Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] April 27
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DIY WOMP
Non-notable group with a MySpace page. PROD contested by article creator. FCYTravis 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 01:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable organization, 98 Google results [8] --TBC☆O M G! 02:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, adcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above -- Samir
(the scope) धर्म 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC) - Delete, nn group, ad. --Terence Ong 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Mystache 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. SorryGuy 05:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. PJM 12:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Glen TC (Stollery) 12:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- DeleteThetruthbelow 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — TheKMantalk 23:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Swing Kids (band)
nn-band, but don't have the courage to speedy it today Adam 
(talk) 03:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article was written out of consideration for other pages involving Justin Pearson and all other bands he has been in. Swing Kids are somewhat lesser known than his other bands but are more seminal in nature and referenced on many other Wikipedia entries, including the Hardcore Emo genre. What's worse is most of the links incorrectly linked to the Swing Kids movement of nazi-era Germany instead of the band before I wrote this article mere hours ago. It is an incomplete stub and I am still in the process of doing research. The patience and understanding of the Wikipedia admin community would be greatly appreciated here. As far as notability is concerned, the Swing Kids feature members of other notable bands and have toured internationally. Their records were released on an independent label alongside other notable bands.Curtyv 04:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep They are very notable, and all the members have formed other notable bands afterwards. First off Justin Pearson is in that band. If you don't know who he is, well he's also in this band called the The Locust. According to the guidelines found here Wikipedia:Notability (music), this band CANNOT be deleted off of Wikipedia because this group ...
- Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources.
- Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (such as Three One G) (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
- Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
- 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.
So based on these grounds, I call for a Speedy Keep - RiseRobotRise 11:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. For one thing, RiseRobotRise may be confused; we're not debating the notability of The Locust, but of Swing Kids. That an unrelated band may register on WP:MUSIC's radar might be interesting but is certainly irrelevant. For another, while this Pearson fellow might have his fans, 280 G-hits isn't a lot, and calling Three One G (run, as it happens, by Pearson himself) one of the "more important indie labels" is an enormous stretch. I'd be interested to see sources for the inference that Pearson is the most prominent emo musician in San Diego. RGTraynor 14:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note that in the part of WP:MUSIC (guidelines, not policy saying something "CANNOT be deleted") mentioning "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" also says "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Weak delete and redirect to Justin Pearson; and frankly I've never heard of him or The Locust. Barno 18:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, appears to be notable for touring and who members became involved with. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:MUSIC due to an international tour. Also notable for kickstarting Pearson's career. Article should be stubbed as it needs to be verifiably sourced. Wstaffor 01:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this was such an influential band the members have gone on to do so much: Jose Palafox (of Struggle and Bread and Circuits), went on to be a UC Professor, earn his PhD and lecture on punk rock and the hardcore music scene. Justin Pearson who would release their recordings on his own Three One G record label, is in numerous other bands today along with starting and runing his own business. This was an extremely innovative and influential band.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.91.49.233 (talk • contribs)
- Merge with Pearson and redirect. The band's importance cannot be separated from Pearson's membership, and the Pearson article could do with some actual content. -- GWO
- Response to Merge While Justin Pearson's involvement in Swing Kids was of key importance, a redirect or merge may unfairly eclipse the work of two other important members of Swing Kids. Namely, the late Eric Allen (Unbroken) and Jose Palafox (Bread and Circuits, Struggle). Curtyv 18:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable band with a member of another band that is barely notable. If the supposedly notable member had their own page, then maybe. --Walter Görlitz 23:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttal to Above- Justin Pearson does have his own page on Wikipedia. As far as questioning the notability of his later band, well you may have to refer to this website [13] and this one [14] also proving further notability heres one from VH1[15] and Epitaph Records signed a deal with these guys [16], well if you need to merge it with the other articles, then I guess that’s okay (although I don't feel it would fit in with the other article), but don't attack the notability of other projects he became involved with. I still believe that this article shouldn’t be deleted based upon the WP:MUSIC guidelines. A few users listed above would like to agree with me on that one.RiseRobotRise 00:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Shall I nominate it for db-bio? He's a band-a-holicic? Does it make any of the bands notable? Not really. Now if he was Garcia re-incarnated, maybe. Tell you what. When Justin next plays in Vancouver, BC, drop me a note and I'll go see him. Until then I suggest we keep his bands off Wikipedia. From what I can tell his bands only tour So. Cal. --Walter Görlitz 21:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- The Locust has toured internationally (this includes Europe and Asia). Tour dates are not posted on their website currently, but I was able to find the following two links. [17] - Partial tour with Yeah yeah yeahs in several midwest states in 2003. [18] - European tour with Kill Me Tomorrow in 2005. [19] - Brief Bio of The Locust from Gold Standard Labs who released most of their records before signing to Epitaph. Swing Kids tour dates would be tough to reproduce since they broke up about 10 years ago. However, there is video footage of Swing Kids playing in Belgium (to an audience of hundreds no less) on the Three One G DVD which was recently released. If you would like to see it for yourself, you may purchase a copy of the DVD [here]. Either way I do urge you to go see The Locust the next time they play in Vancouver. Curtyv 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I concur with Curtyv, infact next time they play in Vancouver, BC I'll make sure that I'll be the first one to let you know :P RiseRobotRise 10:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
-
Rebuttal to comments made by user RGTraynor "and calling Three One G (run, as it happens, by Pearson himself) one of the "more important indie labels" is an enormous stretch." untrue, read this article [20] (scroll down until you see Three One G in bold text). Three One G is infact "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable." (I have more references to prove so) and since Swing Kids are infact on that label, that should give them a status of notability. "That an unrelated band may register on WP:MUSIC's" They are infact related by Justin Pearson. RiseRobotRise 05:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I just read the article. Your rebuttal is seriously that Three One G made a list of the top fifteen indie labels in the city of San Diego? RGTraynor 07:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, I think you missed my point. 31G has signed a plethora of notable bands, such as the Moving Units, who have gone on tour with Nine Inch Nails [21] [22], The Locust who also have been signed to Mike Patton's label Ipecac Recordings [23], and Epitaph Records [24], the Ex Models an influential noise band who have gone off on various nation-wide tours [25] [26], and The Blood Brothers who have went on nation-wide tours, most recently went on tour supporting Coheed and Cambria [27] [28] RiseRobotRise 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Being a support act to a notable band doesn't make you notable. -- GWO
- Being a support act on a national tour fulfills the touring requirement of WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Being a support act on a national tour requires proof.
