be left out in the cold. Just how did you find those ones anyway? Carcharoth 14:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I spent the bonus points I earned in a previous AFD to buy psychic powers. Or ... failing that, a couple of highly targeted Google searches. "+Fry +born site:enwikipedia.org" and "+Fry +died site:en.wikipedia.org" get all but the worst-written of biography articles, although there are about 20 pages of results to fish through. You may note that there are a couple in my 15 Fry list that don't show up on those Google searches; I got lucky with wikilinks to those from other articles. This process still may not find all the appropriate articles, and it's very, very slow, but it's better than nothing. Serpent's Choice 21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Now, I wonder how many Fry's there are on the list of just under 380,000 articles that has been produced using AWB and discussed at Template talk:WPBiography#Category with all the articles in it? At that discussion, I've also come up with my own list of Frys. Only living ones, I'm afraid. What I did was go to Category:Living people and use the two-letter index there (produced using {{largeCategoryTOC}}) to look at the Fs section. I then clicked back one (an argument for a three-letter index allowing someone to navigate straight to Fry), and found a list of 21 living Fry's: Abi Fry, Adam Fry, Arthur Fry, Barry Fry, Bertha Fry, Chance Fry, Charles Fry, Colin Fry, Hayden Fry, Hedy Fry, Jordan Fry, Ken Fry, Nick Fry, Nina Fry, Peter Fry, Russell Fry, Ryan Fry, Scott Fry, Shirley Fry, Stephen Fry, Taylor Fry. I wonder how this list compares with yours? (I only get three bonus points - Abi Fry, Nina Fry and Russell Fry were not on your list or in LoPbN). This method does rely on the pipe-sorting of the articles to be correct, but already, I think, we can see how one simple edit to {{WPBiography}} to create a super-category, will produce something with much of the functionality of LoPbN, and that will be far more maintainable (just add DEFAULTSORTED articles to Category:Biographical articles to automatically insert them in the right place in the super-category). What do people think? Carcharoth 00:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- As an aside, even that didn't get them all. Don Fry, Doug Fry, Dustin Fry, Fred Fry, John Fry, another John Fry, Leslie Fry, Nan Fry, Paul Fry, and W Fry were all missed by LoPbN, my first pass through Google, and cross-referencing through the Living People category (although most of these 10 new entries are living people). I found these through another google search specifically intended to return stubby, malformed biography articles (some of these probably don't meet inclusion standards), but I cannot guarantee that I've caught them all even now. Obviously, disambiguation pages as an entire category require more attention and development; they are inglorious, so they get ignored. But I think this "Fry" exercise testifies to the insurmountable barriers facing any sort of comprehensive "index to Wikipedia", which is fundamentally what LoPbN aspires to be. Serpent's Choice 05:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Now, I wonder how many Fry's there are on the list of just under 380,000 articles that has been produced using AWB and discussed at Template talk:WPBiography#Category with all the articles in it? At that discussion, I've also come up with my own list of Frys. Only living ones, I'm afraid. What I did was go to Category:Living people and use the two-letter index there (produced using {{largeCategoryTOC}}) to look at the Fs section. I then clicked back one (an argument for a three-letter index allowing someone to navigate straight to Fry), and found a list of 21 living Fry's: Abi Fry, Adam Fry, Arthur Fry, Barry Fry, Bertha Fry, Chance Fry, Charles Fry, Colin Fry, Hayden Fry, Hedy Fry, Jordan Fry, Ken Fry, Nick Fry, Nina Fry, Peter Fry, Russell Fry, Ryan Fry, Scott Fry, Shirley Fry, Stephen Fry, Taylor Fry. I wonder how this list compares with yours? (I only get three bonus points - Abi Fry, Nina Fry and Russell Fry were not on your list or in LoPbN). This method does rely on the pipe-sorting of the articles to be correct, but already, I think, we can see how one simple edit to {{WPBiography}} to create a super-category, will produce something with much of the functionality of LoPbN, and that will be far more maintainable (just add DEFAULTSORTED articles to Category:Biographical articles to automatically insert them in the right place in the super-category). What do people think? Carcharoth 00:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I spent the bonus points I earned in a previous AFD to buy psychic powers. Or ... failing that, a couple of highly targeted Google searches. "+Fry +born site:enwikipedia.org" and "+Fry +died site:en.wikipedia.org" get all but the worst-written of biography articles, although there are about 20 pages of results to fish through. You may note that there are a couple in my 15 Fry list that don't show up on those Google searches; I got lucky with wikilinks to those from other articles. This process still may not find all the appropriate articles, and it's very, very slow, but it's better than nothing. Serpent's Choice 21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is reassuring to hear. And those Fry's you found mustn't be left out in the cold. Just how did you find those ones anyway? Carcharoth 14:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- (unindent) I wonder how many were missed by living people because they lacked the tag, and how many were merely incorrectly pipe-sorted? Aren't we lucky we didn't take "Smith" as an example... :-) Carcharoth 07:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- None of the living people in that additional list are so marked. And there is no way I am going to manually extract all the Smiths from Google searches. My sanity may be in question already, but at least I don't gibber. Serpent's Choice 07:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- They were worth one point apiece? Sweet! Seriously, though, my real suggestion for dealing with this is to disassemble it. There is useful information in LoPbN; it's just the format that's a real problem. The "Fry" information, for example, can be moved over to the Fry disambiguation page. In some cases (the "van ..." people, below), the people may need to be split off into one or two sub-disambiguation pages. That's an editorial issue, and its fairly complex, but its neither here nor there. Obviously, even assuming that this M/AFD finds for deletion, the pages won't literally be deleted immediately. Just like the closure/deletion of Esperanza, there would be a transition period wherein a team of people (impromptu Wikiproject formation?) section the content up to distribute it to standard disambiguation pages. In the process, this will also greatly improve the status and structure of WP's sorry-state disambiguation system. Serpent's Choice 13:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- LOL! You get <counts> 15 bonus points! :-) I agree, LoPbN is not working, and I agree that the disambiguation information should be put back into separate disambiguation pages for each name (though in some ways that is less efficient). Question is, how do we do that if the pages are deleted? Carcharoth 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- But we could load that information back into the disambiguation pages