Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] April 13
- 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, even without discounting new and unregistered users. Stifle (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Progressive Independent
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 |
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}} |
- Comment from closing admin: I refactored everything other than keep, delete, merge, etc. to the talk page for readability. Stifle (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete
This forum is not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and every small and moderately sized forum does not merit an article RWR8189 11:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (with substantial editing) -- We have articles about religious movements that have relatively few members (for example, Christian Exodus) so I think we can afford articles about smallish internet communities as well. After all, there's no real upper bound on how many articles Wiki can have. I'm also troubled whenever I see partisans of one faction attacking the articles of partisans of another faction. On the other hand, as of the moment that the AfD was posted, this article really needs work and Wikifying so that it doesn't read like a vanity posting/marketing brochure.Atlant 12:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC), updated 15 April 2006
- For the record, I am not a member of either "faction" Zoraida thinks he/she is fighting against. I just believe there need to bounds for notability, and this forum doesn't cut it.--RWR8189 12:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- You've told us to look at your username (and, I suppose, your user page); clearly you are a partisan.
- Delete Seems like an advertisment more then anything --Cloveious 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or prove notability and then substantial editing. It seems a case of using Wikipedia as Soap box. --Francisco Valverde 13:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - or if you can prove notability then I will change to keep. This does seem link an Ad for it. Aeon 13:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - unless substantial notability can be cited. Current article looks like an advertisement. Let be re-written in a years time IF the site becomes more notable.--Tollwutig 15:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. Alexa ranking over 2.5 million, forum with only 741 registered users, which as such things go is tiny. RGTraynor 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong KEEP(with editing to reduce the POVness). 'Important' and 'big' are not synonyms. Also, what makes anyone think the membership claims of other sites bear any relation to reality? (No, I'm not a member of that community)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.145.158 (talk • contribs) .- Note: this vote is the anon editor 70.17.145.158's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Both of 'em for egregious violations of Godwin's Law in pleading their case that the other should be deleted (as an aside to both complainants, remember what George Orwell had to say about the casual flinging of the word Fascist around). Either that, or keep and put a mutual restraining order on the lot of them. Pat Payne 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it's just not notable enough for inclution. --Eivindt@c 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn blog. And the content of the article is extremely soapbox-y. Fishhead64 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete nn political forum plug unfortunately leading to the use of meatpuppets and WP:POINT violations.--Jersey Devil 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete delete delete. RasputinAXP c
23:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep(with editing) - The basis for keeping this entry is the (notability of the) level of the discourse, not the number of members. I am an English professor and a member of the National Council of Teachers of English, the National Writing Project, Rhetoricians for Peace, and am a discussant on the PI board. I can engage there without having my intelligence insulted. Thus: notable for the level of discourse. - Clark Iverson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iverson (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 April 2006. Also, user's first edit.
- Delete and what's this "notable for the level of discourse"?????? I'm sure you can achieve similar discourse in a dinner conversation. Is that notable? ccwaters 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Seven hundred members is nothing, and video game/animation/other otaku forums at similiar levels of membership get nuked all the time, so delete. Being very very earnest doesn't get you an exception. And to some of the commenters above, if you want to practice the American Left's traditional arts of Dogmatic Splintering and the Circular Firing Squad, please do so elesewhere. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn--MONGO 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a catch-all for anything anyone thinks might be an interesting topic for idle discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Chlamor 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Trying Again: A comment on "notability": As currently stated in the Wiki guidelines/parameters the concept of notability is at best vague. An example of how the issue of notability as relates to PI can easily be put to rest is the simple fact that People For Change currently has an entry when PI gets 14,000 more hits with google.More later. (chlamor)Chlamor 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- yet another non-notable article about a non-notable political cause. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Morton devonshire 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
KEEP: Although relatively new, this site is attracting some of the finest thinkers on the left. My question would be: Why is this entry attracting delete requests from both Dems and Repubs? If PI is that innocuous and irrelevant why is it such a threat?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kliljedahl (talk • contribs) .
- NoteThe proceeding comment is Kliljedahl's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Discounted recommendations of very new user.
- Chlamor 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)KEEP: Progressive Independent provides in-depth discussion that is kept outside of the rather narrow range of discussion in what is called 'party politics' in the US. In that sense it is an invaluable resource and forum for the large numbers of people (many who may defy conventional left-right labelling) who feel justifiably alienated from the rather stilted and dead end Republican-Democrat framework.
Progressive Independent has quickly become an exceptional internet archival source for difficult to find material that has been omitted from the heavily censored historical record. One would be hard pressed to find any site on the web that provides such a deep political assessment of either historical events or current events. Chlamor 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)chlamor
- Comment, the above user's first edit was on April 14, 2006. [1]--Jersey Devil 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, source of meatpuppetry. [2]--Jersey Devil 02:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am counting this keep nonetheless.
Keep: I believe the motivation by many here to delete is partisan. Such is the petty childishness of internet political fora.---Nicky Scarfo 16:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)- Discounting this recommendation, user's fourth through sixth edits.
Keep:Keep with some editing of the entry, particularly information related to its founding, mission statement, and contributions to the progressive movement through education and activism. When progressive sites such as What Really Happened and Wayne Madsen Report provide links to a progressive forum, that forum is certainly of note. The internet is becoming a grassroots gathering place for independents and progressives, and Progressive Independent is becoming a hub for vital information, activism, and informed discussion. (And yes, I registered at Wiki just to add to this discusssion. I am a regular Wiki user but was shocked to find objections to Progressive Independent's entry as "not notable" or a "soapbox.")RSamuelson 20:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)- Discounting this recommendation, user's only edits are to this AFD.
Keep:I am also newly registered here, and I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's clear that some objections are purely political. The entry needs some editing, but I see no valid reasons listed here for deletion. Why can't the authors edit the article while it is being voted on? I've heard that the authors should have five days for edit...is that correct?- Discounted per the author's own admission.
Keep The motivation behind this delete request is very suspicious 132.170.161.87
- Note The above comment is anon user 132.170.161.87's first contribution to wikipedia.--RWR8189 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Anon users' recommendations are discounted anyway.
Keep: The article needs work alright , but should it be deleted ? Remember , Notability critiria are guidlines , not rules . I feel that deleting this article is close to pandering to one side.Someone is using the "guidelines" just to remove something he doesn't like. And I apologise for my misunderstanding (I'm 69.161.144.78) Amfortas 07:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)- Discounted as contributions of very new user.
- Delete per WP:WEB, WP:BALLS, WP:NOT, and due in part to the flood of apparent meatpuppets. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reid Horkins
Biography of someone who i believe to be non-notable. He is described as a rapper, but his only release is a video on YouTube. I tagged as a speedy, but the page author removed the tag and claims on the talk page that he is an "internet phenomenon"; rather than just re-tagging as CSD, which I suspect would just be reverted, I'm listing on AfD to get wider opinion. Delete or userfy, possibly speedy AJR | Talk 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
|
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}} |
- I was the one responsible for deleting the notice becuase it said "delete this if you are intending to edit the article" which i have done since then. While I do understand that my use of the phrase "internet phenomenon" was an overstatement, he is still widely known and regarded within the toronto private school community and I have known other wikipedia artciles which target a similarly small audiance. I did not author the article origionaly but I have done alot of work to clean it up from the origional post. I think considering how new this article is it should at least be given time to be refined. several people have expressed thier interest to me about seeing this article kept alive and made more legitimate and I have told them to voice thier opinions here on wikipedia. hopefully they will take my advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faltru (talk • contribs)
- Don't Delete It's true, this guy has ridiculous quotes. Reid is awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.6.152 (talk • contribs)
- Don't Delete Reid Horkins may be non-notable to you because you do not live in Toronto. He is a well known individual within the independant music scene in southern Ontario. A person does not need to be well known by millions of people to be worthy of a wikipedia page, im sure many of the now high traffic pages began with a small amount of public knowledge concerning the person/incident etc. I see no valid reason for this page to be up for deletion despite the fact that he is not widely recognized outside of Toronto, Canada. 65.95.227.28 00:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable under the WP:MUSIC. (I live near Toronto and have never heard of him, and even if I had he would not be sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article.) Bucketsofg 01:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if this is notable, which I doubt, it falls under WP:Vanity. All of the external links have nothing to do with the article and personally the raps on there do not seem very professional. SorryGuy 01:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, plenty of unverifiable opinion. Fluit 01:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. Passes no notability tests. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "Internet phenomena" tend to have more than three Google hits, like this guy does. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Sheehan (Talk) 02:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete Keep the article up, Reid is hard working and will prove to you all non-believers that his lyrics and work are proffesional. We just need more time to perfect the website. He will be great (i guarentee) and within Toronto he has grown to be quite popular over the past couple of weeks. He's well deserving of a page. - GM, Fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.119.51 (talk • contribs)
- Delete, unusually non-notable --Deville (Talk) 03:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Move to BJAODN/Uncyclopedia/Myspace. This is freakin' hilarious stuff, but it's not notable, and there's no reason to believe it ever will be. --M@rēino 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as per nom --Mason 04:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not quite good enough for BJAODN, but pretty funny. Upper class suburban kid at a fancy private school who fancies himself a rapper. Hey, with the right promotion, maybe he could be the next Vanilla Ice. But I doubt it. Eminently non-notable. Fan1967 04:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Move to User Page On the whole, while Reid Horkins is most certainly non-notable, there's nothing wrong with him having all this information about himself on his own user page. That said, if it was just out-and-out removed, I doubt I'd lose any sleep; I'm just offering an alternative. EVula 04:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not-notable. Does not have any major hits. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I considered the cheerleader's arguments. This is still just not notable. Danny Lilithborne 09:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete this page, a tribute to all aspiring artists out there.-—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.23.67 (talk • contribs)
- Do not delete this atricle, I have spoken with numerous Torontonians who were previously unaware of the artistic talents of Reid. He is truly a model for perserverance and commitment to achieveing your true goals. Reid is the best discovery Ive made through Wiki and I will not stand for his amazing Wik to be deleted. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alomasney (talk • contribs)
- Don't Delete Jive records have contacted the Horkins family about Reid's potential in the music industry. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.23.67 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Not notable, speculative, no citation, looks like vanity. Although amusing not quite BJAODN material.--Tollwutig 15:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable vanity just this side of BJAODN. But this no-doubt talented high school student should console himself on the grounds that the title of his next tour-de-force ("Dey Dissed My Wikispam, Yo") has been assured. RGTraynor 15:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- don't deletehis next concert is going to be bomb this weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.23.67 (talk • contribs)
- don't deleteAs i mentioned earlier, most of the vanity parts of the page have been removed. we are still working to clean it up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Faltru (talk • contribs)
- Don't DeleteI am a promoter in the Toronto Rap scene, and while this kid is starting small, the Toronto private school rap clique loves him, and he has been freestyling at several exlusive parties, with more to come this summer. He's sticking to a small, but lucrative market, and his innovations should be recognized. (69.159.80.21) (Julius Marx, Toronto, ON)
- Removing some content doesn't make it any less of a vanity page, or the individual any more notable.