- Did they tour the entire country or just one leg of the national tour? The NIN links above don't mention Swing Kids.
- Did they get billing at the venues?
- * Further, I don't think being the support act does qualify under WP:MUSIC. Implicitly, at least, I take the tour qualification to mean you were the main attraction. Back in the 1960s, literally thousands of rightfully-forgotten bands and singers toured the US and UK as bottom-of-the-bill on package tours, often supporting much bigger artists than NiN -- like Little Richard, Chuck Berry or Alma Cogan -- GWO
- It seems that the entire Swing Kids entry is related to one member of the band, or am I mistaken? --Walter Görlitz 21:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Being a support act on a national tour requires proof.
- Being a support act on a national tour fulfills the touring requirement of WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Being a support act to a notable band doesn't make you notable. -- GWO
- No, I think you missed my point. 31G has signed a plethora of notable bands, such as the Moving Units, who have gone on tour with Nine Inch Nails [21] [22], The Locust who also have been signed to Mike Patton's label Ipecac Recordings [23], and Epitaph Records [24], the Ex Models an influential noise band who have gone off on various nation-wide tours [25] [26], and The Blood Brothers who have went on nation-wide tours, most recently went on tour supporting Coheed and Cambria [27] [28] RiseRobotRise 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No, we we're talking about other bands on 31G, trying to make a point that 31G is a more important indie label. Also if you scroll above, you'll see that more then one member of the band went on to form other projects stated by other user. RiseRobotRise 04:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Keep Seems just notable enough, in any case I suggest giving them the benefit of the doubt. gidonb 00:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Kotepho 06:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Kotepho 06:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Terence Ong 08:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deletionists soon screech about it if a band doesnt pass wiki:music as if it were some immutable law of the universe, therefor if a band passes it, and this clearly does through virtue of notable members, the same rule should apply. Jcuk 11:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. The band has proven some degree of notability by at least being linked around to by all the other NN bands on wiki... Mystache 12:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The blue links testify to its notability. Fishal 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per gidonb. --LambiamTalk 20:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Eric Allen, a member of Unbroken (perhaps one of the most important hardcore punk bands of the mid 1990s), was also in Swing Kids. This alone makes the band of high importance.
- Comments: (1) This is a VfD on the defunct band Swing Kids, not on its members nor its members' subsequent bands nor a member's independent record label. We're only considering those to the extent that they bear on the Wikipedia:Notability guideline.
(2) From that guideline: "Many editors also believe that it is (a) fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies). Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included; meeting one or more of these criteria does not mean that a subject must be included." An "audience of hundreds no less" in any country doesn't meet the "audience of 5,000" guideline. Show evidence that SK were widely featured as being so innovative and influential, and we'll have reason to keep this article instead of redirecting it to the more-proven-notable topic Justin Pearson. (3) Mystache and Fishal aren't quite correct: The existence of articles on related topics linked to one another doesn't really indicate notability for any of them unless either they've survived AfD, or they contain citations to reliable sources proving notability. A whole bunch of fiction or trivia could be added as a "walled garden" of articles to give WP's credibility; people have tried this. Notable bands/musicians/etc, like notable fiction or religions, can have associated topics that are too minor or just not documented enough to keep as their own article. Some of this information is worth keeping, just in one article instead of five. No change of vote, pending evidence more directly relevant. Barno 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jan Schoen (Dutch philosopher)
Quite an elaborate and real looking article, but still a hoax none the less. There is no proof of the existance of this person.-- JoanneB 09:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - a pretty good hoax, almost believable. - Richardcavell 10:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless proof is offered. Arbusto 10:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn, hoax. --Terence Ong 11:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. PJM 12:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Really wanted to believe it. Not a gsearch in the world could help it. Mystache 13:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-verifiable WP:V.--blue520 13:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Pity the author wouldn't put his undoubted abilities to uses other than vandalism. Dlyons493 Talk 20:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious hoax. LambiamTalk 21:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note for closing admin: please also delete the redirect pages Jan Schone, Jan Schon, Jan Shoen, Jan Schoen. --LambiamTalk 21:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wow, sure is a well-constructed hoax --
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC) - Delete as a hoax. — TheKMantalk 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. — Apr. 29, '06 [11:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>
[edit] Blizzhackers
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
With Alexa rating of 157,855, fails WP:WEB despite creator's laudable intentions on talk page. Daniel Case 15:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- UPDATE: This AfD page was also vandalized, but, I think, by someone trying to get at the creator, not the creator himself, since the anon in question also vandalized the article. He's been warned.