themselves, explicitly, rather than simply referring to part of LoPbN. Also, how many "bonus points" do I earn for: Arthur Fry, Barry Fry, Bertha Fry, Birkett D. Fry, Caroline Fry, Cecil Roderick Fry, Chance Fry, Colin Fry, Daniel Fry, Douglas Fry, Edward Fry, Hedy Fry, Jacob Fry, Jr., James Barnet Fry, Jeremy Fry, Joan Mary Fry, Johnny Fry, Jordan Fry, Joseph Fry, Jr., Joseph Storrs Fry, Joseph Storrs Fry II, Joshua Fry, Margery Fry, Martin Fry, Matt Fry, Maxwell Fry, Nick Fry, Peter Fry, Ryan Fry, Scott Fry, Sherry Edmundson Fry, Russell Fry, Taylor Fry or the fact that William Fry itself links to a disambiguation page? LoPbN is not working. Serpent's Choice 10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- What about the disambiguation information on many of these pages? Deleting all these pages would lose that information. Look at Fry and note the link to List of people by name: Frf-Frz#Fru - Fry (one of the pages proposed for deletion). Now, without looking at the page being proposed for deletion, can you easily find the 20 people named Fry who have Wikipedia articles? Bonus points if you can find any extra people called Fry with Wikipedia articles. Carcharoth 08:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Another example is here: Van (disambiguation)#People. I was recently editing Paul van Somer I, and I looked around for a "van" people disambiguation page to help decide whether to list him under 'S' or 'V', and there are vast numbers of people named 'van...'. This might seem a trivial thing, but it really is the sort of thing people do ask ocassionally: "Oh, do you have a list of your articles on people named 'van'? I'm doing some research on Dutch/German names and such a list would be helpful. Hmm? What's that? You deleted it? Oh dear. Maybe you have a category with all those articles in it? You don't. Oh dear. Maybe you have a list of all pages stating "van"? Oh, not all those redirects have been created. Maybe you have a disambiguation page such as Van (disambiguation)? You do? Wonderful! ... What do you mean it links to the deleted page?? <researcher gives up in disgust>. Carcharoth 09:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I should note, of course, that neither Van (disambiguation), or the equivalent LoPbN page could claim to be comprehensive. Possibly a pipe-sorted category could be, but that depends on pipe-sorting being done correctly. Carcharoth 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Red-links in the list - an issue raised by Serpent's Choice. The example was Aaron McKinney, linked from List of people by name: Mch-Mcz. The deletion log shows that the article was speedy-deleted. Surely when an article is speedy deleted the deleting admin should clear up the red-links and remove them, or am I missing something there? Carcharoth 12:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment about red-links I think this is a valid topic for here because it gets to people's concerns about maintainability. My personal feeling is that LoPbN should have no red-links at all. Those red-links associated with deleted articles should be removed. Those red-links that are for not-yet-created articles should go into the Wikipedia:Requested articles bin. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It is always painful to remove content into which much work has been invested; however, this system is clearly considered too unwieldy to be useful, at least by most commenters here. I'm sure some valuable disambiguation information remains in this list, so it should combed before deletion, to ensure all useful material is extracted. Given its burden on WP's resources, and the improbability of its being widely-employed for any helpful purpose, it is time for this system to be removed. Xoloz 15:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed solution
My proposed solution is:
- (1) Turn LoPbN into a single master list, in alphabetical order.
- (1a) Preserve the annotations for possible use in disambiguation pages.
- (2) Compare the LoPbN list with the list of approx 380,000 articles transcluding {{WPBiography}} (this is a 10MB file that is too large to be uploaded as a wiki-page), and ensure that any LoPbN articles lacking {{WPBiography}} on their talk page have that tag added.
- (3) Use a bot to add a Category:Biographical articles tag to all articles with {{WPBiography}} on their talk page, plus an attempt at DEFAULTSORT or pipe-sorting.
- (4) Create Category:Biographical articles.
- (5) Design a new (three-letter) version of {{largeCategoryTOC}} for use on Category:Biographical articles.
- (6) Initiate and maintain processes to ensure correct pipe-sorting or DEFAULTSORTing of biographical articles.
- (7) Browse the new category using the index provided by the newly-designed three-letter version of {{largeCategoryTOC}}, and use this new functionality to improve Wikipedia's disambiguation pages.
Please discuss below. Carcharoth 00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Advantages
- This new system can be easily maintained.
[edit] Disadvantages
- The annotations to the LoPbN lists are difficult to transfer.
[edit] Additional suggestions
- One possibility is to create categories for the sections, e.g. Category:Surnames beginning with F; the advantage to this option is that it would be completely "self-maintaining" - once an article was tagged with the category, the list would self-generate. PaladinWhite 02:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- And then have an index page for the 26 categories. That would be easier than having a three-letter largeCategoryTOC. What about cases like Fry Family (Chocolate)? Carcharoth 07:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possible problems
- Automated DEFAULTSORT or pipe-sorting is difficult in many cases.
- How much time and volunteer effort needed?
- How much bot programming and running time is needed?
[edit] General comments
- Please put general comments here.
- 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 page'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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 01:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)
NN --Bachrach44 19:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Top 5 US hit for Kenny Rogers and the First Edition in 1968. It was his first hit see [18].
Significant number of Google books results means that this article has definite potential for expansion see [19]. Capitalistroadster 19:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm listening to this song as I vote keep. As Capitalistroadster said, it was a hit. Plus, its appearance in The Big Lebowski made it much better known. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 21:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable song. 23skidoo 22:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Expand, definitely a well-known song. As Szyslak mentioned, being in The Big Lebowski also contributed to the song's fame. peachlette 00:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- If it cannot be expanded, it should be merged with Kenny Rogers. It is a key piece of musical psychedelia. B.Wind 05:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reason at all for this to be deleted. It is a popular song, by a very popualr artist. What's next? Stairway to Heaven get's nominated for deletion? Me
- 'KEEP add the words and what not. and a little more about the big lebowski.|
- KEEP terrific, yeah big lebowski!! great movie, song should stay.