- Reminder to all: please sign your posts (~~~~), and please refrain from voting multiple times (I'm looking at you, 206.130.23.67). EVula 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete I am a hardworker artist amiming to make it big in the industry, the work and time I have put into my more recent articles are evident. I believe, aswell as the music proffersors at the UNiversity of Toronto asell as YOrk Music that my work will prove to be succesful once it has all been released. For those that are not familiar with the those to universities they are 2 of the best music programs in Canada, and have produced many great musicians in the past. I am popular in the highschool and local university scene and many people can pledge for that. -Reid HOrkins [~~~~)
- Delete Non-notable, meatpuppet supported. --InShaneee 17:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- DON'T DELETE. I am in the same boat as Mr. Marx, Reid Horkins seems to have struck upon a bountiful and Lucrative market, his novelty is greatly respected and appreciated by youth in their late teens. He has a political message and is a refreshing new prespective on the Toronto Rap scene. From reading previous (now deleted) posts and from word of mouth, I have learned that even young adults who are not inspired by mainstream Rap are captivated by this young phenom. Mr. Horkins is the hairbringer of the new wave of Rap and Hip Hop in youth, and I would be devastated if he were to be eliminated from this superior website. A Rapper and overall character of his calibre is not something WIKIPEDIA should shy away from. Granted that he is greatly different from other Rap artists, what would the mainstream media think of a website that turned away the next Eminem. I eagerly await the next hot single or music video that Rappin Reid releases, and please Wikipedia, and commited readers, do not delete or vouch for the deletion of this rising star. (Alex Lomasney)
DON"T DELETE - Reid Horkins, although unknown to most, shows great potential and if this is deleted it will only come back later in years to come when Reid breaks out and shocks the world.
- Do not delete As author to the article I have written an article about a hardworking individual who is starting to make his name heard in the music industry. He is popular around and many of his friends and fans have expressed to me that they would like a page written about him. So i have done so. WHen I saw the article was up for deletion i sent an email to numerous individuals at my school informing them about the ongoing debate about whether or not the article should be aloud. That is why we see numerous posts under the same IP 206.130.23.67. - Strachan Jarvis [~~~~)
Delete per everyone that's not a puppet. Eivindt@c 18:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, multiple votes or multiple puppet votes exacerbating it. --ES2 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete growing fan base among Toronto teen culture, ameliorates reputation as young artist: pertinent to demographic
- Strong Comment: Before any more of you meatpuppets post "Don't Delete" warnings, use your computer skills to visit WP:MUSIC. There you will see the guidelines to assessing a musician's notability. Mr. Horkins does not have a charted hit. He has not gone on a national tour. He does not have multiple hardcopy publication credits, nor has put out albums to the general public, nor has won a major national musical award, nor has written several works in widespread national or international use, nor receives regular national radio airplay. Whether he might do any of these things in the future is irrelevant. Whether you like the one song he's ever done is irrelevant. Whether you like his performances is irrelevant too. Unless you can assert that he meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, you're wasting your time. RGTraynor 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per all above. Looking at the video I doubt most of the claims in the article, it's just completely banal. NTK 19:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete. To the strong delete above. I first question your knowledge of Toronto and the music community in Toronto. While you can doubt the claims in the article, you have nothing to support the doubts. Do you know Reid Horkins personally? I doubt. Your doubts are empty and most certainly inane. Get yourself another few years of schooling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.247.232 (talk • contribs)
- First-hand knowledge of an individual isn't necessary to hold the article up to Wikipedia's content requirements; it fails, so it should be deleted (or shuffled to the individual's user page, which is what I've suggested). In addition, personal attacks are a pretty poor way to garner support for your argument. Also, please sign your posts, even if you haven't registered. EVula 20:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The reason why there are so many posts from IP 206.130.23.67 is becuase of a school network. Just wanted to clear that up.
-
- Comment Editors with little or no history carry little or no weight in the AfD deliberations. So you can tell your calssmates to quit wasting their time. This isn't an election. Fishhead64 21:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete but also a potential solution How about the people who wish the article to be deleted summarize what they expect to see in a creditable article. I will go through the article put some serious time into it and then refresh it. Obviously we are debating whethor or not he is notable for Wikipedia but how about we look past and turn our backs to that and make an article which not only contains in many eyes a notable being but also contains alot of creditable volume. ~~Strachan Jarvis
- The most relevant link about Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Notability (music) (Reid Horkins fails on all accounts, as near as I can tell). It doesn't matter if you manage to somehow write prose that makes God Himself weep upon reading; Reid Horkins fails all established criteria for proving a musician's notability. EVula 22:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Than there is no need to list him as a musician along with more renound or legitimate artists, surely there is a catagory for underground or area specific people.
- The most relevant link about Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Notability (music) (Reid Horkins fails on all accounts, as near as I can tell). It doesn't matter if you manage to somehow write prose that makes God Himself weep upon reading; Reid Horkins fails all established criteria for proving a musician's notability. EVula 22:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, vanity. Fishhead64 21:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Dont Delete Isn't Wikipedia all about inclusiveness? You sound like George Bush, trying to put a man down for being different. If Wikipedia's policy is that he has to have a charted hit, doesn't that exclude all those indy artists who may be just as talented as charted ones, but play to small crowds and intimate audiences? The fact that McNugget hasn't sold out yet, in my opinion, makes him more noteworthy. Let's take the ideals of free expression that Reid so proudly supports and let the world recognize a burgeoning superstar in the indy rap world. (Julius Marx) (69.159.80.21)
- DONT" dont Delete. this is nonsense (or perhaps a bad joke). -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP I have seen Reid Horkins rap at the Marquis Theatre on Coxwell in Toronto. I am not part of the private school scene. This shows how fast Reid is growing, it would be pointless to delete his article and then have to redo it a couple months in the future. PLEASE WIKIPEDIA, I donated to your fundraiser campaign. I love wikipedia and I love Toronto. I believe this article to be valid. -Matt Wilson (64.231.177.72 23:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC))
- Delete con fuoco, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest these sockpuppets. RasputinAXP c 23:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete Reid Horkins is circulating the private school sector of the GTA at a phenomenal rate. To delete him now would be a mistake, I gaurantee with the momentum McNugget has picked up, he will soon be well known. With more time and editing, this article can be made to better reflect wikipedia standards. -James Wolfe
- Dont Delete I am a record producer and Alumn of Crescent School and I was looking at the Crescent School wik and I came across Reid Horkins under Notable Alumni. I noticed that he had a link and we all know that Wikipedia's best asset is not the articles its' links. I clicked on his name and found out that he is a rapper who is taking over the private school sector of Toronto. The private school sector is one of the largest producers of Hip Hop music in all of Canada so I followed the links to his web page and bought his CD 'Stickin to the Man'. I loved it and have been in touch with Mr. Horkins on a possible deal. Thanks Wikipedia for your help in finding the next Canadian Star.
-
- Comment Well, there's the solution. If you're a record producer, sign him to a deal, and release a CD on a recognized label. As soon as that happens, and it shows reasonable sales volume, he would qualify to be added back into Wikipedia. Fan1967 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If his only appearance is on Youtube, he's not notable. I'm on youtube, do I get an article too? Heck, do the other 10000+ youtubers get articles? The answer is no. Also, the sockpuppetry suprises me as this guy is definitely not notable.--Frenchman113 00:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's obvious this is nothing but a joke. —Aiden 00:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete. I am a student at Jarvis Collegiate a high school that is very different both socio-economically and geogrpahically from Crescent School, and I have heard of and enjoy Reid Horkin's music. He is popular among my peers, and we all feel that this page shouldn't be deleted, and it's deletion would be an insult to Reid and his fan base. I am tired of people voting against this who don't live anywhere near Toronto, and who have zero knowledge of the Toronto Hip-Hop scene.
- "Don't Delete" I also witnessed Reid's performance at the Marquee theatre, and I feel he has potential as not only a rapper, but an entertainer. Wikipdeia has a lot more to lose then gain by deleting Reid from its database. If people are digging his beats and rhymes, why shouldn't they be able to learn about this budding rapper off of Wikipedia. Personally, whenever I want to learn more about anything in particular, this site is the first one I go too, and I know that applies to many people. Why should all these people be shut out from learning about a possible new up-and-comer, just because a select few feel different?
- In response to all the people saying hes not a muscisian Although we belive he is and should be listed as such several people have told us he doesn't belong in that catagory, so if there is a more legitimate catagory for him please tell us and we can change it.
- In response to all the people saying non-notable There are many other articles which speak to a small audiance, one much smaller than this I might add. If need be i'll pull some up.
- 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. I'm inclined to close this as a keep, but the sight of socks, socks, and sockmania gives me second thoughts on doing so. Mailer Diablo 15:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ric Romero (investigative reporter)
|
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}} |
Non-Notable internet meme that is restricted to only one website - maybe a mention on the fark article, but not here. God Ω War 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The meme is spreading throughout the internet, I too have seen Ric's photo in several other places and have had to refer people to the page about him here so they'll quit asking about him elsewhere. MSchlaf
- Strong Keep I've seen Ric mentioned in other places, and the information here helped me figure out the cliche
- Strong Keep Is it lonely up there in your tower? Honestly, what harm is being done by having this article here? None. Someone else mentioned that Wiki is often the only source of obscure information. This is one of those pieces. There are many, many other articles here that are more worthless. Oh, and don't bother commenting --- this WILL be my only comment in the discussion. 35.11.160.168 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep If the article does no harm and is accurate, I find no reason to eliminate a source of information, no matter how trivial. Hell, Conrad Hubbard is even less famous and less of a celebrity and he gets his own page... God Ω War 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I don't see anyone arguing how this fits the profiles for topics to be deleted.