Daniel Case 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Remember people, just like the Wiki pages on small cults who commit 30 man suicides(as extreme as an example that might be), this is for information purpous only, on the history of a site that strongly effected many of Blizzard_Entertainment's top games. Yes it was a hacking site, but it niether supports or denotes it, being unbiased, and is completely factual. Also this page is not meant to support any hacks or link to any. So far Im getting the idea that people here think its supporting it, and that being their reason for deletion. This is simply not the case. Salgat 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Diablo 2 Hacking site. Off with their heads. Grafikm_fr 16:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Undecided have any of the big names posted there? any significant cheats? Kotepho 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment.the phrase "such as the TPPK which enhanced dueling or player killing." is enough for an RfD. It is not enhancing, it's ruining the game. Grafikm_fr 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, that phrase is not a reason for deletion. POV is not a problem that requires deletion. Also, your stance that it is ruining the game is soapboxing in the same sense. Kotepho 17:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is common sense, not soapboxing. Anyway, the rfd was made (and not by me), we'll let the votes decide.. ^_^ Grafikm_fr 17:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There have been many significant big name 'hackers' posting on BH, including mousepad (of D2 maphack fame), the makers of the prolific d2hackit program, the creator(s) of d2jsp and other 'bots', and other programs that have significantly affected the game. The forum has enough history and has been home to enough various programs and people who had a major impact, for better or worse, on Blizzard's games, that it deserves some mention. If imageboards like 4chan and forum sites like SomethingAwful or LUElinks get their own articles, certainly a board that has had over 200k registered users should be permitted a mention. A small disclaimer on this rant, I do have a slight bias in favour of keeping it as I am an staff member there, but I feel that this does not detract from my points.- Flaming_cows aka -Cthulhon 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: nn forum site - no indication that it meets WP:WEB. --Hetar 18:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Hetar. -Objectivist-C 19:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep see supporting comment above. -Cthulhon 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment': This user's sole edits are to the article and this discussion. Daniel Case 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Does that detract from my points in any way? That seems like an ad hominem attack rather than a reason to not keep the article. And for the record, I have made other edits to various articles as an anonymous contributor.--Cthulhon 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- When it comes to assessing the community consensus on whether this article will be kept, the history of the contributors to this discussion is relevant. Those users who pop up in response to the discussion (usually arguing "keep") are not considered to have truly put in the time on the project that would make their opinion worthwhile, and frequently their votes are discounted or discarded altogether. This is well stated in our deletion policies, in order to avoid ballot-stuffing using sock- or meatpuppets.
- That you have made edits under other IPs is ... well, that's nice. Since we have no way of verifying this as you didn't start an account until today, we can't really say one thing or the other about your credibility on that basis. As it is we have no way of knowing what your agenda is here (If you want to be taken more seriously in this sort of discussion in the future, by all means edit under your current account and build up a history). Daniel Case 02:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Fair enough, but I still feel that you haven't responded adequatly to any of my points and I feel that history and reputation should not be the sole factor in deciding this matter.--Cthulhon 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep Blizzhackers is a well known website. New users will want some information about it before using it, to make sure that the content available is trustworthy.
-
- Comment Blizzhackers is far from being about 'hacking' despite the name. Its a community of relatively good, knowledgable people, and a rich source of information, on programming, graphics and general life problems. In my honest opinion, in relation to gaming, Blizzhackers is one of the more important pages on the internet. Deleting it would be a travesty - Jake aka -JsRide
- Keep agree with supporting comments. -JsRide
- Comment:This user's sole edits have been to this discussion as well. Daniel Case 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Blizzhackers has been around for many years now, and has had a major impact on Blizzard Entertainments games. Many (in)famous diablo 2 hackers have posted on these forums, such as Mousepad, Netter, Rishodi, Darawk, and the like. Whether or not people agree of disgree with game hacking shouldn't really be an issue I think, as, either way, it HAS had a profound effect on the game. It has also gone through many changes, and has faced legal issues with blizzard and still come through. Also, similar groups, such as myg0t have a wiki, although blizzhackers has probably been the home to many more hack releases than it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KSagle (talk • contribs)
- Above is user's first and only edit. Daniel Case 02:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Has a large number of users, and well known programmers. Has had a big impact on many games esp. Diablo II. - stuck_fugu aka - Nevkeet
- Delete unless shown to meet WP:WEB. 129.81.72.204 02:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Blizzhackers has been the subject of published work independant of the site. Specifically, it has been discussed on TechTV, with on of its more notable members appearing personally as a guest.--Cthulhon 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's a nice claim, do you have a citation for that? --Hetar 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Followup: And the last person on the thread actually took the time to look at WP:WEB and realized it didn't meet the criteria there. Daniel Case, 02:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment See my comment on the directly above delete vote as for why I believe it does meet WP:WEB. For the record, I read over the entire page for WP:WEB as well as the other pages about deletion that I could find.--Cthulhon 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- And I don't see how your assertions, assuming you provide adequate sourcing for them, meet the WP:WEB criteria. Those say nothing about whether renowned hackers hang out there, or whether it's had an impact on some company's games, or been sued, or had its creator appear on TV, have anything to do with whether it's been written about indepedently, won awards, or hostred independently of the creators. Has it been written about in the gaming press? That would help satisfy the first criterion. If I were you that's what I'd be busy looking for.
- Now I just Googled on the site name. I was told there were 114,000 or so hits, but after a mere 48 or so I ran out as it told me most of what was left was similar to what I'd already seen. And most of that was stuff posted on gaming forums, which doesn't meet our sourcing standards.