- Keep'. Any song that cracks the US top 10 is notable. Mareino 19:20, 9 December 2005 (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. Johnleemk | Talk 19:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Terminator 4
This should not be an article until we have a credible source saying that Terminator 4 will exist. Until then all the article can contain is speculation, rumors and fan fiction, like what we have seen so far. Delete Bergsten 21:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge (version by Capitalistroadster) with Terminator series. Bergsten 13:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, crystal ball etc.Leithp (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)- Delete. Way too crystal ball. Wait till an official announcement (and to see whether Arnie gets reelected first). 23skidoo 22:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. An official announcement has been made, a script written and a director announced. 227,000 Google Hits see [20] and 17 Google News hits see [21]. There is enough verifiable information for a stub which is what I have rewritten this as. Capitalistroadster 22:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Capitalistroadster. Capitalistroadster's revision is a great improvement over the nominated version -Meegs 22:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Capitalistroadster. In The Flesh? 22:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. to much of a problem -209.200.16.16 23:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I have been watching this for a while now and it seem that it changes about once a week lets wait to there is more inforamtion about this movie! -68.49.63.78 23:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. all of the information on here seem to conterdict it slef one said arnild in not coming back while something else said he is going to star in it. so what is it -yourname 00:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete-crystal ball-72.29.74.83 00:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as it has its own IMDB entry, hence we know for sure it is going to be released. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as rewritten. Odd to see sockpuppet votes on the delete side of things. ESkog | Talk 01:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's sock puppet votes? Or you mean anon IPs? Hmm. Oh I see the reverted bit from Francs above. Maybe they have a thing against Terminator for some reason? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to Terminator series until this film is solidly into production. — RJH 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Capitalistroadster. Ve3 02:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Capitalistroadsterizations have been worth keeping in the past, and this one utterly fails to change that heuristic. ☺ The article indirectly cites Variety, twice, and the IMDB entry for the movie as sources. Keep. Uncle G 03:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Terminator series until the announcement of a release date; then it can be re-established as a stand-alone article. B.Wind 05:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep it has an IMD listing... what more is needed? Sethie 05:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep since it is verifiable and has been rewritten. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Crystal ball. android79 01:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, there's tons of verifiable information about this regardless of whether it's actually going to be made. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, I see no reason why this is any different than other future movie articles. --SwordKirby537 22:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete ive seen information that says aronld is to star in this movie but the artical says hes not even going to be in it i thought this is a fact site not a roumor-217.196.69.199 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, with revision.--Bkwillwm 23:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete-a load of BS-85.195.123.22 03:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Crystal ball.209.200.36.4 03:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete-64.92.167.26 19:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Deletelooks like fan fiction204.10.105.220
- How? Currently it's only about production facts (which may be wrong), but it doesn't even mention a plot. Bergsten 19:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP. This is a heavily rumored and inevitable fourth film. Cameron himself has recently talked about the project. However, if the page stays, it needs to be rewritten to remove any specualtion and provide only facts. The Wookieepedian 08:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not enough sources Empty2005 08:49, 9 December 2005 (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. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] D-Bag Football
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
KEEP--- this HLS intramural dynasty is legendary. This is not vanity, they are not overly promotional.--Pibb55 04:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Unverifiable article on a non-notable intramural football team, probably vanity; delete AJR | Talk 23:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Memorializing an HLS tradition->not vanity. Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.243.50 (talk • contribs)
- This team has been a fairly notorious bunch at Harvard Law School the last three years. Arguably more people know about them on campus than some of the more famous professors. Keep. 140.247.42.198 01:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Intramural football at Harvard Law School is a central part of the school social scene. Keep user: baltodomer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.191.185 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - even ignoring the references, its a university football team. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwinian Eventualist 00:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP---So what if it is only a "university football team?" For example, there is an entry on "Maine South High School." What makes that entry notable to anyone outside the city of Park Ridge? So, we've arbitrarily decided that a random suburb in the Chicago-land area is sufficient enough to garner interest, but what occurs at arguably the most known educational institution in the world isn't? Seems to me that perhaps some people's fire is fueled due to this being a "Harvard" team--and that isn't right. Sorry but it just isn't. As for non-verifiable? Well, let's go back to the same Maine South entry....its says that they have one of the top wrestling programs in the state. Now is that statement verifiable? I mean, what does one of the top in the state denote? B/c if that means being ranked, they aren't...and haven't been for a while. So perhaps it's a false statement. Or perhaps it's vanity---some measure of self promotion. But it's allowed. Well, so should this. Furthermore, there is no analogy to be drawn between an intramural team and a ping-pong table in someone's basement. Intramural teams in the past have garnered attention, obviously to different degrees, but still. Does anyone recall the attention given to the guys who named their team the "Fighting Whities"??? So, don't dismiss something just b/c its an intramural sport. This all being said, I think it's great that we are having a discussion.66.30.15.64 06:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)AK
"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.
Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional"
--"Wikipedia: Vanity Guidelines"
- Commentary = D-Bag football represents a sliver of the student-life and athleticism at Harvard Law School. Though not impressive in a singular capacity, this article educates the reader about a long-running tradition at Harvard Law School while dispelling some of the dated or untrue rumors/public perceptions plaguing this institution. Deletion of this article opposes the very essence of Wikipedia and the intrinsic value of user-edited information that taps the "long-tail" of human knowledge. KEEP {{--140.247.240.55 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)DGaston|140.247.205.92}}
-
- Note: Many of the above impressions were garnered through "Jimbo's" [the founder of this site] presentation of Wikipedia at HLS. Please consider his recorded philosophy of Wikipedia if you find this entry to be repugnant to the goals of this on-line resource.