- Strong Keep This is a meme that many people are aware of. I know that the only way I had the meme explained to me was looking for it here. Given the usefulness of this article, it should not be deleted. JagSeal 12:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Ric Romero is mentioned a lot. People come to WP for lots of online information. Without this article people coming across Ric Romero would be confused. Fatalserpent 15:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep More than meets standards for inclusion. Ken Mondschein
- Strong Keep Granted he may not be my cup of tea, but he does pass tests of notablity. He's a TV reporter. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 01:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
He's a celeb on the Internet. Keep the article going on Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.87.179 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Keep. No less notable than any other individual listed on Internet phenomenon that have their own article. As memes go, it's spread pretty far beyond Fark, so it's notable enough. Fluit 01:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I read FARK and remember the first Ric Romero topic. Yes, he's been mentioned a few times since then, but it's a pretty minor meme even within FARK and absolutely no impact whatsoever on anything outside FARK. If there were a WP:MEME standard, I think it's safe to say this wouldn't pass it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete; I'm kind of torn on this one. The internet angle doesn't sway me, since it isn't discussed by any reliable sources. The guy is on KABC-TV, which is pretty notable as local stations go, but no one else below anchor level has an article... and again, no independent reliable sources on that either. When Fark gets a wiki, we can send this in their direction. Melchoir 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep; he's as big an internet celebrity as anyone else who has his own page. --Aemilia 04:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per User:Melchoir. Jkelly 04:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Notable even without fark cliche status... with it, extremely notable. 69.142.21.24 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep He's well-known in his broadcast area, and he pops up on fark.com probably once a week, giving him world-wide exposure. -- stubblyhead | T/c 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Get off your high horse—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.117.160 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: Anon user's only contribution is to this discussion. Fourohfour 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as Los Angeles is the largest television market in the country. T K E 05:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Not all that notable but I find myself seeing multiple people looking for this information and needing it. If not that I would consider a merge to KBAC if nothing esle. SorryGuy 06:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Objectivist-C 06:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete savidan(talk) (e@) 08:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Like Ric Romero said "Anyone with a computer can become their own publisher on the internet." While he was refering to blogging, WP is a type of encyclopedia. WP may not be a blog, but it did however state the facts of Ric Romero. It told of his early years up to the point that he became a cliché. I'm certain there are more sites than this one that state the same facts as WP and I feel that deleting this would prove nothing. WP has only published the facts of Ric Romero. It isn't the writer's opinion that he is a cliché. It is only a statement that reveals the truth and reveals the reason of his internet popularity. IMO, the only thing hurting the fact that he is refered as a cliché is the popularity of WP. It won't go unnoticed if it's deleted. Society will still refer to him as a cliché.--Ellis d 09:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please note, this is the users only contribution to wikipedia. See [5].
- Weak Delete He is slightly notable, however we can't be listing every little internet fad in the Wiki.Landeyda 10:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If FARK wants to have an explanation of every little FARK fad, they can put it on their own website. Average Earthman 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep --Terence Ong 11:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He is both an internet and TV celebrity, what more is there to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:N. Ansell 13:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep he's almost notable enough, but I think the fark cliche tips the scale a little. Kotepho 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a notable consumer reporter for KABC-TV. He has an entry on IMDB, and between his record of consumer reporting and his discovery of blogging, the article is worth keeping. --Elkman - (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Every TV station in North America has a consumer reporter, who typically gets about two minutes of screen time per newscast. So? RGTraynor 15:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. There is already a list of FARK cliches on the main FARK page, so let's keep this there. --Several Times 18:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Since the article is GFDL'd it can certainly be moved to Farkopedia by those who are so eager to keep this alive. NTK 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems notable. Cynical 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete FARK appearance does not a celebrity make. And certainly being an on-air consumer reporter for a local TV station doesn't. Fishhead64 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per users voting keep -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. In other news, Fark is a website that can have links posted to it! More at 11. RasputinAXP c 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deletedeletedelete per above. The sockpuppetry still amazes me.--Frenchman113 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Ordinary local TV-news reporter? Not notable. Meme found on one website? Not notable. Combining the two doesn't increase the notability value. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Even when discounting the Fark portions of the article, he's still more notable/recognizable than many of the other bios on Wikipedia. HiFiGuy 05:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If other internet cliches are worthy of their own entries, I don't see why this one is an issue. The fact that he's a local television personality doesn't matter; Wikipedia doesn't prioritize based on fame. Imdwalrus 05:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Farkcruft. If we allow Fark to be a measure of notability, we'll need several more servers to store all the crap. And I say this as someone who likes Fark. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. If you've been noted, you're notable. The collected whining about "cruft" from those who don't like an inclusive Wikipedia takes up more server space than any amount of material about Fark ever will. Grace Note 00:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is the kind of information Wikipedia should have. bbx 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, passes the standard for notability as a consumer reporter reaching millions weekly. Have any of you deleters ever read WP:bio ? Pepeeg 03:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, And I quote from WP:BIO as a reason for someone to be considered notable: "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following". Michaelwsherman 07:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Very Strong Keep, there are articles for far more obscure people and topics. Besides, an internet meme should pass the notability requirements. mikemoto 13:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Extremely Strong Keep There's so much worthless crap on WP, about "celebrities", "famous" places, and local politics, I don't see why Ric Romero shouldn't have his own article. Kar98 13:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. More than notable enough for an article, even before the FARK notoriety. Unfocused 13:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep we all know who we're talking about, that makes him notable, and worthy of an article on wikipedia Asw32 13:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't really see how Ric Romero's status on Fark or irrelevance elsewhere matters. I heard about this guy, I looked it up on wikipedia, and I learned what the story was. Seems like that's exactly what Wikipedia is for. And I'd wager this particular listing gets accessed way, way more often than more "legitimate" sources.
- Delete merge infto into Fark not enuff info here on its own, not notable except as fark cliche.
- Strong Keep It's for articles like this that I love wikipedia!
- Keep Helpful article
- Keep Might be farkcruft, but as far as Internet memes go in general, I think this has as large an audience and as large an interest base as everything short of the biggest of them. I tend to judge the scale of memes and thus their cultural relevance on the basis of audience size, and I think the biggest fark meme in history passes that test --Yst 13:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Highly notable internet meme. —Viriditas | Talk 13:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Due to his work as a TV presenter. RicDod 13:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It's useful to have a reference that defines this internet meme. If Flying Spaghetti Monster has a page, so should RR. Brian a lee 13:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I did not know who Ric Romero was but I kept seeing his name about the 'net and when I Googled for his name Wikipedia had the correct answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.199.183 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: Anon user's only contribution is to this discussion. Fourohfour 14:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Memes that have been significantly used in communication are important to archive so as to preserve the readability of old material in a way accessible by the common man. Communication shouldn't have a shelf life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.245.228 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: Anon user's only contribution is to this discussion. Fourohfour 14:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on local radio and television stations and the like; until we agree to delete all of them or create a specific standard regarding them, we should not simply delete those that come to Wikipedians' attentions. Ric Romero's status as the focus of a minor internet phenomenon simply adds to the validity of the article. --Frostyservant 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. I think Ric Romero might as well have a Wikipedia with its main focus being on his job and life and a sidenote how he became popular on the internet. There are plenty of obscure stub articles out there that seem ridiculous. But then, I agree that if you keep this page, it could mean people making the argument that a Jameth page is justified. I disagree that there "isn't enough here to justify an article." There's much less elsewhere and there are no discussion deletions for them. (I actually contribute to Wiki. Fear not.) Vaguely 13:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. There is no penalty for having too much information in an encyclopedia. Avengerx 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, Ric Romero is clearly encyclopediac. Love, Wikipedian with 3000 edits. -James Howard (talk/web) 14:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - i seriously think the legacy of ric romero will live on through our children's children and would not be surprised if "pulling a ric romero" injected itself into the vernacular. i vote keep! Ytcracker 14:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, There are entries for other talent at KABC-TV that are much less well known than Ric, including Danny Romero and Marc Brown. Not to mention plenty of entries for other "local celebs" who have gained attention.Sparkhead 14:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep' - a liberal inclusion policy is what has made Wikipedia successful. Internet memes probably rate a Wikipedia or their own. Include link to "Captain Obvious" page (or delete it too and help turn Wikipedia into pap). ACzernek 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, The article itself is notable as well as the person. He deserves the same status as any other internet phenomenon considering that it refers to an actual person unlike say the HA HA guy. I recommend this article be kept.--NegroSuave 14:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; I dislike (if not hate) much fancruft, but Romero is a presenter (perhaps not the most prominent, but...) at what appears to be a major TV station, probably justifying a page on that basis alone. Also, from what I can tell, he seems to be one of the more prominent and long-lived Fark cliches. Put it another way; if Romero doesn't belong here, fair enough, but there are a *lot* of articles with much weaker cases. Let's keep standards consistent. Fourohfour 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- This is the purpose of wikipedia. To look up and learn about stuff on the interwebs. Liu Bei 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep -- but paraphrase the fark reference to a single sentence. Autopilots 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. You deletionists keep going too far. The very fact that an internet message board or word of mouth could inspire people to come and try to fight for the life of this article should be indication enough that you have, ONCE AGAIN, overstepped your bounds. Stop deleting things that you don't care about. Just ignore them like the rest of us. Joey 14:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment; it's on the front page of Fark, so that's hardly surprising. There are quite a few first-time comments from people here. And yeah, I voted "keep", but the point of this discussion is to get a cross-section of Wikipedia opinion, not a cross-section of those more likely to be in favour. Fourohfour 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- While this is my first post to WikiPedia, I have read the deletion policy. It appears that even were Ric Romero not a meme he conforms the rules for WP:BIO notability of a live person standards. Regardless, the standards seems to indicate that this information, rather than being deleted, should be merged into articles for Fark and KABC (yet another reason not to delete as a single article linked from two sources seems to make more sense) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.17.224 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep. A notable internet phenomenon. Jokestress 14:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- c.f. Marvin Zindler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.241.182 (talk • contribs) .
- Weak keep as per Michaelwsherman. ... discospinster 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as per autopilots. User:Vanis314 3:37 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If notable enought to be considered an internet meme, he is notable to have his own bio. WegianWarrior 14:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. He's a minor celebrity in the LA area, and somehow people around the country (and probably world) know him a la fark. Wouldn't this suffice for validation for a wiki article? SIMJewWiki 15:56, 15 April 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The fact that we're having this debate shows his significance. And if the Star Wars kid and flying spaghetti monster can have articles, so can Ric. (Yes, I don't post much on Wikipedia, but I contribute on Wookieepedia and the LotR Wiki. Duke Starhopper 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC) EDIT And may I ask, what is the significance of this being on the main page of Fark? Duke Starhopper 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you mean my comment, Romero is a Fark meme, and more likely to get the attention of people coming here (solely) to vote in favour. Put it another way, if we were discussing the removal of some Pokemon fancruft and it was posted on the front page of a high-traffic "Pokemon Fancruft Fans" site, it's unlikely that the views posted would be an entirely representative cross-section of opinion. That having been said, I still voted for "keep"... Fourohfour 15:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Fark itself is notable, God knows ABC is notable, other clichés like Zero Wing are notable, and Ric's fame has come to extend beyond Fark, to most internet forums. Twin Bird 15:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - But the greenlighters of Fark are doing a really shitty job for this to be on their main page. - Hahnchen 15:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do what ye please. I came here to find out what's up with these pictures on Fark. That's what Wikipedia was made for. But I guess an article about SuperGoku45z Message Board Layout Redesign of 2004 would be mildly silly, although his users might refer to it frequently. On the still other hand, why not? What harm would it do to put all the world's information in an encyclopedia that wants to contain all the world's information? Should it be really useful to everyone or usually useful to the vast majority of people? EDIT: On further reflection, I want to clarify. Im not saying that every single piece of data on Earth should be in Wikipedia. But a persistent cliche, even if it's limited to one site, is big enough for someone (namely me) to think of looking for it on Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.187.9 (talk•contribs) .
- Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 15:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - First the Wikipedia editors came for All Your Base, and you didn't speak out, because AYB was annoying as fuck, then they came for Ric Romero, and you did nothing because the meme seemed played out. But soon the Wikipedia editors will come for YOU, and there will be no one left to speak out for you. Fight Nazism on the World Wide Web. Rev Martin Niemoller. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.65.17.45 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 15:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP it. Ric Romero is the 21st century's Captain Obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.219.77.64 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 15:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - how much extra data space is the entry taking up. 1KB?
- Weak delete Who will know or care about the internet meme of Ric Romero in 5-10 years?
- Strong Keep It is obvious that Ric is notable, regardless of wether or no there are "verifiable sources". Gsham 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please keep, Ric Romero is the 21st century's Captain Obvious. Besides, raise up a dude who isn't at the front desk on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.77.64 (talk • contribs)
- Obvious Keep in spite of sock-puppetry. An internet meme for sure but also a genuine TV person and collumnist in teh interweb. We keep far less notable things than him. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - He's a real reporter, and the meme bit is just one paragraph. It's useful for Wikipedia to explain the background behind these things, so that people not in the know can find out where they came from and what they mean. See O RLY?, for example. --Jake 16:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - A reporter who coverers the los angeles area is notable enough for inclusison.. mcwiggin 16:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Frequently mentioned on very popular website. Not an O RLY-level meme, but still pretty darn notable. 209.6.230.71 16:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Not being liked by all doesn't make it a candidate for deletion. The person is well known, and is a reporter for a TV station. Rborek 16:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - --ZekeMacNeil 16:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Non-notable television personality. AdamJacobMuller 16:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Enough has been made of him that people might be curious as to why. Why force them to go elsewhere instead of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.207.148 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-15 11:54:43
- Keep He's a tv reporter, which makes him notable enough. (EG, see Natalie Jacobson.) Remove the meme section if the proposed meme guidelines become policy (since Romero is neither a "classic" meme nor does it satisfy any of the other inclusion criteria).--Wasabe3543 17:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ric Romero is a tv personality in LA, a considerably large market. His basic information should be left in, as there are many people of the same or less notability who still warrant an entry in Wikipedia. Perhaps this discussion should be centered on whether or not to keep the "fark.com" references in, as that portion appears to be an inside joke among users of only one website. However, it is setting a frightening president of censorship if the non-disputed facts concerning a tv personality are deleted because of prejudice against a website like "fark.com" that has adopted him as a mascot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gallup (talk • contribs) .
- KEEP - fourohfour needs to relax. If Ric Romero goes, then the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" page should go as well. I don't read fark at all, but still found the article to be interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.248.229 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Oh, and if you'd bothered checking my vote, you'd see I've already voted "keep". However, I want to see this AfD carried out properly, and not unbalanced by newcomers coming solely to sway the vote (either intentionally or unintentionally). Fourohfour 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - He's a TV personality which makes him notable. He may not be an important person (opinion) but the fact is that his name gets thrown around all over, so people will end up here looking for information on him. I don't think we need a full-blown biography and family history, but a few tidbits of info and his picture (and why he's so often mentioned) would suffice. I don't know the guy, and it doesn't look like I'd like him, but I think for the purpose of spreading knowledge [of any kind] it should stay. Ghostalker 17:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Isn't it enough that people would be curious as to what this person/meme signifies, and will come here for the answer? RP. 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - To quote somebody above, "If we allow Fark to be a measure of notability, we'll need several more servers to store all the crap.". I say this as somebody who reads fark daily. Thewalrus 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. As someone else said, the fact that we're arguing over this surely means this article should stay by default. Besides, this is censorship from people who can't take a joke, which is on one level what this is and another is the fact that this is a real person. If we're going to be completely anal about what constitutes a valid article, we should delete every article about fictional characters and dead people. Because, hey, they're not relevant anymore! 17:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The measure of an article ought to be its potential usefulness to readers. People are bound to wonder who Ric Romero is; this article helps. We've also kept Internet memes of similar notability before. — Adrian Lamo ·· 17:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep No one would be complaining about an article on a TV reporter if he WASN'T an internet meme. This is like deleting Snakes on a Plane because it's an internet fad. He's notable for being an L.A. reporter in his own right, and the fact that many people have heard of him outside that station makes him more notable, not less. In addition, I don't have an objection to using Wikipedia to document memes in the first place, but that's another story.--BigCow 17:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep -- This is a second comment but I wanted to add several points. First, in my job as a researcher for one of the Big Four search engines, memes like this become popular page hits due to news stories or even Saturday Night Live. Wikipedia would be my first stop, if I were trying to evaluate a search for 'Ric Romero Obvious'. It is most authoritative, has the largest number of editors and is the most-likely to have the underground/cultural interpretation. Second, my Wikipedia sweatshirt says "Edit this page" and it comes closest to the spirit of Wikipedia, not "Delete this page". But maybe someone sent me the wrong sweatshirt. Third, being an Internet resource edited by Internet users is what defines Wikipedia -- this is not a resource edited by perfesseurs for the hoi polloi, as is Encyclopedia Britannica. That editors even believe this is Romero/meme page is an issue is an indication that they neither understand the users nor the donors to this site. ACzernek
- Strong Keep This article allowed me to be in on the joke. How is that a bad thing? - EndingPop 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — Would be useful to enough users (Farkers or not) to justify inclusion in WP. — Hedgey42 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - Although Ric Romero is famous on fark.com, it does not mean his is worthy of a biographical article. I'm famous to people who know me, but that doesn't justify my own bio. Might be the only resource for Ric Romero, but does not make it needed. If we needed a page for every inside joke, wikipedia would never survive. --PaddyM 18:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Mars Defense Perimeter, Jeffries tube, Smith (Ultima), Hardware Wars, Webernet, an extensive page on Slashdot subculture... should I continue? Nevermind Wikipedia's own 44-page-long Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. If Team Fremont gets a stub, Ric Romero should get a page.
- That's basically my point. Rarely are any of these pages really of-note and worth their own biographies. Probably should delete O RLY, Captain Obvious and a host of others as they are particularly unimportant. They are more appropriate for the wiktionary. He definitely should be mentioned on the fark.com page, but outside of that doesn't need his own. PaddyM 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Mars Defense Perimeter, Jeffries tube, Smith (Ultima), Hardware Wars, Webernet, an extensive page on Slashdot subculture... should I continue? Nevermind Wikipedia's own 44-page-long Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. If Team Fremont gets a stub, Ric Romero should get a page.
- Very Strong Keep Although Ric Romero has been an internet meme for a short time, you can't justify it's deletion because he's not as popular as Ha Ha Guy or the Icy Hot Stuntaz, both of which have articles on Wiki. Unless you plan on deleting all internet memes, it's better that the article be retained. Oftentimes Wiki is the only source for finding out information on very obscure subjects. Also, as a Wiki donor, this is not what I like to see happening on the site. Sorry... just sayin. - guriboy 19:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: This comment (and its edit) are user's first two contributions to Wikipedia. They have one other contribution to date. Fourohfour 11:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- This internet meme is known outside of fark.com. He's also an anchor on a reasonably high popularity TV station. Also note that the page is not only about the meme.--Toba 19:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable. Amusingly I used this the other day to figure out what the hell this Ric Romero deal was and WP had great info! (for admin: I have 1000+ edits) -Ravedave 19:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge into either Fark.com's article or Internet phenomenon. Inky 19:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Mainstream idioms often start out as subculture slang. Ric Romero may be a fark cliche now, but I've seen other fark-isms (such as the word "moran") appear outside of fark. The most authentic documentation of such things is created while they are still new and is worth preserving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.16.41.4 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 20:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Removed silly little comment. 35.11.160.168 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep - Ric Romero IS a known television personality in Los Angeles, so at the very least he should have his own Wikipedia article. However, I dunno if the Fark.com stuff is relevent, unless he's in on the joke too. Maybe if more about Ric's personal information and other non-Fark.com sources were added, the Fark.com stuff can remain? ... Something else to consider: Just because Fark.com is a web community, it doesn't mean anything that only Fark.com users would know shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I mean, how many farkers are out there versus any community of people (including nation states, towns, cities, etc), and how much more is known about smaller communities of people and not about Fark? Is some Turkey Festival that gathers 10,000 people in Bugfart, Wisconsin more important than a Fark cliche where 100,000 people are in on the joke? - Nick15 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with immediate relisting; sprotect the AfD discussion. There is no possible way to draw a meaningful consensus from this discussion. Haikupoet 21:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP the article. It does not matter if we like it, but the guy is better known in the world today than a lot of Roman Emperors. Not really right, but more people want to about this guy than of most current political leaders. --Dave 21:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP please. The guy is a TV personality who also contributes news articles online - the fact that he also has a 'fark' status is another reason FOR inclusion, since that differentiates him from other news personalities. --Chronomorte 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP I agree with guy above. He's obviously notable. Look at all the responses. I'm abivilant toward Fark, but it seems the 'Delete' folk have a bone to pick with them. --Shinto 22:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP As a news anchor for a major market TV station, he's notable. I mean, he's no John Chancellor or even Tom Skilling, but he's notable regardless of his FARK meme. --SeanO
- Keep. Good luck keeping track of who is or isn't a sock. Forget the Fark nonsense, he's a notable TV personality in a large market. Gamaliel 01:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a meme. You want to define Ric Romero? Fine, go to Urbandictionary. Keep Wikipedia clean. --Aresef 02:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Clean? What a ridiculous adjective for an encyclopedia to strive for. I think the word we should be trying to get is 'inclusive' or even, dare I say, 'accurate'. Joey 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Then clean up Star Wars kid. He only became popular through the Internet. What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Duke Starhopper 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Clean? What a ridiculous adjective for an encyclopedia to strive for. I think the word we should be trying to get is 'inclusive' or even, dare I say, 'accurate'. Joey 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep This voting needs more sock puppets. kthxbye—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.251.192 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Keep Come on. If it weren't for guys like him, the internet would be boring! He's becoming a legend in his own mind and his entry here reaffirms that fact! I'm all for it and I think we should keep interesting tidbits like this alive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.31.1 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 April 2006
- Keep. With or without Fark (and I truly feel sorry for the administrator lucky enough to preside over this AFD), this figure meets the WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I saw the Ric Romero references on FARK. Not knowing who he was - and thinking asking on FARK would be tedius waiting for the next Ric article to be greenlighted - I went to Wikipedia. Finding his article was a real help to me, and Wikipedia did its job (and still does). Keep it. Dor 04:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Try and find Ric Romero NOT on any fark discussion thread. I never even knew who he was until I check out the Wikipedia article, and why they always quote him the way they do. How could I possibly know, being a Canadian and all? Solarisworld
- Comment; above comment is user/account's first edit. Fourohfour 22:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Let's not make Wikipedia an UrbanDictionary, or a place for people to store their inside jokes. Just you can put anything in Wikipedia doesn't mean you should. justdweezil
- Weak Keep. It's nice to be able to figure out what random memes mean, and it's otherwise Mostly Harmless, even though it's not very deep. billstewart
-
- ULTIMATE KEEP Just because ya'll can't use anything besides Google to justify an article's existence doesn't mean it is not notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankencow (talk • contribs)
- BTW, why did someone delete the interenet reference that I found to Ric Romero? That was NOT my personal website nor for commercial purposes like the note I was sent claimed it was. I FOUND that site just by searching for it. Thought it might make it more "notable".