- So, end result, I'm not encouraged unless you can find something I didn't. Daniel Case 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Now included in Blizzhackers is a media reference to one of the members of Blizzhackers, from a reputable network, TechTV. I wish I could provide more media references in concern of the WP:WEB but I dont have the time to search this up.--Salgat 23:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- But that's a case for the notability of the member, not the site itself. See above. Daniel Case 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please take into consideration that since this is an Online Community, it relys soley on it's members in order to do anything. Blizzhackers has always been a host of files made by the members working together, so any effect its members had in relation to the site, that being a forum, is an effect that Blizzhackers as a community has made. --Salgat 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- But do those people just do stuff at Blizzhackers, or elsewhere? If the former, then the credit for any impact they had goes to them and not to the site, I'm afraid. It would be like crediting the owner of the office building you work out of for your company's success. Daniel Case 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Undecided I believe that if sites like SomethingAwful and LUElinks can have their own Wikipedia entries, that Blizzhackers should as well. However, I'm undecided on the matter. I don't want to say that it should stay without providing any proof, but I do personally believe it should stay. It has been host to some of the greatest and most controversial hacks against Blizzard Entertainment software to-date, including having not only its owner, but more than a few notable members threatened with litigation if they did not do what Blizzard Entertainment wanted them to. As far as Alexa ratings and traffic reports go, please bear in mind that the website was on a 5+ month hiatus when Blizzard attempted to take the site down due to WoW server emulation. Alexa rankings at this point mean next to nothing to the notability of the site. Also to note, if you do a Google search of the website's new name, Edge of Nowhere(using the search query "Edge of Nowhere forum", to remove the invalid results relating to various other things), you come up with 4,720,000 results. As a last note, I realize that I'm not a registered Wikipedia user. This is because I have never seen a need to register. I've never found any serious edits I've wanted to make to any artices, and in fact I still haven't seen a need to register. -lord2800 -- 67.134.133.216 03:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment Consider Blizzhackers a community that helps develop programs through the help of eachother. Without Blizzhackers, many of the bots, including the Mephbot mentioned, would likely not exist. If anything, we can credit Blizzhackers for the works of it's members since Blizzhackers is where many of these members learned, discussed, and created their bots. An analogy could be a Blizzhacker member making a bot compared to a member or team of a University making an invention. Through the help of the University, they are able to get ideas and create this invention, and owe much credit to the University for thier aid.--Salgat 23:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete as non-notable, and ask them not to take it personally. Fagstein 05:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Undecided I am in agreement with the comments of 'lord2800' above. Throughout Wikipedia, there are several articles relating to Blizzard and their games which mention hacks and programs that have propogated on, and in some cases originated on, BlizzHackers. If you talk to any Blizzard or Vivendi employee, I seriously doubt that they would consider BlizzHackers to be "non-notable"; rather, I imagine that they would respond quite to the contrary. On the other hand, I can see that the current BlizzHackers article does not meet the WP:WEB criteria, and although I have been an active, contributing member of BlizzHackers for several years now, I cannot immediately think of a single incident that would prove its notability. It seems that the media tends to avoid mentioning sites that originated with the purpose of game hacking, and for good reason. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that on the subject of Blizzard games, and specifically hacks for these games, BlizzHackers has been one of the most popular sites, if not the most popular site, for the duration of its existence. I would like to add, before someone else points out this fact for me, that this is indeed my first edit as a registered user. I have been using Wikipedia for a long time, but it had not until now come to my attention that I even had the option to register as a user here. If this article does stay, someone needs to take the time to improve it greatly. Rishodi 08:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Omnibus response to above and other comments: I would first like to take the time to thank the supporters of a Blizzhackers article for remaining civil and keeping their cool; given the way deletion discussions often shake out when people start coming to them from other sites this restraint is admirable and deserves commendation here. It augurs strongly in favor of an unprejudiced deletion.
- But I still do not see this site as having met the criteria. Bottom line for me (and, I think, other long-time editors here) is that we need to see some media coverage.
- I am struck in favor of notability by the lawsuit Blizzard filed against the original site that shut it down for some time, which many of you have pointed to. This does not seem like a common occurrence to me, even though I am not really plugged into the gaming community. Is there coverage of this lawsuit somewhere? Where were the legal papers filed? Are they accessible online? If I get more detail on this and it is reflected in the original article, I might well be persuaded to change my vote and withdraw the nom as long as other veteran editors are satisfied. Daniel Case 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Unfortunately, I have a feeling that legal papers were never filed, as Robert Laverick(the current owner of the site) settled out of court and before any legal procedings were attempted. Lawyers flew over to his home, showed up at his doorstep, threatened to sue, and he cooperated(which lead ultimately, but not directly, to a 5-month downtime). I'll see if I can find any non-trivial information about the potential lawsuit, though. Oh, and thanks for the compliments about the civility, I think the fact that this is Wikipedia has scared away most of the newbies from making edits(or they haven't figured out how, heh). -lord2800 -- 67.134.133.205 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Dang. Something like that of course cannot be verified unless Mr. Laverick has written about for some reliable source. It seemed so promising. Daniel Case 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep I have read all the above comments and agree with them for the most part. I think Blizzhackers is a very important part of video game culture both online and off. It has had an impact on not only Blizzard Entertainment, but on those who play the games with Blizzard produced. I am willing to bet that a large majority (At least in 2002-2004) of Diablo 2 players have heard and about and maybe even visited Blizzhackers.com. Most everyone has been affected by Blizzhackers' members and their game-altering hacks and bots. This hacking was so widespread that it started to get the attention of real-world companies. The cable network TechTV even aired a edpisode of "The Screensavers" which interviewed the notorious Syadasti, a member of Blizzhackers. On the show, he demonstrates his MephBot, Tetris and other D2Hackit modules and makes reference to Blizzhackers.com. A copy of this clip can be found on TechTV's website: http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/features/41040/Play_Tetris_Within_Diablo_II.html Surley this mention alone constitutes a place on Wikipedia. -Clark3934 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User's first contribution. Fagstein 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I basically created the entries on Rush_(band) and its related articles, mind you. I have had this account since 2003 and have made numerous edits as an unnamed contributor. -Clark3934 03:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- You should consider having your edits reassigned. Fagstein 03:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I basically created the entries on Rush_(band) and its related articles, mind you. I have had this account since 2003 and have made numerous edits as an unnamed contributor. -Clark3934 03:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User's first contribution. Fagstein 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As of now, unremarkable article and organization. Not notable. Gold Stur 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep The TechTv clip basically makes it meet WP:WEB, barely. JoshuaZ 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 10:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Almost too close to call, but just falls short of sufficient notability for an article. Some influence in regards to World of Warcraft and Diablo 2 but I don't see how its affected the gaming community in a profound manner as some have claimed. A split decision if you will, but still standing by delete.--Cini 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Update Added another reference of EoN/Blizzhackers from a reputable website. So far thats 2 reputable references to Blizzhackers, which means it meets the requirements.