- KEEP. Captures the essence of the Ivy League law school athletic experience. Intramural athletics are a long tradition at Harvard. Remember..."The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." - Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.191.185 (talk • contribs)
- D-bag football has attained near legendary status at the Harvard Law School. Wikipedia should keep this article so that their memory may live on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.47.250 (talk • contribs)
- I don't see any reason to delete this. To delete this would be demoralizing to not only the rich in tradition D-Bag football team, but also a blemish on this otherwise great site. Furthermore the D-Bag football team represents the pedestal that we all hope to one day stand upon. "Keep". 128.255.184.191 01:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. An intramural athletic team is entirely unnotable. Naturoma 02:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
An intramural athletic team is notable when they represent the underlying values of athletic competition at elite educational institutions. Harvard Law intramural football is the largest student activity at the largest law school in the world, with nearly 1/7 of the entire student body participating. KEEP.
HERE IS VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, SEE THESE LINKS PROVIDED: The D-Bags are very similar to the University of Texas Law School Legal Eagles, a intramural football that the Univ. of Texas finds appropriate to list in its rare library collections: [25]. Playing intramural football has also been noted in applications for Kaufman Fellowships at Harvard Law School. See James Walsh at [26]. Law firm partners list intramural football on their website bios: see Joel K. Goldman, HLS '90 at Greenberg Traurig: [27]. Legal giant Charles Alan Wright was a dedicated intramural football coach. See: [28]
KEEP.
- The UT intramural football team is in the archives of that schools library because it has continuously existed for 50 years. The Harvard team has existed for three. Moreover, just because something is in that library does not mean that it should be in this encyclopedia.
- Unless Harvard Law has really gone downhill, Kaufman fellowships are given out for on the basis of legal ability, and activities such as intramural football are only minor details.
- Joel Goldman is only one man, especially in a sea as big as G-T. The fact that his team was important to him does not mean that we should have an article about it, and it certainly does not follow from Goldman's biography that a page on this team merits inclusion.
- None of the reasons that Charles Alan Wright is actually notable have anything to do with law school intramural football, and we don't have any articles on the intramural teams that he coached (nor should we). Naturoma 02:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
To an outside observer, law school intramural football may appear to be trivial if someone has never experienced the camaraderie of athletic competition in an intense and grueling academic setting. This misunderstanding on the parts of certain individuals is not the problem of the intramural participant nor the Wikipedia. Intramural football is it is, and has been for decades, an axis of student social scenes not just at Harvard Law but colleges, universities and graduate schools across America and the UK. Surely teams who embody the entire spirit of the great intramural tradition are notable, much like the 1985 Chicago Bears are notable for embodying a football attitude all its own. In addition, the fact that the a team has been around for only three years is not a sufficient condition for being non-notable. The Florida Marlins have two World Series titles, despite only being a team for 15 years. Are they less notable than the Houston Astros, who have no titles but have been a team for 40? Baltodomer 02:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)baltodomer
- Question. Are Harvard Law people so full of themselves even when they are still students or have recently graduated that they think every time they get together to play flag football the world should sit up and pay notice? Sheesh. Herostratus 02:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not that they want the whole world to notice. Only those that might happen to type "D-bag football" into Wikipedia.
It seems like there's a lot of debate over something that supposedly doesn't matter. Long, involved discussions on whether is something is relevant are oxymoronic.
- Delete as utterly non-notable. I would consider Speedy Delete as no assertion of notability in the article, although there are clear assertions in this AFD. New folks, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes, and, of course, read the notice at the top of this section. Bikeable 03:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- The individuals who advocate the deletion of this article are making conclusory statements about its worth, such as "delete as utterly non-notable." How about an actual discussion of why you claim its not notable? Many here seem to be confusing non-notable with unfamiliarity with sports/athletic competition in general, and intramural sports in particular. Baltodomer 03:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, please. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An article on an intramural team of law students is not remotely notable. This is an encyclopedia, not the Crimson. Bikeable 03:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just because something is not-notable in your conclusory opinion, and because you're not interested in it, doesn't make in not-notable. Could you provide an argument about why it's not notable, rather than just a conclusion. For instance, several people above provided good arguments why its notable:
- Oh, please. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An article on an intramural team of law students is not remotely notable. This is an encyclopedia, not the Crimson. Bikeable 03:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
(1) Intramural football is a large part of student life at a very important institution. (2) The intramural football team that is the subject of this article was an especially well-known team, not because of wins and losses, but because it reflected all the joys, sorrows and camaraderie that represents student intramurals. Thousands of students play intramurals, and then its not notable when a few students who have achieved substantial fame playing said intramurals? The paradigm of an intramural football team is not notable? (3)See this article in the Harvard Law Record
So that's an argument, not a conclusion Baltodomer 04:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC) The conclusion that is naturally derived from the argument supra is that this article should be KEPT because the article is notable. 149.101.1.123 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Argued like a budding lawyer. I'm sorry to argue against a page you put a lot of work into, and I hope you stay and contribute to other articles. However, many things that are important parts of student life are not encyclopedic, and in my opinion intramural football (why would you assume that I don't know anything about it and am not interested?) is one. There is a ping-pong table in the basement of one of the buildings in my academic department, and it is important to many of us, but it certainly does not merit an article in an encyclopedia. An article about an intramural league might be worth an entry, but one about a single team, however heartwarming, is not, except perhaps under rare circumstances. The joys, sorrows, etc, would be better told in a personal web page, blog, art installation, novel, etc etc. Bikeable 04:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- The picture on the page should certainly satisfy the "verifiability" question. The picture clearly shows each of the D-Bag players wearing shirts clearly marked "D-Bag Football." In addition, for those familiar with Cambridge, the flags with the Harvard Crimson "H" clearly denote the site of the football stadium used for Harvard University football. Adzilla 06:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- KEEP. Verifiable? To cite an old proverb, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." And here the picture shall be sufficient proof that the D-Bags do exist.Khanman 19:19, 5 December 2005
-
-
- Comment (in reply to both Adzilla and Khanman) the photo does show that the team exists, but it does no more than that. It tells us nothing about the team's achievements, internal disputes, myths, fans, or anything else that the article talks about. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia basic policies, and this article has no listed sources or references, and I have not been able to find anything about the team on Google. -- AJR | Talk 21:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-
Keep. Wikipedia stated goal is �to create a free, democratic, reliable encyclopedia�actually, the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth.� If we evaluate this article by those standards, it should be Kept. A majority of people who have commented on this article favor keeping it. Accordingly it should remain in a �democratic encyclopedia.� The article is reliable as evinced by the picture, the article in the Harvard Law Record, and testimony from several contributors on this page. Furthermore, if Wikipedia is going to be the �largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth� it will naturally include articles that might not appear in a standard Encyclopedia Britannica.