- ULTIMATE KEEP Just because ya'll can't use anything besides Google to justify an article's existence doesn't mean it is not notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankencow (talk • contribs)
- keep please the person is important erasing makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 06:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The pro-deleters are not being consistent. Take this page for example: Shefali Oza. The only way you're ever going to have heard of her is if you watch the weather forecasts on the BBC West Midlands local news. Yet she has an entry and there is no clamour for deletion. If Ric didn't have a Fark meme associated with him then I doubt that there would be any objection to a page about him. And yes, I posted the same comment on Fark: bite me.
- Strong keep. Aside from the information about the meme (which falls under the criteria for delete per the ruling on Webcest, despite my strong opposition to said ruling), the article contains information about a person with a reasonable amount of fame in his community. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have heard of him, either through the Internet or on the air, and keeping this page intact provides them with a resource to learn more about him. (Disclaimer: I did follow the link from Fark, but this is not my only contribution and I wouldn't have voted if I hadn't already contributed to Wikipedia. I'm not a fan of the meme, but I strongly disagree with the exclusionist philosophy that automatically dismisses memes as non-notable- especially when good and otherwise noteworthy information is deleted as well).24.188.143.81 08:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn internet-meme, sophomoric website forum in-joke, but not an encyclopedic topic. Since this will fail AfD this time around, bring it back in July and hopefully the sockpuppetry will be gone and it can be deleted then. Eusebeus 14:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, that's a wonderful point of view to take. "Let's just relist it later when people aren't paying attention. Then we can just claim that all these interested participants were just sock-puppets rather than people who actually have too little time to watch 27,000 articles to make sure that things are kept the way consensus wanted them to be in the first place. As has been stated elsewhere, there are plenty of local news celebrities that have wikipedia articles - the only reason you are against this one is because the fact that he has gained MORE notoriety than other people because he's associated with an internet meme. Calling it sophomoric just displays YOUR OWN bias, and aren't we supposed to divorce ourselves from anything that makes us autonomous while we are Wiki-drones? I will applaud the day the deletionists begin following their own rules. Joey 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. "Notable even without fark cliche status... with it, extremely notable." Agreed. My little needle 17:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I can think of way less notable stuff that is somehow considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia. See Naked and petrified. DaveWF 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I use Wikipedia regularly, and much of what I use it for is to find out what an inside joke is referring to. I suspect that many others use this site for the same reason. If this was an inside joke on a much smaller forum, like "Option J" on Baseball Think Factory", I would be in favor of deletion -- particularly because BTF has its own wiki, but FARK is a massively popular site, and consequently I would expect that there would be a high level of interest in knowing the backstory of an in-joke. DLMahnken 18:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Even without the Fark.com references, Mr. Romero is someone is someone seen regularily by millions. And if his article is to go, then a significant fraction of Wikipedia needs to follow him into deletion. There are certainly articles on memes that don't have any non-Internet fame. Heck, WP has articles on minor aspects of minor past TV shows. And besides, it was usually to find out what all the Romero references were. Though I will grant that if his fame was completely limited to Fark WP's mention of Romero should have been limited WP article(s) about Fark. But as I said, that is not the case. MichaelSH 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep He is a reporter in the United States' second largest television market. Might as well keep him even without the Fark.com reference. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 01:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - I don't see why not. If he's famous enough to have a television spot, why is he not famous enough to be on Wikipedia? Just trim the section about the Fark cliché. Snakeyeswin 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment; above comment is the first edit from user/account. Fourohfour 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral JordanLund 04:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC) It's simple enough to monitor bandwidth and hits. If the page is generating sufficient interest and hits are up then it doesn't matter if it's a Fark generated Internet Meme or not. Enough people are interested in the page to keep it around. If the hits drop off then delete it under a "not enough readership" reason. If it's truly limited to Fark traffic and everyone on Fark already knows who Ric Romero is then it won't generate enough traffic to keep.
- Comment; above comment is the first edit from user/account. Fourohfour 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable. VegaDark 05:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as a regular television personality i'd have to say he barely squeeks by WP:BIO... the fact he's also go t a rather large meme following on fark doesnt hurt either. ALKIVAR™
05:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC) - Keep - I remember splitting Ric off from the Fark.com entry because there seemed to be need (and public interest in him) to separate his bio content and his FARK notoriety into a separate entry, away from the FARK page clutter. As long as the content in Ric's entry is factual and verifiable (and not too opinionated), it certainly meets the content guidelines for a separate entry and therefore should be kept. Surely more meat and potatoes content should be added, making the Fark stuff less prominent / more trimmable, but I don't have that knowledge me-self.
- Keep He had his 15 minutes fame so more than 10 people know him. The wiki article is weak though (poorly written and has a lot of useless cross links like "october"). Keep it and have it cleaned up --Roy-SAC 08:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Precedent: God Kills a kitten, meets criteria for WP:BIO and proposed Wikipedia:Notability (memes). --Jabrwocky7 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep For reasons noted above. --Myrkabah 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep 141.211.4.29 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The above comment is the 13th edit from that IP address. 141.211.4.29 01:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kaitlyn Filippini
Non-notable musician. Was deprodded by an anon user, thus the AfD nomination. Is a frequent target of vandalism, some of which comes from the article's chief contributors. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1564468007154963835&q=filippini&pl=true
There is no reason for the removal of this artice, due to the importance of the musician —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.3.170 (talk • contribs) .
Unless there are any objections, I would like to withdraw my AfD nomination. Keep as notable musician, though the article needs to be wikified and improved. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Never mind, I stand by my original opinion to delete, or perhaps merge, if anything of the article is salvagable, into Kaitlyn Maria Filippini : Eloquent Acoustics. Sorry, I seem to be having a bit of an off night. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
???? Why withdraw the nomination? Everything I can find points to a non-notable 17-year-old musician with no credits except a film clip on channel 42 in Omaha, and, of course, a myspace page. Need to include the duplicate article, Kaitlyn Maria Filippini : Eloquent Acoustics. Fan1967 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What other credits do you need? I can gather whatever you would need OmahaEntertainment
- How about a CD released by a recognized label? How about something beyond playing in a backup orchestra when touring musicians come to Omaha? Try reading the criteria at: Wikipedia:Notability (music). Fan1967 03:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I originally prodded the article. If I had seen it I would have prodded the Kaitlyn Maria Filippini : Eloquent Acoustics piece as well. I see minimal notability. Article created by what appears to be the subject's talent agent so that smacks of spamvertising as well.Montco 03:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Although I have not seen a Cd released yet, the musician is featured on a demo on a local recoding company "panda productions", and does play outside of Omaha Nebraska on such tour with these musicians. Also, i do believe that the artice does qualify under these standards of Wikipedia:
- Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). ---Omaha World herald Newspaper, KXVO news ( twice), as well as is published in a childrens book "Super kids :Ordinary kids that have done extrodinary things"--by lisa Fitt.
- Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
---has become known for the local "young" notable musican scene in Nebraska
- Has won or placed in a major music competition.--National Orchestra participant(ASTA organization)
How else could there be improvements in the artice, to make it more suitable? .OmahaEntertainment
- Comment I'm sorry, you've painted a picture of a talented high school kid who's won some high school awards. As to your other points: a demo is a demo; it's not an actual release. Playing backup for a touring act doesn't count if your name isn't listed in the band; there are thousands of backup players. The book looks pretty minor (Amazon sales rank almost 2 million). A few features in local media that say "here's a talented local kid" don't qualify as notibility. There is no source that she's a "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city" (remember that clause about verifiability). Fan1967 03:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I will change if this person has - been a notable member of a permanent ensemble, or has been a SOLOIST with a notable orchestra - usually the result of winning competitions. Newspaper articles are not sufficeint, because they often do publicity stunts - I am looking for acclaim in the sense of winning proper classical music competitions - "rock-violin" is not a category on merit but a pop category, and unless she has many CD sales in the pop ranks, I will not be convinced.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This artice is only a stub for now, due to the rise in populatrity.Aren't all articles on Wikipedia works in progress, in that anyone can add to them at any time?( This article does have a solid start.The merit that you are looking for is truly there, and if not, it will be there soon. )
I do believe that it fits under the standards, and is a work in progress. Newspaper articles and Television media are not completely for public stunts. (some articles are scouted, and have real merit.)
Also, the "rock violin" is a new category, which gives rise the the article's importance. It is a little know category that is new to the music scene, due to the image of "violin" always being under the "classical" view.OmahaEntertainment
- Comment What will (or may) happen in the future is irrelevant. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see her become prominent someday, but right now she doesn't meet the standards. She has no recordings released. She has not toured as a headliner. She has not been covered in any major national media. Fan1967 04:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your link, sir. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, policy in a nutshell. T K E 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable teenage musician. A single local TV appearance doesn't do much; I was interviewed on local TV twice myself for my proclivity to swing a referee-on-a-noose doll at Springfield Indians hockey games. Everyone gets 15 minutes of (quasi-)fame at some point. RGTraynor 15:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per comments by Fan1967. -Big Smooth 18:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, vanity - 'nuff said. Fishhead64 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable vanity. Sheeeeesh. RasputinAXP c 23:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hold on, she's also been on "Voices of America" radio show, which aired for at least 30 minutes nationally, and in other places around the world (it was even translated into Vietnamese). It should also be noted that wikipedia has its own article on "cello rock", a genre in which Kaitlyn is most notable in the Omaha music scene. —Gnome (talk • contribs) .