--Salgat 22:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nerdcruft. incog 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Nerdy, perhaps, but whether it is "cruft" depends solely on your viewpoint. You might want to check out articles such as Fhqwhgads or Alt.fan.warlord, which have been allowed to stay despite being, in my opinion, just as "nerdy" and "crufty" as the subject of this article, if not more so. Believe it or not, these types of things have achieved mass popularity within certain communities. Rishodi 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- keep please it is notable calling something nerdcruft is rude Yuckfoo 04:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I(well, not me, but it was provided to me) found a Slashdot article where Blizzhackers(Edge of Nowhere) is explicitly linked to in the article text. Hope this helps in deciding whether or not this should be deleted. Also, to note, if the article is kept, users who have more knowledge about the website will be the primary users contributing. The current article is very poorly done because it was pretty much just plopped together before any of the site staff had any chance to have input. -lord2800 67.134.133.216 05:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Here's the entire text of the abovementioned Slashdot "article" so linked: "Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue Jul 19, '05 11:11 AM from the only-a-matter-of-time dept. Over the course of this morning several people have sent me tidbits talking about an exploit on WoW that allows duping of items. Apparently forum posts are being removed on official channels, but there are a few places where you can learn about the exploit and see screenshot evidence. In equally exciting news, my Rogue on Azjol-nerub is probably 2 hours away from 60 and since Blizzard will undoubtedly fix this bug soon, I'll have to finance my epic mount the old fashioned way!" The italicized section is the link to the Blizzhackers' forum. Several of these psuedononymous tidbits get linked per day. I'll leave it to you folks whether the above, in your opinion, constitutes significant media coverage. RGTraynor 15:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you check the article, that link was added as a reference a few days ago, so you're just a bit late. Have you looked at the most recent version of the article? There is obviously a lot of room for improvement, but nevertheless it's currently much better than it was originally. Rishodi 08:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Thryduulf 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thryduulf 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Now going with Keep per TechTV clip and Slashdot article. Meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Delete per RGTRaynor. JoshuaZ 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)- Keep. meets WP:WEB, I suppose. Mystache 13:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 48 unique G-hits? A poor Alexa ranking? Sounds like the assertions of how much of a giant in gaming this group is are badly inflated. Beyond which, it does not meet WP:WEB on the strength of that article. If people follow the link to the article, you'll see it was just a citation of a gamecheat linking to the original finding. To quote from WP:WEB - "This criterion excludes: Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." This is trivial content, folks. RGTraynor 15:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per failure to meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per RGTraynor --Astrokey44 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Nearly notable by google hits, but not by Alexa. bikeable (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment In response to the above: You apparently did not read all of the information on this page, or did not believe it. I quote: As far as Alexa ratings and traffic reports go, please bear in mind that the website was on a 5+ month hiatus when Blizzard attempted to take the site down due to WoW server emulation. Alexa rankings at this point mean next to nothing to the notability of the site. Also to note, if you do a Google search of the website's new name, Edge of Nowhere(using the search query "Edge of Nowhere forum", to remove the invalid results relating to various other things), you come up with 4,720,000 results. Blizzhackers reached its peak just before Blizzard threatened legal action and the site was taken offline. Since then, its popularity as the respawned "Edge of Nowhere" has never been close to what it used to be. I encourage you all to look at Alexa's daily traffic rate graph which spans the 5-year existence of the site. As you can clearly see, in early 2005 the site had a peak daily traffic rank of under the 10,000 mark and was on a steady incline. You can also note on the graph the point at which the site was shut down, and the relatively poor traffic rankings after that point. I hope some of you reconsider, or at least make a delete vote based on better criteria than Alexa ratings, as I have shown the current ranking of 149,905 to be a false indicator of lack of notability. Rishodi 18:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Beats me where you got nearly five million results from Googling "Edge of Nowhere forum"; I got three unique hits from the same. [31] RGTraynor 19:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- To be fair, "Edge of Nowhere" forum gets 75,000, but many many of these are unrelated. it's really hard to tell. it does appear pretty close to googlish notability, which is why I voted "weak delete". "Blizzhackers" is a more unique word, and actually has quite a few hits... I may have to reconsider, although it takes a lot for a gaming forums page to achieve notability in my book. bikeable (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Decent Alexa traffic suggests that a site is active, but no one who's actually looked at the forum would deny that; they've many registered users and many posts. The problem is that these folks' claim to notability is in significantly impacting the gaming world, and I just haven't seen any genuine evidence of that. I want slightly more than a handful of unique G-hits and a fleeting link on a Slashdot gamers' newswire. RGTraynor 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- By nature online fora have many more google hits, so the level of google hits that could argue for notability increases. See Cruft multiple. JoshuaZ 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete -- with comment: it's not because Wikipedia has articles about similar and perhaps even less notable sites that this should just get a free pass. There will alway be a (too great) number of articles here that really shouldn't be, but that should not be justification to add more of them -- Hirudo 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep -- based on above posts, IMHO there is an insufficient consensus for deletion once the Cabal-ist votes (based on the simple premise that ordinary people should not get a mention on Wiki) are given their due weight -- Disguised pseudonym
- Delete. Tiny, irrelevant self-aggrandising web community, apparently consisting entirely of ballot stuffers. Terminate with extreme prejudice. -- GWO
- Comment. Unfortunately thus far most of these comments people have made have been because of ignorence or prejudice. The ract remains that Blizzhackers has been referenced by multiple reputable media sources, has over 100,000 members with millions of posts, and has legal history with Blizzard Entertainment. You would think these facts would be suffice for being in Wikipedia. And to all you who state about the Alexa Rating or the importance, please do some research before you post, ignorence doesn't help. And do you have any reason to state why this is "self-aggrandising"? And if even it was for promotional reasons, does that subtract from the fulfilled requirements Blizzhackers has provided(not to state that it is)?. And yes, if you feel that this is a ballot stuffing effort, ignore the amount of posts and just look at the content and reasons of each comment, whic is what really matters. See here for how "small" Edge of Nowhere, formerly Blizzhackers, really is. http://www.big-boards.com/board/351/-- Salgat
- No personal attacks please. Also, user's contributions are all to this article and AfD. Fagstein 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete group-vanity, fails WP:WEB. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per RGTraynor. The media section is pathetic, and there's no way it gets around WP:V or WP:NOR, let alone WP:WEB. Melchoir 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was: With the only issue here being 'indiscriminate information', this comes purely down to numbers, so here goes:
- Keep all: 11
- Keep Way of the Weasel, Joy of Work, Dilbert Future and Dogbert's Handbook, delete others: 5
- Merge: 10
- Delete all: 5
- Norway: Nul points
Result: keep WotW, JoW, DF and DH, no consensus for deletion or merge of the rest. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Always Postpone Meetings with Time-Wasting Morons
We most definitely do not need individual entries for each Dilbert book, especially when each article's description is extremely anemic. Delete. It's extremely excessive cruft. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please note that I am taking a long wikibreak effective yesterday. If this means that this vote should be withdrawn, please consider it withdrawn. However, I will not be around to address its results either way. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
ATTENTION: This article for deletion vote includes, as a group nomination, the following articles, because of the same reason -- we do not need individual pages for every single Dilbert publication that came out:
- Shave the Whales
- Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel
- The Joy of Work
- The Dilbert Future
- Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook
- Dogbert's Clues for the Clueless
- Thriving on Vague Objectives
- The Fluorescent Light Glistens Off Your Head
- Don't Stand Where the Comet is Assumed to Strike Oil
- Words You Don't Want to Hear During Your Annual Performance Review
- When Body Language Goes Bad
- Another Day In Cubicle Paradise
- Excuse Me While I Wag
- Random Acts of Management
- Don't Step In The Leadership
- Journey to Cubeville
- I'm Not Anti-Business, I'm Anti-Idiot
- Casual Day Has Gone Too Far
- Fugitive From the Cubicle Police
- Still Pumped from Using the Mouse
- It's Obvious You Won't Survive By Your Wits Alone
- Bring Me the Head of Willy the Mailboy!
