Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming
List with impossibly vague criteria: "...a commercial failure for a video game hardware platform is generally defined as a system that either fails to become adopted by a significant portion of the gaming market place, or fails to win significant mindshare of the target audience." Characterization of the items on the list as "commercial failures" is largely OR synthesis. JChap T/E 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - this could be a great article. It's encyclopedic, verifiable, and quite interesting for our readers. - Richardcavell 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Whether or not something is a "commercial failure" is subjective and, thus, inherently unverifiable. It may be interesting, but so is a conversation about "Negro league players who had the most successful major league careers," but there is not a WP list for that. JChap T/E 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, we have similar lists that have survived AFDs before (preparing dinner to search for them). I suggest removing every unreferenced game, and start anew. -- ReyBrujo 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The few games that are on there have some references, but it is the assertion that the games are "commercial failures" that is OR synthesis. JChap T/E 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- If I say it is a commercial failure, it is original research. If IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, eWeek, CNet, etc, say it is a commercial failure, it is not. If they make original research, it is not our task to judge. -- ReyBrujo 01:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's a different list: "Computer and video games someone has said are commercial failures." That list would be objective and not utilize the subjective criteria of the list being discussed. I'm still not convinced that such a list is encyclopedic, however. JChap T/E
- Films that have been considered the greatest ever, Films considered the worst ever, Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever. Maybe renaming it to Computer and video games that have been considered commercial failures is better for you? -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's a different list: "Computer and video games someone has said are commercial failures." That list would be objective and not utilize the subjective criteria of the list being discussed. I'm still not convinced that such a list is encyclopedic, however. JChap T/E
- If I say it is a commercial failure, it is original research. If IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, eWeek, CNet, etc, say it is a commercial failure, it is not. If they make original research, it is not our task to judge. -- ReyBrujo 01:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The few games that are on there have some references, but it is the assertion that the games are "commercial failures" that is OR synthesis. JChap T/E 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as "commercial failure" has written original research all over it. -- Koffieyahoo 00:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep commercial failure is determined by the external references used in the article. While the article may have original research in it the Subject does not. Keep per comment from Richardclavell. In response to Jchap2007's comment above - subjective and verifyable are not inextricably linked and objectivity is not a requirement for verifyability from reliable sources. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. The American Heritage Dictionary defines subjective as "Proceeding from or taking place within an individual's mind such as to be unaffected by the external world...existing only in the mind; illusory." I don't believe that such a thing is verifiable. On the other hand, so-and-so made such-and-such statement would be objective (and verifiable). But "List of computer games, hardware, etc. that someone has declared to be a commercial failure" still would not be an acceptable list. JChap T/E 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep nothing to do with OR. This is an informative and well-referenced list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Some are clearly objective--ET, PacMan (2600), etc. are clear failures largely responsible for various happenings in the game industry. LactoseTI 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, needs some expansion. The list is referenced and original research does not apply here. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep This was cited by Kotaku and I have personally found it to be interesting. Perhaps changing the criteria to "hardware or software that does not return its investment" or something as objective. Konman72 02:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 02:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this has some pretty good potential. It needs some expansion, but it does not warrant deletion. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 02:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Somewhat reluctantly, delete - the previous, much longer version was terrific, but if it's just going to be this current version, delete. I don't think it's very accurate... Psychonauts, for example, seems to be a "cult hit" and gets a lot of positive reviews... despite very poor sales, I don't consider that a commercial failure. Kat, Queen of Typos 03:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is actually the very definition of "commercial failure". Sure it was a critical success, and was well received by those that bought it but it was a huge commercial failure. It is usually used as a nech-mark when discussing commercial flops since it bombed so hard the developer had to declare bankruptcy. Just saying. Konman72 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreeded, bad sales and low profits are what make something a commercial faliure not what the critics thought. An article should not be deleted for applying a term accuratly. --Edgelord 03:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is actually the very definition of "commercial failure". Sure it was a critical success, and was well received by those that bought it but it was a huge commercial failure. It is usually used as a nech-mark when discussing commercial flops since it bombed so hard the developer had to declare bankruptcy. Just saying. Konman72 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I have reintroduced the removed content with [citation needed] tags. I'll personally look after this article to make sure that it is given sources in the near future. Dwayne Kirkwood 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Richardcave. --Corporal Punishment 03:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The list is referenced. I also disagree with the OR cliam because there are 4 list about games and movies considered the best and worst ever and they survived deletion for a combined total of ten times. None of those articles have been deleted as OR and I don't see anuything significantly different about this list that makes it OR. If anyone want proof I know where to find 9 of them quickly. --Edgelord 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per ReyBrujo. It's true that currently much of this article is unreferenced, however, with stringent rules for inclusion and mandatory referencing for each entry it can very be an encyclopedic article, as similarly noted in this AfD. --SevereTireDamage 03:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automotive flops and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures for my reasoning. I need to catch my breath, and just can't explain it again right now. AdamBiswanger1 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As a list it seems to be in violation of both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. As an article, it is highly subjective and opinion. Displaced Brit 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This would benefit from more sources and probably more stringent inclusion criteria, but I see no reason why this can't become a verifiable and encyclopedic article. BryanG(talk) 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above. Macktheknifeau 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I just wanted to point out that while the list of failed gaming consoles is I think, a quite good idea (but what, no Shanda EZ, guys?), a complete list (or okay, only a list of those produced by notable game companies) of video games which were commercial failures would ridiculously long, containing maybe as much as 60%-80% of all games released (after all, this is very much a hit-driven industry), and this even before accounting for vapourware. The number of games released is obviously much higher (thousands more) than the number of automobiles that have been commercially marketed (though the list wouldn't be as large as say, List