- Comment - which still doesn't pass WP:BIO. This is also the above user's first edit. RGTraynor 05:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. Still no verifiable citations from reliable sources, either. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete due to non-notability. See WP:MUSIC. Wstaffor 21:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ask those who know (book)
- Delete The article was created over a year ago (in December 2005) and since then only has three edits of which only the first was for the actual article (other two tags). The article does not establish why the book is notable. Jersey Devil 04:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non notable book.-- 陈鼎翔 说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Nominated in bad faith as part of Jersey Devils long-running crusade against Striver. Book is notable enough to be republished by several publishers. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable book, probably advert. Not enough content. --Xorox 13:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge google pulls up some citations. Kotepho 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Changed after the article grew from being longer than a sentence. Kotepho 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Amazon sale rank: zero. (And as it is, looking at the web copy, it's wall-to-wall rants.) RGTraynor 16:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per RGTraynor. Fishhead64 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, if you ask me -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per RGT. RasputinAXP c 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with Muhammad al-Tijani. The book is highly controversial in the Islamic world (and even here!). The external link is useful. LambiamTalk 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- If it is highly controversial you should be able to dig up some sources. Even his bio has none. Do we really need one sentence stubs on his articles when the main article is three sentences? Kotepho 00:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book. Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify.
-
- This book has a ISBN AND is "availability in a couple dozen of libraries", AND also being available for full download on several sites. Book is highly controversial among Muslims. Being a short article is not a grounds for deletion. --Striver 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone fixes the WP:BAI "Anything which you cannot be bothered to write one complete sentence about." Which if the book is truly controversial should be relatively easy.Bridesmill 01:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Done. --Striver 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete mo listing, anywhere...nn.--MONGO 02:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems like a perfectly reasonable book article. -Colin Kimbrell 16:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with Muhammad al-Tijani. His four books could be written as separate articles or could all fit on his article, but either way, they appear to be notable and verifiable, and worthy of inclusion. --Hyperbole 19:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Looking around, I think it's notable. Georgewilliamherbert 21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Husain Mohammad Jafri
- Delete article does not establish how the person is notable and violates WP:V with no sources. Hasn't been updated since 2005 and a yahoo search of the name brings up 1,130 hits. [13] Jersey Devil 04:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 10:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Work published by non-vanity press, thus notability established. Nominated in bad faith as part of Jersey Devils long-running crusade against Striver. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Insh'allah! RGTraynor 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. SorryGuy 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. RasputinAXP c 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Someone who gets published by Oxford University Press surely can't be all that non-notable. LambiamTalk 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Irishpunktom and Lambiam, easly fullfills WP:BIO --Striver 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless expanded. The article at the moment contains essentially nothing other than the fact that he wrote the book. He could be notable, but, from the article, I don't see anything that deserves a seperate page.
- Keep. This isn't my forte, but from what I can tell, he seems to be a notable Islamic scholar. Aga Khan University is the 1,000 lb. gorilla of colleges in Pakistan. -Colin Kimbrell 16:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Irishpunktom --Hyperbole 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as published author per Lambiam. Monicasdude 19:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Massasoit amateur radio association
I originally prod-ed this article, but due to the bug with the prod templates, I instead nominated it for speedy deletion under CSD/A7. After some discussion with the article's chief contributor I've concluded that it's definitely not a speedy candidate; thus, I'm listing it on AfD. I'm not familiar with any policy that addresses amateur clubs, but it seems as though WP:N would not be appropriate to employ in this case. Similar articles, such as BARC have been kept, but I still believe this topic does not warrant an article. Therefore, I vote to delete. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you similarly going to mark all of the other Amateur Radio organizations for deletion? List of amateur radio organizations
Smeuse 04:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:N is not a speedy delete criteria:) ---J.Smith 20:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I like amateur radio, but this is a NN group who haven't even updated their own website in three years. RGTraynor 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete due to it's size as a non-important radio club. ---J.Smith 20:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as non-notable group. RasputinAXP c 23:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bige1977 00:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, possible speedy as {{nn-club}}. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Laurentian University Model Parliament
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUPSA Presidents, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Roche, Sudbury, which may constitute a walled garden.
Delete as vanity/advertisement/non-notable, plus does not have any content not implied by 'Laurentian University' and 'Model parliament' separately. Author has twice removed nomination for speedy delete Peter Grey 05:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
DeleteI vote no, as I do all university organizations that are not national.T K E 06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; this is a useful article. It would be a shame to lose it. Plus, from my understanding, Laurentian University is a national university organisation. So I am unsure of the credibility in the criticism from TKE. kroche14
- Comment. I meant a national organization. But I am changing to Keep, becaue upon rereading the article, they are much more notable than most other college clubs. So Wikipedia is not paper. Kroche14, I meant no bad faith by the vote. T K
E 07:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment'.. Which 'nation' are you refering to? This is the global English Wikipedia, NOT the U.S.A. Wikipedia. Reading the article, I see nothing of note about this organisation, but then I don't personally feel that's justification to delete an article. Storage is cheap. Markb 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I'm aware this isn't just the USA show, I even make a keep vote once of "Australians are Wikipedians Too." By national, I meant widespread across whatever the parent country is. There are several articles created everyday on individual university clubs. I admit I skimmed the article quickly, but I corrected myself. T K E 16:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The notability of Laurentan University is not up for debate, only a once-a-year bit of theatrics that only concerns members of one club at one university. Peter Grey 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to the political association below. This will add notability to an otherwise generic entry. Marskell 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Question: What do you mean when you say "university organization"? I had understood that Laurentian was a university and that the overwhelming majority of its students came from northern Ontario, making it a regional university, not a national one. HistoryBA 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Answer: When I said national, I didn't not mean the university. I meant the particular club. T K E 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as above Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- *Response to... "Question: I had understood that Laurentian was a university and that the overwhelming majority of its students came from northern Ontario, making it a regional university, not a national one." There are many students currently studying at Laurentian from Northern and Southern Ontario, as well as Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and many international students from France, (Laurentian is bilingual after-all), China, Viet-Nam, and Japan. kroche14
- Strong Keep. This appears to be notable enought to be considered simply more than an ordinary campus club. It's fairly significant that this organization is permitted use of the House of Commons. That's not just a hall that anyone can rent out. It's obviously a significant enough organization for the Speaker to decide to grant permission for its use. (By the way, while not expressly stated in the article, it's obvious from reading that it refers to an organization in Canada). Fluit 17:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Follow Up: I decided to actually follow the advice of the AfD textbox in order to help this article along. I've undertaken what is mainly a major copy-edit, and (hopefully) removed anything that's not NPOV. I now leave it up to the powers that be. Fluit 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. This article along with numerous others by user:kroche14 are about non-notable university minutia. Tomb Ride My Talk 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. So this university club gets to use the House of Commons hall (during a time when it's otherwise empty, by the bye) for their make-pretend game once a year. Big deal, there are high school moot legislatures in every state in the United States, and no doubt in Canadian provinces as well, that do the same thing, get the use of the legislative halls for a day or two, have photo ops with smiling politicians, and aren't restricted to a couple schools yet. If this model parliament was thrown open to every university in Canada, or even every one in Ontario, it might be notable ... but that's not the case, is it? RGTraynor 16:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep. Use of the national legislative chambers seems a bit of a step up from state and provincial halls. I suspect that we would have an article about any youth use of the United States Capitol (which seems like a pretty strange name - I wonder why it is not formally called the "United States Capitol Building" or something like that?) j-beda 15:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete -- JamesTeterenko 19:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep...this entery is notable. if it was Queens Universiyt who did this no one would question the credablity beacuse queens is higher in the Mcleans rankings, but lu isnt but we have a good poli sci program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw wilson (talk • contribs)
-
- Comment. No one is questioning the standing of your university, just the notability of a club from it. Tomb Ride My Talk 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment And trust me, few of the editors voting here give a whit about university rankings or rivalries. TeKE 02:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: quite. Strike Laurentian and substitute Harvard and I can't imagine what would change about any voting here. RGTraynor 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I'm sure if Harvard had a model "congress" that used the Capitol in Washington D.C., it would certainly be notable. Fluit 00:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per WP:NN. rehpotsirhc 21:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not assert notability. Vegaswikian 05:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This has nothing to do with the reputation of Laurentian, it has everything to do with the fact that Wiki precedent has it that individual student organizations, besides the Student Union on each campus, is not noteable enough, in and of itself, for an article. pm_shef 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep The Laurentian University Model Parliament is notable. First of all it is one of two universities which are granted permission to use the House of Commons. Second, it is ran by Rand Dyck, one of Canada's most notable Political Scientists, his publications include Canadian Politics Critical Approches, a text book which is used by almost every university coast to coast, and since he is running this event as an intevative way in order to have university students understand politics and their government, why would this not be notable enought to deserve an article. Thirdly, it is a serious acidemic excerise done by university students, if this was done at harvard there by a promant professor at Harvard in the US Capitol there would not be this dabate for inclusion. Finally, it is one of the few events where Laurentian Students at Sudbury are mixed at Laurentian Students at Barrie, this is notable beacuse of the inclusion of the different campuses which usually have nothing to do with each other. I strongly hope that this article is kept, it needs some serious editing, maybe merging the section concerning the SGA at the LU with this as a subsection editied, but i think it is notable enought to be kept.
- Delete per WP:NN and Wiki precedent. Wstaffor 22:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - this material belongs on the group's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge into Laurentian University if you must. Stifle (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scott and Zachary Benes
Not notable child actors from a soap opera. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Tone 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Tone 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep They have three credits. Bhoeble 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Child actors at this age are interchangable. RasputinAXP c 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, they have three credits. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiable and they've got soap and movie credits. --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 14:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Digital Blasphemy
Advertisment Sascha.leib 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What a farce! Oh everybody is falling all over themselves to keep this page!! Laugh me out the door and DELETE this article page!! Delete Digital Blasphemy and delete waldo's wallpaper too! A sock puppet for "wallpaper vault". Elmo Skidright.
This is an advertising page for one out of a thousand commercial "Desktop Wallpaper" sites. There is no need to give them free advertising space on Wikipedia.
In addition, somebody (presumably somebody from the company) has instantly removed unfavourable additions (like, references to free desktop wallpaper sites) and even unfavourable comments.