- When Did Ignorance Become A Point Of View?
— WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. C'mon, we have every single damn Pokemon monster and every damn weapon system in Gundam there ever was. Well-selling books from a noteworthy comic strip is far less trivial by comparison. RGTraynor 14:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- If I had the time, I'd go through and do the Pokemon, too. Unfortunately, even with the expedited process, I'd be here from dawn 'til doomsday. Besides, "we let it go in other areas" is not really a defense to claims of non-notability. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- At least those articles are unique. These articles all appear to be copies of each other, with one sentence specifically related to the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantine Evans (talk • contribs)
- Merge into an article about all Dillbert books, perhaps? Otherwise Neutral. Mystache 15:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an entertainment guide...yet. Brian G. Crawford 15:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment based on the level of pokemon-cruft around here I'd be inclined to disagree. We are already through the looking glass.--Isotope23 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Dilbert books (or keep) --Astrokey44 17:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I wouldn't mind it being merged, but I don't think we have to force it. Just go ahead and merge it if you want it merged. Mangojuicetalk 17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge: it appears that the only unique content on each page is a single sentence. The rest is just boilerplate. --Constantine Evans 17:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (or merge) per Mangojuice. Deleting such a huge list of articles about notable books requires better grounds than "they're short." --Craig Stuntz 17:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's my point — they're not notable books or articles. Not because they're Dilbert, but because each book in and of itself isn't significantly notable to warrant its own article. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Notability guidelines for books are here. They are not clearly non-notable by these guidelines. What you say about individual notability is a decent argument for merge but not for delete in my opinion. --Craig Stuntz 18:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't have a seperate article for every Garfield book. Individual books such as these aren't terribly notable by themselves. Seperate character articles are another thing entirely, because individual characters (and individual Pokemon, for that matter) can easily be referenced in other contexts. --Several Times 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge some of it into a List of Dilbert books article, but be careful to keep the business books separate from the ones which are just complications of comic strips (I was considering voting Keep on those, but perhaps not). -- Mithent 18:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I can't tell if this is an error or not but The Dilbert Principle doesn't seem to have made the list, even though some of the other business books did. Criticism of the articles as identical copies with only one sentence differing does not appear to be accurate regarding the business book articles. --Craig Stuntz 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all, do not merge. Notable books by a notable author surrounding one of the most popular comics ever. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, The Joy of Work, The Dilbert Future, and Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook. These books are actually quite well-known. The others I'm leaning a little toward Delete. æle ✆ 2006-04-27t20:06z
- Keep - verifiable, plus, multiple listings are obnoxious. For great justice. 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- No, they're not. At least, not in the sense of the WP policy. Please read it. For great justice. 19:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- "For great justice" is right that the stuff on Calton's desk isnot worthy of an article. But Calton does raise a legitimate point. Just because something is verifiable does not mean that it deserves an article in Wikipedia, as "For great justice" seems to suggest. Wikipedia policy makes that clear. HistoryBA 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- There are two definitions of verifiability here. The common 'folk' definition, of 'everything I can see', and the WP policy definition, which specifically excludes things like Calton's desk coffee maker. WP:V is specific in pointing out that only things that are verified by credible sources are to be included. The 'my coffee maker' agrgument is bogus here because it is not verifiable in the WP policy sense of the word. For great justice. 20:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- You're missing my point. I am saying that verifiablity alone does not justify inclusion. There are all sorts facts that are verifiable by Wikipedia standards but do not get included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy makes it clear that verifiability is just one thresholds that information must clear before being included. It must also be significant. HistoryBA 20:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. 'Significance' is a terrible concept for an encyclopedia. Art history is significant to me, but not to others, local history is significant to historians, not to scientists. Nuclear physics is significant to some, not to others. Pop culture is signficant to students of pop culture, not to clasicists. That's why verifiability is the gold standard. For great justice. 21:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Rather than significance, how about notable? I don't think there can be much argument that Dilbert is notable; the question is if each individual compilation of strips is so notable, on its own merits, as to require an individual entry. Given the stubbiness of the articles in question, I'd hazard a guess that the answer at this point is no. Thus, my vote to merge 'em all into a list. If at some future date, someone discovers the Dilbert Code in one of them, then by all means spin it out into an article. Until then, the fragmentation of our knowledge of Dilbert compilations into twenty-three four-sentence-long pages doesn't serve anyone. Eron 22:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- 'Notable' suffers from all the same fatal flaws as 'significance', but I agree that Dilbert should stay, because it is 'verifiable'. Merging to a list is perfectly sane, but does not need AFD permission. For great justice. 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I will gladly retract "significant" from my edit below, and substitute "notable." If "For great justice" disagrees, he/she should take up the matter on Wikipedia policy pages, not here. HistoryBA 23:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- There are two definitions of verifiability here. The common 'folk' definition, of 'everything I can see', and the WP policy definition, which specifically excludes things like Calton's desk coffee maker. WP:V is specific in pointing out that only things that are verified by credible sources are to be included. The 'my coffee maker' agrgument is bogus here because it is not verifiable in the WP policy sense of the word. For great justice. 20:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Gladly, except that there are no policy pages on notability, because .... wait for it.... Notability is NOT POLICY! For great justice. 23:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." That's Wikipedia policy. HistoryBA 02:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, third time lucky, you've found something that is, actually, part of Wikipedia policy, and is so vague that it could mean litterally anything. Thankfully, there's nothing indiscriminate about a cataloguing of books. The section you are reffering to (as you would know if you had read it) says nothing about books. Thanks for playing though, better luck next time! For great justice. 