Notice that notability is not one of the aims enumerated in Wikipedia�s mission�s statement. Although many of the article's critics mock the subject of this entry because they have not personally heard of this group, nowhere does Wikipedia state that a topic must be famous in order to appear in the encyclopedia. What purpose would an encyclopedia serve if all of the articles in it only addressed widely known topics? A good encyclopedia should help its readers learn about obscure subjects as well as history�s headliners and legends. Keeping this article is consistent with Wikipedia�s stated goals even though several of the article's critics are not personally familiar with D-bag Football. 149.101.1.123 15:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not encyclopedic. However, a mention on Harvard Law School#Student activities might be appropriate. The template at the top of this section is counterproductive; lawyers and wannabe lawyers are used to manufacturing evidence. A more important point is that Wikipedia is a community, and outsiders coming in to vote on a single issue don't know the community standards. This isn't a rules-driven community, but a consensus-driven one. Legal arguments are not relevant. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP---What's the point of rules if a consensus can override something that falls within the acceptable guidelines?? Especially a consensus that is seemingly ignoring arguments with throw away insults (e.g. "lawyers are used to manufacturing evidence). I go back to my earlier point, what makes this less notable than Maine South High School?? Since when does one of the many Chicago area high schools deserve its own entry in a "encyclopedia?" What makes it any more notable than this?? Note that simply distinguishing between this specific high school and this specific intramural team on the basis that "one is an educational institution and the other isn't," doesn't provide any logical argument on why it is more "notable"?? It begs the question: Notable to who??140.247.237.28 18:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC) AK
-
- comment Are you actually comparing a school which has existed for over 40 years and has thousands of pupils at any one time with this team? The school is clearly more notable, as it has had a far greater impact on far more people. In answer to your question, "Notable to who?" it generally means notable to the world at large. Your childhood pet which you loved and cherished, and then buried in the back garden when it died probably was very important to you, but it is does not have wider notability. See Wikipedia:Notability. -- AJR | Talk 21:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- "The world at large"??? Believe me, MSHS is a great school--arguably the best high school in America. However, it is not notable to the world at large. Rather, far from it. If it is so notable, tell me the following: Name of mascot, name of head football coach, name of school fight song, what movie allegedly had its final scene shot on the school's football field? You can't tell me these things..at least not without lots of tedious research. KEEP.
- User Bikeable above makes the best argument so far for deletion, because he uses an actual argument, rather than a mere assertion that "lawyers are used to manufacturing evidence." That statement is as ridiculous as it is uninformed. The arguments above are not legal ones, rather legal-like arguments made under the Wikipedia guidelines which operate as a sort of legal code for Wikipedia. That makes a legal-like argument relevant and certainly acceptable. Either way, there has been strong arguments both ways, and while this is a probably a close call, I believe the weight of the evidence and the importance of the subject matter warrants inclusion in the wikipedia. KEEP. Baltodomer 18:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice as violation of rule: WP:NO OVERPRIVILEGED MEATPUPPETS. Herostratus 18:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP. Herostratus' comments show, unfortunately, what has infecting some of the critics of this article. I can't find the "no overprivileged meat puppets" rule that he cites. The only thing I know about the Meat Puppets was that they were Kurt Cobain's favorite band. Is Herostratus no fan of "Smells Like Teen Spirit"? (Perhaps a fan of hair rock which it replaced?) In seriousness, I would point out, that he erroneously refers to Harvard Law students as overprivileged, that admission to the law school is based solely on merit and that the great majority of the law school student body finances their education not with family money, as Herostratus seems to suggest, but with a combination of need-based financial aid and government and private loans. See the law schools financial aid page here: [29] Correct me if I am wrong, but are Herostratus' comments consistent with Wikipedia rules regarding the debate over articles. Do the rules not state that personal attacks are not part of the discussion.
Herostratus should review the rules prior to re-posting. I personally suggest he read Bikeable comments above as an example of well-thought out criticism of this article. Baltodomer 18:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete - lack of valid citations and there problably never could be. Also "Harvard" is hardly UoSA is it; barely old enough to warrant an article its self.... Mozzerati 19:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mostly, it would be a shame in the end for Wikipedia to delete this article due to prejudice against the subject of the article on the part of its critics, for example see Herostratus comments above. Baltodomer 20:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity and nn. ManoaChild 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP. Regardless of whether this team is from Harvard or from a superior athletic institution like the University of Michigan is besides the point. I don't see how one can draw the line calling a team unnotable or insignificant solely because of the size or popularity of the institution in question. Assuming this can be substantiated as a real team (the picture would seem to lead me to think it is--perhaps one could contact the student organizations office at Harvard University to verify this?), I would say keep it. I was under the impression that the Wikipedia community is more welcoming to "marginal" entries than World Book or Encarta and its strength is based in large part on its diversity. It's better to error on the side of keeping things in than wrongfully excluding something undeserving of inclusion. LLTF06
- DELETE - this is something that someone should put on their blog. It is not notable. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of an inside joke. Bill shannon 02:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Whoever referenced [Maine South High School] above makes an outstanding point. Having perused the Maine South High School page, you will find many unverified claims about skill levels of various sports teams, none of which are verified or linked to any other article or source. And the Maine South page is somehow different than this one? I would challenge anyone of the critics of the D-Bag article to differentiate the Maine South High School article from the D-Bag article. Also, this article is encyclopedic in its style and not written in the style of a blog. It is not meant to comment on events as they happen, or to bring people together. It is written to note a famous team. Baltodomer 03:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
DELETE - I go to Harvard Law and have never heard of this football team until they put themselves on Wikipedia. This is clearly a vanity article.