- Delete Jmunchovie 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) I think the site should be deleted as per policy about a site that is commercial and contains advertising - they are a spam site seeking piggyback exposure. Jmunchovie 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advert --Tone 09:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC).Ok, changed my mind. Keep but cleanup. --Tone 22:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)- Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete spam. The sooner the better. Just zis Guy you know? 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Cleanup and keep It is a notable internet wallpaper design company (perhaps the most notable given the poor example of a google search, 998,000 for "digital blasphemy"). Sure, wikipedia is not for advertising. But an outline of their contribution to internet and general computer life would sufficient. Ansell 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep they are notable enough by my bar. I'm really tired of seeing that blue, translucent mushroom wallpaper though. Kotepho 14:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep fairly old notable site with a long history on the internet. Here's a link to a posible reference: Interview with creater, Also about 1200 pages link to DB according to Google. As wallpaper websites go, it's the premier in it's field. ---J.Smith 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I am the somebody who removed those references to other sites (no idea what unfavorable comments you are referring to though); these were unrelated linkspam. See Wikipedia:External links. Digital Blasphemy is a notable (enough) site. It has been around for nine years (since 1997), and was visited 25681 times yesterday alone. The article mentions a specific claim to notability that satisifies #3 on our Criteria for web content, the use of the wallpapers in Stardock's The Natural Desktop. Nevertheless, I have contacted Ryan Bliss, the owner of the site, asking for more information that satisfies the points on Wikipedia:Notability (websites), and will post it here and in the article as soon as he replies. ~MDD4696 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I contacted Ryan...
Date: Apr 13, 2006 9:15 PM Subject: Information on yourself and your website for Wikipedia Hello Ryan, I am an editor on Wikipedia, a site I'm sure you have heard of. The article on Digital Blasphemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Blasphemy) was nominated for deletion today, and I was wondering if you could provide me with any information that would help me prevent that. Have you had any interviews or reviews of the site by independant sources, such as newspapers? Are there any well-known websites or other organizations that have used your images? I think that your site is fantastic, and most certainly notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. However, if we have links or references to published sources that reference your work, it will make the article stronger. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Michael
-
- ...and he promptly replied:
Date: Apr 14, 2006 4:54 AM Subject: Re: Information on yourself and your website for Wikipedia Hi Michael, Thanks for writing. I had seen the article on Wikipedia a while ago and thought it was interesting. Flattering to be included. Not sure what I can tell you. My site was named one of the Top 100 sites on the web by Yahoo Internet Life magazine (now defunct) back in Dec 2000. I've been mentioned on BBC World (on the Webscape segment) and was mentioned many times on Tech TVs "The Screensavers". I had a write up in my hometown paper, and I'm sure I've been written about in other papers but I can't think of any specific examples. To my knowledge, I run one of the most popular "single artist" galleries online. The accolades and free press sort of stopped not long after I opened the members gallery. Once you start charging for your content, people are more reluctant to site you as an "online resource". It's just the nature of the game I guess. I'm happy to be included in Wikipedia, but I'll understand if the article gets deleted. Let me know if you need anything else. -- Ryan Bliss Digital Blasphemy http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/
- Strong Keep; Digital Blasphemy is one of the best (subjectively) and oldest wallpaper sites on the Internet. RasputinAXP c
23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC) - Keep on the solid grounds of "if I've heard of it outside of Wikipedia it's got to be notable", especially if a) I first heard of the site wayyy back when they were starting up in late 1990s and b) I've seen their wallpapers on completely random computers a few times... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment adverts are generally writen by the companies themselves, not by outside observers. This was originally written as an article. Ojw 17:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely Keep; I have been a visitor to Digital Blasphemy for many years. I think this site has value, proven by the long history of free content and quality of work. By keeping this site in Wikipedia, newbies will be able to access it as well. --Shagy 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As above Trebor 01:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think the use by a software product meets notability criterion 3 of WP:WEB. But on looking at Natural Desktop, that page looks to me to be part of a massive wikispam campaign around Stardock products. The Stardock article is ridiculously long for a minor company, and there are separate articles for dozens of its products. That by itself probably needs some attention and a big merge. I'd also like to know more about the exact relationship between Digital Blasphemy and Stardock. One should not be able to manufacture notability by linking to related products within Wikipedia. Phr 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. The nomination presents a clear challenge: unverifiable claims. No one has provided anything like a reliable source, and testimony of wikipedia editors about something's notability is insufficient. As to redirection to list of shock sites, while redirects are cheap, they aren't free, and an article having the word "list" in its title doesn't provide exemption from the verification criterion. - brenneman{L} 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] HAI2U
Appears to be nn website, and only has an article here because of its shock value. We can't keep an article here based only on unverifiable claims; this one has an Alexa rank of 429,006 (not safe from work), so I doubt that this is very popular based on that data. (The site peaked in Alexa rank in November 2005 at around 93,000 Also NSFW). Delete. Mangojuice 12:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to List of shock sites. Kotepho 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to List of shock sites. All the information is there anyway. Foolish Child 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)- Keep, an important shock site, verifiable. For great justice. 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, does not fall under any of the real criteria for deletion, IMHO. --Knucmo2 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- What about WP:WEB? Mangojuice 14:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of shock sites. It's there already. NTK 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect (or, failing that, delete). Alexa rank is pretty poor, and the article is unreferenced and even says "The website falsely claims that it has been referenced by Time Magazine and The New York Times". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of shock sites. The immensely more well known shock sites, like tubgirl or goatse are redirected, so why have a seperate page soley for this? --68.60.18.222 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect (or, failing that, delete) per Andrew Lenahan, is about right. "Word of mouth" is just code for unverifiable. Melchoir 07:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but clean-up. I'm changing my vote. This website is noteable, however the article does need clean-up and more information. Foolish Child 12:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- What makes you think it's notable? Melchoir 06:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I thought it was notable from the start, just that the article in its current state provides little that isn't on its List of shock sites entry. And I believe its notable because of the vast number of people that know of it. Foolish Child 11:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree it's probably notable. My problem with it has more to do with WP:V. Can anyone back up the popularity of this with an outside source? I doubt it. Mangojuice 14:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I thought it was notable from the start, just that the article in its current state provides little that isn't on its List of shock sites entry. And I believe its notable because of the vast number of people that know of it. Foolish Child 11:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- What makes you think it's notable? Melchoir 06:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. RexNL 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, quite well known shock site. bbx 13:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a very notable site for people who don't live in their own sheltered little worlds. Skinmeister 18:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, seems notable enough. Rhobite 02:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Why is there an article about a picture of a woman puking on a guy's penis? Worthless. If you keepers like it so much, maybe you should print it out and frame it. Erik the Rude 03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this shock site is notable enough Yuckfoo 04:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable shocksite... not quite as well known as Goatse guy but damn close. ALKIVAR™ 05:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The List of "Shock Site" is enough and already too much for my taste. Just an explanation what "Shock Sites" are (no links) should be sufficient--Roy-SAC 07:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IPdrum Mobile Skype Solution
- Delete, Advertising and trying to hide AFD message by changing (colour of text to white!!) I have also added a speedy deletion notice. Jrinaldi 13:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Blatantly deceitful advert. --MarcoTolo 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE per above. Also why skype if you are paying for a cell phone?? Mike (T C)
17:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC) - There is no reason why this page should be considered advertising. Conduct a Google search on IPdrum, and see the number of hits.
When the product was launched, it was on the CNBC Breaking News, and with more than 60,000 Google hits, it can hardly be referred to as a non notable product. Skype on the mobile phone is a revolutionary innovation! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ipdrum hb (talk • contribs) .
-
- It's important to include notability information in the article. Please see WP:CORP for guidelines. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have redirected triplicate articles Ipdrum Mobile Skype Solution and Ipdrum mobile skype solution to the one currently under discussion. The content was identical and I assume the redirects can be deleted with the target if that's the result of the AfD. You might also note the related article IPdrum. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete' Proto||type 14:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PESFan.com
Alexa rank of 93,663, failing WP:WEB. Written in a very promotional style to boot Daniel Case 14:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete adcruft. Alba 17:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A thriving internet community. unsigned vote by CharlieA (talk · contribs)
- Keep A great resource for information and advice on a massive videogame. unsigned vote by Danstringer (talk · contribs), user's first and only edit
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. RasputinAXP c 23:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (yeesh, just speedy this stuff) Proto||type 14:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stephen Burke (actor)
I thought about prodding this until I saw the last graf: "Burke, an independent film writer and financier, writes under an unknown pseudonym. He is probably best known for his friendship with actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck." So many words when only two would do: "not notable." I was going to speedy it as vanity but that would be an insult to vanity as no one would put such a badly lit picture of themselves into a vanity article. Daniel Case 15:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. -- I@n ≡ talk 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as an unknown anything. RasputinAXP c 23:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete He writes under an unknown pseudonym. Maybe the pseudonym's notable. He isn't. Fan1967 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete them all. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Shot in the Arm
I am also nominating:
- In a Future Age
- When You Wake Up Feeling Old
- My Darling
- Candyfloss
- Summer Teeth
- ELT (song)
- Via Chicago
- How to Fight Loneliness--84.168.217.177 16:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Pieholden Suite
- Nothing'severgonnastandinmyway(again)
- I'm Always in Love
- We're Just Friends
- She's a Jar
- Can't Stand It
- The Late Greats
- Less Than You Think
- I'm a Wheel
- Company in My Back
- Handshake Drugs
- Muzzle of Bees
- Spiders (Kidsmoke)
- Hell Is Chrome
- At Least That's What You Said
- Reservations
- Poor Places
- Pot kettle black
- I'm the Man Who Loves You
- Heavy Metal Drummer
- Jesus Etc.