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- While we're talking about Wikipedia policy, you may wish to check Wikipedia:Civility. HistoryBA 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh come on! I've been very patient with you! For great justice. 23:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- "For great justice" is right that the stuff on Calton's desk isnot worthy of an article. But Calton does raise a legitimate point. Just because something is verifiable does not mean that it deserves an article in Wikipedia, as "For great justice" seems to suggest. Wikipedia policy makes that clear. HistoryBA 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all per RGTraynor and Badlydrawnjeff, and because for the majority of the articles there's considerable potential for including notable facts (e.g.: "this collection includes the strip that introduces Asok," "Catbert is named for the first time in this book," etc.) --phh (t/c) 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Or maybe Merge with Pokemon or something. I don't really care, but I don't see any reason to delete it -- it's a pretty well known strip, the books are pretty popular, its not like the articles are need major cleanup, etc. Merging them all into one article would be OK too. Herostratus 21:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Ardenn 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)- Delete per nom. Pokemon isn't notable. Ardenn 22:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Besides the fact that notability is not deletion policy, I don't know what you can possibly mean by that. Pokemon is verifiable, thoroughly referenced, extremely popular, can be written about neutrally etc. What is the difference between you saying that and me saying 'Mozart is not notable'? All you mean is 'I don't like Pokemon'. For great justice. 22:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- What is the difference between you saying that and me saying 'Mozart is not notable'? Given the effect of Mozart on the world of music and culture -- and the world in general, I'd call that statement -- and I'm being charitable here -- utterly and objectively wrong. And given that notability is a requirement for GETTING an article in the first place, it's absurd to wikilawyer about their lack of explicit mention in deletion policy. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- So what, apart from 'it's obvious', is the difference? It's the number of fans? The 'effect'? What 'effect?' I'd venture to argue that the number of Mozart fans is not an order of magnitude different to the number of Pokemon fans. Sure, Mozart was a dead white guy, and, as such, has a historical head start, but I'm not sure of your point. And pointing out that your assertion has no support in policy (you're wrong by the way that notability is a policy criteria for articles) is not 'wikilawyering'. For great justice. 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- W.A. Mozart was a live white guy when he performed the actions for which he is notable, and he was a live white guy when he first became notable by WP's standards. "Number of fans" of a topic is a measure only of shallow but broad notability. Another inclusion standard worth considering is whether there was a substantial and enduring influence on that field. Hundreds of reputable books cite Mozart as one of the most influential composers in the history of music. Pokemon merely entertained hundreds of millions of kids and led to a few imitators. Is each individual Dilbert collection noted in reliable sources for more than "being popular"? (By comparison, there are citations for The Dilbert Principle being discussed by major magazines, and being required reading in university courses, as being an unusual source of influence on the business world.) 209.2.145.43 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that Mozart was alive, and that he is verifiable, and that it is verifiable that he had a substantial impact on his field. It is also pretty obvious that Pokemon has had a substantial impact on its field. Hundreds of books cite Pokemon as one of the most influential phenomena in computer games and card trading games. Mozart, ultimately, 'merely entertained hundreds of millions' of people and led to a few imitators. It is simply a question of 'what I like'. You like Mozart, but not Pokemon. A lot of people share your point of view, while many do not. The mark of maturity however, is being able to differentiate 'what you like' from 'what should go into an encyclopedia. That's what 'verifiability' is for. For great justice. 23:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Besides the fact that notability is not deletion policy, I don't know what you can possibly mean by that. Pokemon is verifiable, thoroughly referenced, extremely popular, can be written about neutrally etc. What is the difference between you saying that and me saying 'Mozart is not notable'? All you mean is 'I don't like Pokemon'. For great justice. 22:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Mhking 22:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge all to List of Dilbert books (per WP:FICT), but divide that into separate sections for comics-compilations and business-discussion books. The vast majority of what phh asserts could be added to make these less boilerplate is trivia, not encyclopedic, and would fail the "hundred year test". The few items of any significance to Dilbert's influence on society could easily be put into the merged list or into the parent Dilbert article; it doesn't help to have them scattered twenty places. Barno 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all except the following: Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, The Joy of Work, The Dilbert Future, and Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook. The rest are cutter-cookie, unexpandable stubs about comic strip collections. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all except the following: Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, The Joy of Work, The Dilbert Future, and Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook per Calton. Most of the others consist of repeating the same information, such as the fact that the book's genre is humour, its price in the UK, and re-identifying the same characters who appear in each book. --Metropolitan90 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge as Metropolitan90. The collections should go; the (pseudo-)management books should stay. See List of published collections of Doonesbury for a sane way to keep the former. -- GWO
- Delete -- These titles can be listed (with a brief description, if necessary) on the main Dilbert page. There's nothing to justify giving them their own entries. A user above says, "C'mon, we have every single damn Pokemon monster and every damn weapon system in Gundam there ever was." I would respond that problems in one section of Wikipedia do not justify bad decisions elsewhere. HistoryBA 13:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Dilbert Books. Eron 15:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge at least the comic books to List of Dilbert Comic Books. One or two lines can be added for each book, e.g., "First appearance of Ratbert," "Shift from Dilbert's homelife to office setting," etc. As a Dilbert fan, I would find it more useful to have this information collected in one place. Maestlin 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep them all. Sure, some are short, but are we running out of pages on Wikipedia? Does one large page versus 25 small ones really make Wikipedia a better place?Turnstep 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you want them kept, try and make them better. Too many of these pages describe the "plot" of the book as follows:
It features around the stories of; *Dilbert, The main character and engineer.