KEEP- Thanks for signing your comment, Mr. "I claim to go to Harvard Law School." Clearly, if you go to this school, and spend more than 5 minutes a day outside the library you would be familiar with this team. Adzilla 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP--I also go to Harvard and I HAVE heard of this team--I'm a fan of one of the rival teams. (The above "delete" vote is clearly one of those students who never leaves the library/tunnels.) Anyone who is even slightly social knows who these guys are. Anyway, if the concern is that they don't go to Harvard, Google thier names--many of them are involved in other school-sponsored activities and will pop up along with a verifiable Harvard reference. five234
-
- And yet that delete vote was posted from a Harvard IP address. And I note that the article itself says, "The D-Bags, much like many other HLS flag football teams, struggled to expand their fan base beyond the girlfriend/fiancee/roommate axis..." Bikeable 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Just because EVERYONE hasn't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable. For example, there is an entry on wikipedia for Reggie Bush. I promise you that not everyone at USC has heard of Reggie Bush. There are some people there, like here, that are indifferent to certain areas of student life (whether it be NCAA sports or intramural sports).Khanman 20:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Fans (defined as people braving the cold and coming to watch the games) are very different then people who are familiar with the team and its exploits.Adzilla 19:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT: Do not confuse lack of a fan base with a lack of notoriety. You would be hard pressed to find a resident of Cambridge or a Harvard/Harvard Law student who does not know of this team. Baltodomer 19:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Size of fan base does not equate with notability. Fan base=supporters. Since when is the size of the fan base the measure of whether something should be included. And where would the cutoff be?? How does the size of the Maine South fan base compare with that of the New Orleans Saints? It's obvious smaller...but apparently big enough to make wikipedia. Where is the cutoff my friends??? KEEP.Khanman 20:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. An intramural football team? I'm sorry, non-notable. Furthermore, a google search returns no meaningful results on the first few pages. The article is nonnotable. Cool3 23:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP. www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/647579/posts. Check out this link. An intramural team. Seems as if they are notable. So, being an intramural team doesn't inherently make a team non-notable. Khanman 00:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment...More conclusory statements, rather than arguments. And since when is being on Google a criteria for being in the Wikipedia? If we just go off what's on Google, why doesn't everybody just use Google instead of the Wikipedia? Using Cool3's logic, Wikipedia is useless because everything in the Wikipedia should be on Google, and why shouldn't we just get all our information there? Still no critic has risen to the challenge of saying why Maine South High School is in the Wikipedia and D-Bag Football is not deserving, given that Maine South is simply a normal public high school, and the article is full of non-verified assertions. Baltodomer 00:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- It is generally extremely poor tactics to point to another article and say "they have an article, so we should too", since most of the other articles pointed to tend to be delete-able. In this case, there is a general consensus that public schools are always notable, although there has been a great deal of heated discussion on the topic. Personally, I don't think the high school example is even remotely relevant to an intramural football team. Bikeable 00:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Poor tactics??? This is an attempt to point out an inconsistency. I don't think that is "poor tactics," but rather the type of thing that needs to be done in order to ensure that all receive fair treatment.Khanman 00:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- It is generally extremely poor tactics to point to another article and say "they have an article, so we should too", since most of the other articles pointed to tend to be delete-able. In this case, there is a general consensus that public schools are always notable, although there has been a great deal of heated discussion on the topic. Personally, I don't think the high school example is even remotely relevant to an intramural football team. Bikeable 00:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. 100% Agreed. This is ridiculous to summarily dismiss something based on a google search.Adzilla 00:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The argument about Maine South is to point out that many of the arguments made by critics here concerning verifiability appear to be weak when an article like Maine South is approved. If the Maine South article is approved even though it is unverified as part of a general consensus then the general consensus is overbroad and compromises the Wikipedia requirement of veriability. As far as the high school being relevant to an intramural team, you are confusing the subject matter with the type of article they both are and the two articles' verifiability. The point is that there is no meaningful distinction, under the Wikipedia rules, between the two articles in terms of verifiability and notability. The argument that there is no similar subject matter as the D-Bag article on the Wikipedia is not a strong argument for deletion but rather a strong argument for its inclusion as an extention of knowledge previously ignored. And why are public schools notable in general? Are private ones notable as well? Baltodomer 01:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
Observing what has gone on to this point, the concern appears to have shifted from verifiability to notability. In terms of notability, then, on first glance this appears to be a close call. However, several reasons lead me to believe that this article is noteworthy enough; that is, worth keeping as part of Wikipedia's encyclopedia. First, the topic of this article concerns a university, and a graduate school within the university, that is arguably the most famous university in the world. An article that provides insight into student life at such a university is likely noteworthy on some level. In regards to the law school, I can think off the top of my head of a famous book (One L) and movie (Paper Chase) dedicated to the topic of life at Harvard Law School. This is not to say that the students of Harvard Law are any more "special" or important tha anyone else; merely to say that the lives of these students are, objectively, more noteworthy to the general public vis a vis those of students at other universities/graduate schools. Secondly, the topic of intramural sports, obviously captured in this article, is one that is uniquely important in American society. An article on this topic (that I am assuming at this point is credible based on the corroboration, verification and strong defense from posters in the know) is likely noteworthy. To develop this point a bit further, intramural sports is a subject that is discussed and researched often in our society, and relevant to many of the debates that go on today, from encouraging a healthy lifestyle to issues of discrimination to the role of sports in the development of children. To expand on just one of these areas, the role of intramural sports in the context of gender discussions is undeniable: just think of Title IX- one of the oft-mentioned considerations in Title IX discussions is the participation in intramural sports among men and women and whether this should impact the allocation of resources. While this particular article does not delve into that particular subject with any depth, at a cursory glance, the fact that this is an all-boys team says something (on a side note, based on the picture, the diversity on this team is noteworthy based on what I know of how students associate at most academic institutions and elsewhere). Maybe I am stretching the point a bit, but i don't think it would be a stretch to say that an article that presents anecdotal evidence about one particular intramural team and its experiences may be useful (read: noteworthy) to someone's research on the subject of intramural athletics. The fact that this team is at Harvard, an institution that is world-reknowned, while also carrying a certain mystique, makes it all the more noteworthy. It is noteable, if nothing else, for what it does to stereotypes about what all Harvard Law School students are like. In light of Wikipedia's goals regarding breadth of subject matter, and providing something beyond what one could find in traditional dictionaries like the Enyclopedia Brittanica, I believe this article is noteworthy and should be kept. --24.61.4.185 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [SZA]