- War On War (song)
- Radio Cure (song)
- I Am Trying To Break Your Heart
- Kamera
- Ashes Of American Flags
Delete - not every song by your favorite band is notable. Perhaps keep the singles, whichever those are, but not every single track by Wilco ever. Wickethewok 18:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 'em all. You should have tagged them though, even though it's a pain. NTK 18:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- heheh - I'm working on it :| Wickethewok 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom... and have fun tagging!--Isotope23 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep singles, and delete or possibly redirect the rest. bikeable (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not all of those are even songs, at least two are albums! Keep singles and albums, delete the rest if they have no substantial content, else merge and redirect to the albums. Also, Candyfloss should redirect to Cotton candy. Muzzle of Bees should redirect to Beard of bees. Reservations should redirect to Reservation. Kamera should redirect to Camera. I hate group nominations, and this is exactly why. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, Which are albums? All I saw in the articles were "song by Wilco", etc. I don't think anyone would object to a Bold redirect on the articles Andrew Lenahan mentioned above.--Isotope23 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reply The original list included A Ghost Is Born and Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. They were later removed by the nominator in this edit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, ah gotcha... thanks!--Isotope23 20:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reply The original list included A Ghost Is Born and Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. They were later removed by the nominator in this edit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, Which are albums? All I saw in the articles were "song by Wilco", etc. I don't think anyone would object to a Bold redirect on the articles Andrew Lenahan mentioned above.--Isotope23 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete them all; let God sort 'em out. -AED 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the lot. Every single one of these "articles" is the same: foo is a song by the band Wilco, from their album bar. Note to author: if you can't be arsed to even tell us whether it was released as a single, don't be surprised when I can't be arsed to expand your fancruft for you. What you are saying with these articles is "I like Wilco enough to make a copy-and-paste article for every song but not to actually put any effort whatsoever into those articles". Seriously. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Dylan 23:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete them all. Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. RasputinAXP c 23:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete These are pretty much all one-sentence entries which provide little room for expansion. Cosign with RasputinAXP. Danny Lilithborne 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep singles, redirect the less notable songs. Royboycrashfan
01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC) - Deleteper nom--Zxcvbnm 01:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JzG. Redirects to various locations may be appropriate afterwords. Melchoir 02:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and reasons above. Funnybunny 02:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect all to the albums they are from. ...Scott5114 03:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, nn songs. --Terence Ong 03:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- 'Delete per JzG, though redirects to the albums might work. Borderline speedy, as far as I'm concerned. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep singles and redirect others, per Roy --Hyperbole 04:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a Wilco fan, I have a sticker on my car. But nuh-uh to all these. Keep per Royboycrashfan. T K E 04:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- As an aside, I'm kinda upset the user didn't include the songs from Being There T K E 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
Oh but wait, they did. Someone with the time, could you look at the contributions for User:JeffTweedyIsGod? I'm off to bed, but I figure there's more out there.Wickethewok has notified the user, and they are civil about it. T K E 04:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep singles, redirect others, per Royboycrashfan et alia. Fishhead64 06:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Just zis Guy you know. We really do not need this sort of thing. SorryGuy 07:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I agree, but Wilco is a Grammy winning group; singles should be kept. No luck falling asleep...sighs. TeKE 07:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC) <~ Hey, new sig!
- Speedy Delete the whole cacophonous lot of them; there is no assertion of notability on any. If the original author wants to assert that any particular track entry is notable -- winning a major award in its own right -- then that's different. RGTraynor 15:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, nn. Sheehan (Talk) 08:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. --Tone 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all as per NTK. -- Kjkolb 12:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the lot per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: According to AMG,[25] Outtasite (Outta Mind) is Wilco's only charting single, and (ironically enough) that one doesn't have an article. Don't know whether any others were released but didn't chart. -Colin Kimbrell 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all An article about their album is enough. Bige1977 17:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd like to inform all that the editor who created these was not familiar with WP policy at the time he created these. I believe he is in agreement with the deletion at this current time, although I don't claim to speak on his behalf. Wickethewok 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks Wick. Sorry for any trouble I've caused... I'll look around for something else to contribute with. JeffTweedyIsGod 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - We were all new once, so no worries. :) Wickethewok 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. - Rynne 14:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. --84.168.217.177 16:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- keep as long as they are actual songs, why not keep the pages. just expand them. Pooja.bhatt
- Ummm - an article on every song ever? Seems like a poor idea to me... Wickethewok 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Pooja - I recommend you check up on some WP policy/precedent before voting on AFD. Welcome to WP btw! Wickethewok 23:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)- Comment - note the above user is a big sockpuppeteer, as seen in other AFDs. Wickethewok 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT to Wickethewok Just because I just created an account does not mean that I do not know how Wikipedia works. Your pompous and arrogant attitude is noted and completely unappreciated. Back off. Pooja.bhatt
- 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. Proto||type 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Http file server
Fails to establish notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Had tagged this {{prod}}, but User:Rawbanana who has only edited this article, removed it. Seems to be vanity/advertisement NTK 18:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Rawbanana's reply I'm not affiliated with this software in any way. However, I feel that it is a unique and revolutionary software that deserves to be recognized in Wikipedia. Please also understand that this is my first article and I do not really understand how to edit articles properly or format it properly for Wikipedia.
I edited my original submission thinking that it had added enough to justify entry into Wikipedia. If that is not enough and you still feel this article is not worthy, please delete it. In the meantime, I will try to learn more about the Wikipedia system and see if I can fulfill the Wikipedia requirements.
Note the information I have used in the article is primarily from the forums http://www.rejetto.com/forum/index.php?c=6 or from Sourceforge.net. I have tried to be neutral as much as possible. Again I didn't realize new entries were so hard to be approved for Wikipedia and I will try to read up on what this submission is missing. Should I have left the {{prod}} for someone else to remove? Oh well...
- You may remove {{prod}} tags from articles you create, but if you do so you should put something on the talk page justifying why you think it should be included, similar to what you wrote above. Please read over the guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE, and also WP:NOR. In short as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not be used to promote "relatively unknown" products, persons, or ideas. It should be used to document things that are already notable in their own right. NTK 20:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete looking at the article a stable full-featured version was only released last month, which I guess explains why there is no evidence of market share, innovation, iomportance, influence, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources etc. Which means we can't verify the neutrality of the article. WP:SOFTWARE appears to apply. Just zis Guy you know? 21:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unknown anything is not notable. RasputinAXP c 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: Notability I read the Wikipedia Notability article and wikipedia and understand that all a software needs is 1 3rd party award to be notable. HFS has 1 3rd party award from www.snapfiles.com in 2004. A 2minute appearance and recommendation by a popular independent media website such as Hak5.org also seems notable. HFS only appears on these websites due to its unique functionality although its growth is among psp and international users instead of within the professional networking crowd. A quick google for "psp hfs" will also show many results. I've also updated some sources and wording on the main "http file server" page. Rawbanana 09:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Streptocarpus (jazz group)
This (badly-written and apparently incomplete) article appears to fail WP:MUSIC. I also found it impossible to verify. Delete. Joel7687 18:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly a non-notable band. Only a couple unique hits on Google, and only from Wikipedia mirror sites. All the other hits refer to pages about the plant genus "streptocarpus" that happen to have the word "jazz" somewhere on the site. Aplomado - UTC 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as non-notable band, tagged it. RasputinAXP c 00:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Royboycrashfan 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Celtic Connection
I guess I'm supposed to bring this here. It looks like someone is advertising their website on Wikipedia. I think it should be deleted. Erik the Rude 21:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per WP:WEB, completely fails to establish notability of this forum. NTK 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. non-notable. Bucketsofg 23:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NVnetbackup
Advertisement for software on Sourceforge. Delete. RasputinAXP c 23:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's complete crap, there is a wikipedia article on openoffice.org, windows, linux, etc. Are you going to remove those as well? This isn't an advertisement, it's documentation with a comparison of why someone would use this software. 19:42, 13 April 2006 (EST) Do not delete. Musashi5191645
- Delete as per nom, it isn't notable software. Musashi is trying to make this into a straw man argument by stating highly notable software. Ansell 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- So just because something is new means it's worthy of deletion? How are people supposed to find out new information if the people with access to said information use that sort of mentality? Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? Just because something isn't popular does not give you or anyone else the right to censor it. Musashi5191645
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. RasputinAXP c 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- What's the sense in being able to freely contribute if you are only going to be shot down by territorial billigerence? if there's something wrong with the article the tell me, because I refuse to accept the notion that an article can be nixed just because the subject matter is new and not too well known. Isn't the purpose of an 'encyclopedia' to provide a reference for otherwise unknown information? Or does everyone who reads the articles on this site already have all the knowledge contained therein? DO NOT DELETE Musashi5191645
- Apart from looking like half a marketing report and half a user manual, neither of which things are what WP is about, it is NOT notable. Ansell 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- What's the sense in being able to freely contribute if you are only going to be shot down by territorial billigerence? if there's something wrong with the article the tell me, because I refuse to accept the notion that an article can be nixed just because the subject matter is new and not too well known. Isn't the purpose of an 'encyclopedia' to provide a reference for otherwise unknown information? Or does everyone who reads the articles on this site already have all the knowledge contained therein? DO NOT DELETE Musashi5191645
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. RasputinAXP c
- So just because something is new means it's worthy of deletion? How are people supposed to find out new information if the people with access to said information use that sort of mentality? Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? Just because something isn't popular does not give you or anyone else the right to censor it. Musashi5191645
-
-
-
-
- There are plenty of articles that could easily fall into the same category. So the only thing you have on this particular article is that it isn't notable. FINE, but that's still no reason to just delete it. How is it supposed to become known if people like you keep trying to withhold information? You say it looks like a 'marketing report' ... how can you market open source software? Usually you market something to make money but I'm not trying to make any money here, I'm trying to save people some money while at the same time, making them aware that they do have alternatives to common backup software. There's a stub on Veritas Backup Exec listed, so why can't mine be listed? Because it's not notable? Have you used it? Would you even know how? I have this bery same backup system implemented at over 100 of our client sites and it has never failed me. Of course, these are all banking and finance business who aren't known for going online and discussing how they backup their data so it's popularity (notability) is limited to the audience in which it has been exposed to. Your behavior about this is completely out of line, you are 'Biting the newcomer' something that's supposed to be explicitly prohibited here. Are you too good for the rules? My article does not deserve to be deleted, I am willing to hear your suggestions to make it better. Musashi5191645
-
-
-
- Actually, now that you say it. There may be other articles with exactly the same reasons that should also be here for AfD discussion. I notice above that you talk like a marketer, particularly speaking of course of those who market Open Source software. They have their own particular style (also known as their POV). You are a maintainer of the software? A distributor? Both of these things come under the Vanity policy. Please note that we are not biting the newcomer. We are not biting anyone, if the article was notable, non POV, and possibly had some reason why as you point out, people would come to wikipedia to get information about it, we would not be going to all the trouble of putting it here and discussing the issue with you. Please dont make personal attacks, It is not your place to tell people they are biting newcomers. If someone else sees this then they may be in a neutral enough position to see that. Interestingly, the fact that you know about the policy reveals your depth of knowledge about wikipedia so far. Interesting how you have a customised signature, something which reveals your depth of experience. Ansell 00:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If you were really serious about this article, Musashi5191645, you would write it so it sounds more like an encyclopedia article and less like a promotional pamphlet. That is all. Danny Lilithborne 00:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. 28,000,000 Google hits for Openoffice.org, which has been around for years and is well-established and widespread. 93 hits for NVnetbackup, which appears to have been released this week. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise new products. Fan1967 00:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. --blue520 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Over 15490 packages are available in Debian and not one is related to this software. I think that is a very liberal notablity guideline for linux based OSS. Good luck though. [37] ccwaters 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