*Dogbert, Dilbert's pet.
*Asok, An intern.
*Wally, Dilbert's co-worker.
*Alice, Dilbert's co-worker.
*The Pointy Haired Boss, The boss.
*Catbert, The Evil Director of Human Resources.
and many more.
--Metropolitan90 03:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Maestlin. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. +Hexagon1 (talk)
14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC) - Merge all of these into a single article. --Polaron 04:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge them all. We do not need a separate article on each book. Hbdragon88 08:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. We already have a list of these books at Dilbert#Comic strip compilations with dates. First appearance dates should be in each character's article (see Category:Dilbert characters). æle ✆ 2006-04-30t12:09z
- Keep all, well-circulated books from a very popular author. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I can tell, the argument for "keep" goes something like this: Dilbert is well-known, and having separate articles for each book doesn't hurt anything. But does it add anything to Wikipedia? Anything at all? I say it actually does hurt by contributing to Wikipedia's image as a collection of trivial information. To people who think it enhances Wikipedia: will you please help me understand why? Maestlin 17:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's not that we neccessarily think the articles enhance Wikipedia; it's more that we think the articles could enhance Wikipedia. Forcing them to be deleted removes that potential, and for what? They're verifiable and NPOV, and this is not a violation of WP:NOT, which are the only relevant policies. These are encyclopedic topics: they're books, some very popular, of a popular series, and people might be interested in learning more about them. Mangojuicetalk 11:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- My question wasn't clear--my fault. How could the articles enhance Wikipedia? In theory, what sort of information still awaits addition? It seems to me the content of each article individually is marginal, but to collect them all in one place would allow readers to see how the series developed over time. I enjoy Dilbert, and that would be useful to me. Right now I would have to go to lots of almost-identical articles for that information. This is not a rhetorical question and I am not trying to cause trouble, I just feel that the "keep" people are seeing something I am missing. Maestlin 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what specifically could be said, but I don't know that much about the books. I dunno, maybe a discussion of the running jokes in each book, or some of the longer-term plots that occur, or reaction from fans, may get them to a point where a list would be ungainly. Let me say that I personally would approve of merging them all into a single article, at least as they stand now, for exactly the reasons you say. However, I have a problem with voting "merge" on AfD unless it's a judgement that the topic doesn't deserve an article: otherwise, we should not be mandating it via process. AfD is a bad way to improve the quality of articles. Mangojuicetalk 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all Surely there is cleanup to be done (although not a great deal), but just as surely is each book individually notable, even as each may, at the moment, have only a stub (for an explication, see here, where I supported "delete" for a poorly-constructed article apropos of the Dave Barry volume Claw Your Way to the Top: How to Become the Head of a Major Corporation in Roughly a Week but where a consensus later developed for "keep" in view of the article's having taken on a form not dissimilar from that of this article. Joe 16:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Saraswat & Co.
This seems to be blatant advertising. The "company" in question fails most, if not all bullets listed in WP:CORP. A google search on this company yeilds nothing. AreJay 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unless someone can prove notability, and remove the POV(which is pretty much everything). Dp462090|Talk |Contrib|
16:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC) - Delete per above; advert. PJM 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:48, 27 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. Tawker 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Knee jerk liberal
This page is poorly written and doesn't seem to have any real point. It isn't accurately defining a political stance, instead it seems to be nothing more than the heavily US-centric political views of a single User. Rusty2005 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as POV essay. And, non-verifiable, as the article admits: "There's no good explanation for where the term 'knee-jerk liberal' came from but we all know what it means." Eron 16:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into liberalism. Mystache 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per Eron. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete & Comment I've just noticed that for some reason there are two seperate pages, Knee jerk liberal and Knee jerk Liberal. If one gets deleted, with the other be automatically deleted as well? Rusty2005 17:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as POV. I'd argue that the term is notible, but this is just politicruft. The other one probably won't get deleted unless someone slaps an AfD on it too. Pat Payne 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just speedied the other one. Pat Payne 17:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as per Pat Payne. Or is that a knee-jerk solution? --Several Times 18:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Doesn't meet WP:NOR, WP:NPOV or WP:V, so kill it with fire. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per above, purge it with fire and rub down the ashes with donkey dung. RGTraynor 19:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Go ahead and wipe it even though I think Mystache is the only liberal in here for some reason with me? <grin>. Pat Payne that's a really good laugh for me, too. I 'wrote' it, as there was no way to define what I have as my self-emaciating description in my user page. It is just something my mother called my father all of my childhood. Did not mean to cause a stink with POV. I will try to control my tears. cpswarrior 20:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete politycruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Sounds more like an Urban Dictionary definition. --Arm 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, POV--Mhking 23:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Oh there's no doubt this article should be deleted for all the reasons stated above. Wolf ODonnell 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Knee jerk delete. Well, somebody had to say it. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete rant --Ajdz 05:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- I@n ≡ talk 17:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. No citations. May even be a page for somebody trying to promote the term into general usage. Couple of things like soapbox, publisher, battleground from WP:NOT could apply too.In1984 23:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
 |
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Stephanie Adams. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was speedy keep. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. 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 deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Royboycrashfan 
03:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Taylor Riccio
Non-notable individual Berry 23:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC) - sorry, should prob. have made a speedy
- Delete per nom. _-M o P-_ 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7. No assertion of notability. Fan1967 23:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per Fan-1967. Gwernol 23:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; article also too POV Mets501talk • contribs 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Fan1967. DarthVader 00:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom. Tazlor 01:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as per others. --Deville (Talk) 02:51, 28 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.