-
- comment re "the concern appears to have shifted from verifiability to notability" - As far as I am concerned, the issue of verifiability has not been dealt with. I have already commented on what the photo does for verifiability above, and beyond that photo, no other sources have been presented. I cannot find anything mentioning this team using google. If there are any external sources of information about this team, can someone please tell us where they are? I am also unconvinced as to why this specific team is notable (as oposed to the topic of intramural sport in general, or the value of describing a typical intramural team as part of covering that topic,) but if there were sources that would enable an article to be written about this team without using original research or unverifiable information, I would be far less concerned about the team's notability, in part because the fact that someone else had written something about them might imply some notability. -- AJR | Talk 14:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- NOTE...There are other flag football teams that are deemed notable by Wikipedia. There is precedent for the D-Bags' inclusion The Millbury Monsoon are listed in the flag football article. KEEP Baltodomer 02:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Upon the presentation of this fact, Bikeable found it necessary to delete such precedent. Is this how the WIkipedia community is run? I find it appalling that some posters, being "wannabe lawyers" (read: law students) are accused of making up evidence when the real offenses, such as destroying evidence, seem to be perpetrated by established and active members of the Wikipedia community. History is indeed written by the victors, but the battle isn't over yet. (see below)
"I rewrote this page substantially. At somepoint, the "Basics of the Game" section, which seemed like a useful introduction, had been removed; I put it back. I expanded a bit on "Variations". I also deleted entirely the section on the Worcester (Mass) league as being too regional and not generally useful or noteable. Bikeable 04:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)"
--140.247.205.92 13:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)DGaston
- Delete. See POINT.--Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 06:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, may be well-written but is not notable. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. 143.239.138.129 12:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- This was me, I forgot to login. Stifle 12:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP. Bikeable has rewritten the page simply to make his case against this page? Seems to be in bad faith. As far as disrupting the Wikipedia, this article doesn't cause any of the disruption on WP:POINT. Bookandcoffee and Stifle should reread WP:POINT. WP:POINT is primarily concerned with
(1) spelling - No one has criticized the spelling used in this article. (2) "edits that are not made in good faith, and which, indeed, are designed to provoke outrage and opposition" - This page is a new page, not a disruptive. This article is trying to add to the stream of human knowledge, not disrupt it. It is a serious article about a serious subject, and any comedy that comes out of it is a result of the comedic exploits of the D-Bags, for which the Wikipedia is not responsible. (3) The system is not being gamed. This article does not affect other articles and other articles are not being edited. (4) The D-Bags article is not disrupting in the style of any of the examples listed.
FURTHERMORE, as it states at the very top of WP:POINT that it is not Wikipedia policy, only a guidline. Baltodomer 15:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I did edit Flag football because, after following the link above, I saw that it was a particularly terrible page (including, among other things, a sentence about someone sniffing her cat). (This is what I meant about the poor tactics of comparing yourself to another page -- the other pages can be pretty bad.) I added a fair amount of detail, and removed a paragraph that was specific to a Worcester-area league as being too local for the general article. Remember that this is wikipedia, and you can make whatever changes you feel appropriate. The flag football page could certainly use some help. Bikeable 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Baltodomer, please do not make multiple votes. I notice that you have made 6 edits which puport to be keep votes: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35], and there is one vote by an IP address signed with your name: [36]. (There is also [37] which was removed in the following edit.[38]) Please do not vote multiple times, it may make your position look less credible and could be taken as a sign of bad faith. -- AJR | Talk 16:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I was merely repeating my vote, and responding to criticism. I didn't know this was a vote...after all, it says at the top: "THIS IS NOT A VOTE." So is this a vote or is it not a vote? It's pretty obvious I'm not trying to vote a bunch of times, because everyone can see that I wrote all of those things. If someone was swayed by pure amount of times I wrote "keep" then they would be reading this way too quickly, and would be considering this a vote, which apparently it's not, per the top ENORMOUS box that says, "THIS IS NOT A VOTE." Baltodomer 16:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Correct, it is not a vote. However, when the discussion is closed, the closing admin will count the number of commentors who have expressed an opinion on whether to keep or delete the article (and any other options, such as merging with another article,) and where there is a supermajority, the exact level depending on which admin happens to be doing the closure and on the strength of feeling expressed, it is taken as a rough consesus. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure. My main point was that making repeated vote-like comments (i.e. comments which expressly state a keep or delete opinion,) especially when they are unsigned, could be taken as a sign of bad faith, and I felt is is only fair that you be aware of that. -- AJR | Talk 17:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- We should have faith in the closing administrator that he or she will do their job, as in: " Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article." From Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure. I am obviously not trying to fool anyone. If I was really doing bad faith things I'd sockpuppet the whole argument. I think the closing administrator will be fine. Baltodomer 17:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- KEEP. This article is a fantastic read and communicates information that is apt to be of some interest to some number of readers. One thing I fail to understand -- and this may just show me for one of the unwashed -- is why anyone would be eager to delete an article like this. The best reason I can think of is scarcity, but I'm guessing that lack of storage space is not an acute problem for the Wikipedia. Another reason is that clutter offends the aesthetic sense of obsessive-compulsive types. I suppose, but as reasons go, that one leaves me underwhelmed. If the article contained false statements, that might render it objectionable, but as far as I can tell, the worst that can be said of this article is that it is frivolous (and I mean that in a good way!). User:Charles.Morse
- Delete, don't send to BJAODN, it's not funny enough for that. Pilatus 01:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm sure it's all 100% true, but it's not verifiable. Even if there's an article in The Maroon or The Lampoon proving that this team exists, I'll bet it doesn't verify all those inside jokes. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Mareino 19:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Critics of this article assume there are inside jokes, making further conclusory statements about this article. There is nothing in this article that is a "joke" insofar as it did not happen. The standards for verifiability on the wikipedia seem to not be very strict. Much of what appears in mainstream articles have no citations as to specific assertions. See Main South High School. So don't get on your verifiability high horse just because you do not like the subject matter...be consistent. The critics of this article keep morphing their criticism, only to be batted down. First, it was vanity. Now nobody says its vanity. Then, the subject matter was accused of being overprivileged. That was shot down. Then it was both criticized and supported for being funny. Apparently to some, if its funny, it shouldn't be on the wikipedia. I can't find that rule either. Now its verifiability, and you are forced to apply a heavy handed standard to just this article. Baltodomer 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 65.96.191.185 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. I am still waiting for someone in favor of deletion to explain why the Maine South High School article is ok. "Because its a public school" doesnt cut it.Adzilla 04:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Are you actually saying that you don't see how a public school, made of bricks and mortar, which will serve many thousands of kids over many years and is an institution central to its community, is different than a small group of students playing flag football? If so, you are quite welcome to put the school up for deletion, although I am pretty sure I know what the result will be. Bikeable 19:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Now you're making different argument that the supporters of this article. The comparison to Main South High School is meant to show the uneven nature of the Wikipedia's verifiability standard, not the notability argument. Your argument also make the connection between how long an event/thing lasts and its notability. That's a logical fallacy. Consider the Kennedy assassination...very brief, but very notable. Both D-Bag Football and Maine South are notable, despite the difference in time elapsed. You're picturing a flag football team and a high school in your mind and you're saying they're different because they're different concepts. But the argument the supporters of this article are making is that in terms of the Wikipedia, the two articles about these concepts are similar from a verifiability standard. Keep up and try to think outside the box! Baltodomer 21:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Look, Baltodomer, I went to an even better law school than you did, and I'm sure that's true of many other Wikipedians, so don't assume that we're a bunch of knee-jerk anti-elitists who don't understand the rule of law as it applies to privately-run organizations. --Mareino 00:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ok, well this comment presents no argument. If anything, this shows that those in the "delete" camp are resorting to the type of comments that usually show a weak argument. Whoever is "judging" this debate, please take these inflammatory statements into consideration when evaluating everything. No one assumes anything about anyone being an anti-elitist. It's you who have brough the law school debate into the mix here. Quite juvenile for someone who went to a "better" law school than Baltodomer. Asserting that this debate has "nothing to do with me or you" (your response to DGaston) is laughable when you earlier state that you went to "an even better law school" than Baltodomer. (AND WHAT LAW SCHOOL WOULD THAT BE, SIR?)Khanman 04:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- comment: I find it tragic that many of the posters who oppose this article use the tool of reason to assert their opinion -- yet these same posters immediatly react in such a immature, crass, and, frankly, unintelligent manner when their very arguments are taken to task. No one here is picking a fight: posters like Baltodomer are simply making direct and coherent arguments to defend this bit of on-line real estate and the ideas/knowledge therein. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this article must step to the line with such a colossal chip on their shoulder and such an overwhelming prejudice against the subject matter of the article: all because of the vacuous perceptions these posters have of the related institution and, apparently, those who attend. The errant post above epitomizes the key problem in this "discussion." Mareino should understand that there are many who can, with varying levels of accuracy, claim that their school is "even better" than HLS in any given rubric. Be it the weather, location, a specific program, a moot-court competition result, school size, etc., there are many ways that you can assert your legal education is/was inherently better than Harvard's. But here is the important part -- THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION. The last post was simply levied to state that that Baltodomer's logically sound response to a criticism was a direct result of Baltodomer's "elite" education, an education that is not unique to Harvard or even so-called "elite" institutions. That is wonderful Marenio, but this page is about a Wikipedia article marked for deletion, not assaulting one who happens to use logic to swat down an argument. And it gets better... Mareino wants all to know that s/he and "many other Wikipedians" have the requisite knowledge to "understand the rule of law as it applies to privately-run organizations." That is, again, wonderful, but this page is about a Wikipedia article marked for deletion, not your knowledge of the law. I implore all future posters to adhere to the discussion at hand and refrain from the maligned reasoning that lead to the above invective. --140.247.205.92 01:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)DGaston
- You're darn right this discussion has nothing to do about me or you. So stop dragging your prejudices into it. Would an article on an amateur sports team be in the Encyclopedia Britannica? No, so why should it be on Wiki? Explain that to me, stop talking about how you think that you're so much better than us. That's childish and irrelevant. Mareino 02:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Poor form Mareino, poor form. Please carefully re-read my first reply to your initial comment, you may find cause to adjust your comments. For further enlightenment, read the bulk of this discussion ... there are several explicit reasons why your Britannica test fails terribly. And for the record, since YOU are the one who "went to an even better law school than [Harvard];" perhaps YOU should "stop talking about how you think that you're so much better than [students of that institution]" .... "That's childish and irrelevant"
- You're darn right this discussion has nothing to do about me or you. So stop dragging your prejudices into it. Would an article on an amateur sports team be in the Encyclopedia Britannica? No, so why should it be on Wiki? Explain that to me, stop talking about how you think that you're so much better than us. That's childish and irrelevant. Mareino 02:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
--140.247.205.92 06:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)DGaston
Since when is encylopedia britannica the standard? doesnt that defeat the entire point of wikipedia?? Adzilla 03:41, 11 December 2005 (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.