of commercial failures in fiction publishing or List of commercial failures in the Hollywood movie industry). If the list was only to be selective and so deliberately shortened to a manageable size, then the question arises about how this selection was decided, and if it is a subjective choice. Can someone come up with what this selective criteria would be? Such criteria would also help with the POV/OR objections raised in this discussionBwithh 04:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I mean, the opening line is a staggering and very misleading understatement about the industry:"The computer and video games industry has seen several commercial failures since its birth in the late 1970s". Only several? (Wow, this must be by far the most successful entertainment media industry of all time). And it should be early 70s, not late 70s. Bwithh 04:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per Bwithh. This is the list that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends... Morgan Wick 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)- Keep Per nom. *~Daniel~* ☎ 05:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Per nom??? Morgan Wick 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, Actually I was trying to say Per above that means same as on above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Per nom??? Morgan Wick 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. In its current state there seems to be a lot of OR, with few entries cited. Also, the title itself implies POV, and would limit the list to games that have been specifically labelled as a "commercial failure" in a primary source, not games that were simply less successful than had been hoped. --Mako 06:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What I would support is moving all the POV and uncited stuff to the talk page and then moving it back to the article as citations are added. The article also needs to be moved to a less POV title Mako 09:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a great article, and only helps to highlight consoles and how the market works. Could use more citations, aswell as less POV. Believe it or not, failure is a part of the industry aswell, and it should be touched upon. Havok (T/C/c) 07:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment Actually the article is currently very inaccurate and misleading about "how the market works" Bwithh 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Strong keep It needs sources, but I love this article. I think it's a great idea for an article, I think it has much encyclopedic value, and I wouldn't dispute that anything mentioned in the article was a failure. -- Kicking222 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep I just added a few citations (not hard at all, but I only did hardware, the games themselves might be tougher and therefore may need pruning), and some of 'em are great reads in themselves. Recommended: Gizmondo Bizarro! But I feel the games that can be referenced should also be kept. Bustter 11:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the video games section as excessively inclusive list and Rename list as List of video game console commercial failures as per my objections above. Will revise my vote if someone can come up with reasonable answers to the issues I raise Bwithh 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I can't vouch for all the games but some games do appear to be well sourced. E.T for example is well covered and I don't see any reason to remove that. The game list may need to be limited but I believe that an complete deletion is a mistake. Also the Psychonauts section is well sourced as well --Edgelord 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep It has many, many references stating the games as commercial failures (i.e. not OR). If a few entries are uncited, just remove them, move to the talk page, or add a citation needed template, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Crystallina 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete video games section as impossible to keep up and Rename hardware list per Bwithh. Of the thousands of video games released every year, it strikes me as impossible to a) manage the list and b) decide what a commercial failure is. I agree with the editors who say it's too subjective. The 'commercial failures' wikilink doesn't go to a page about what a commercial failure is - it goes to Category:Commercial failure lists, which...(wait for it).. includes this list. I'm going around in circles and it's making me dizzy. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Gray Porpoise 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but any unsourced entries should be removed until they can be WP:Verified. -- stubblyhead | T/c 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE. While some have sources, alot won't...and it will lead to many edit wars over opinion. RobJ1981 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep IF AND ONLY IF each game that is listed has an Independent, reputable, third-party source that Verifies the game was a failure by statements issued by the game designers. Otherwise, this list is OR. No one but the Game designers/publishers know if it is a 'commercial failure'. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Verify or Delete. Hate to break this list, really, it is quite thorough and interesting, but like dozen of people have mentioned already regarding the commercial failure lists: what is the objective criterion defining commercial failure? Net negative profit? Then you must verify with profit figures. Cdcon 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, interesting and fairly well written article, with some sources. JIP | Talk 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep not implicitly vague or original research. — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but consider a move. Whether something is regarded as a commercial failure is quite subjective. I would prefer "List of video game products regarded as commercial failures" or some such thing. Deco 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is encyclopedic. While subjective, it is passable. --Scienceman123 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep AfD is not cleanup. You can set a bar on what's considered a "commercial failure" and back each thing with sources. Therefore, the article can work. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: but delete every entry that doesn't have a citation(or find one for it). The entry for Psychonauts is what every item on this list should look like. Mitaphane talk 11:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: This is one of those iffy articles. I propose that very strict sourcing be used for it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment List "too long" or "too difficult to maintain" are not valid arguments. Difficulty simply is not a criterion for deletion; and the sort of expertise required to maintain an entry like this one is not in short supply.
- Comment: I mean nothing along those lines, it's just not always easy to define a "failure". There could be a lot of POV problems is what I meant. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment List "too long" or "too difficult to maintain" are not valid arguments. Difficulty simply is not a criterion for deletion; and the sort of expertise required to maintain an entry like this one is not in short supply.
- Keep Not OR, most items are referenced in the linked articles, just not on the list. It could use soem clean-up in this regard. Ace of Sevens 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Ace of Sevens-- not OR if followed by major references -- Solberg 01:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg
- Keep, useful. --Kuroki Mio 2006 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a very useful article, if a bit long. Maybe split into commercial failures by generation? Just thinking out loud here. Definitely keep, though. Ruaraidh-dobson 00:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Request I voted Keep, however I think the article should be renamed "List of *major* commercial failures in computer and video gaming." -- Solberg 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg
- Seconded There are lots of commercial failures in any industry. Some of them aren't particularly notable. Ace of Sevens 07:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Rename if you have to. I would have closed this a long time ago as speedy keep if not for the very few deletes. SynergeticMaggot 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but I do suggest adding a more specific definition of what constitutes "failure". For example, include a sentence saying something like "For purposes of this article failure is defined as reliable, independent news sources referring to the product as performing very poorly in the marketplace." That would help avoid the inclusion of borderline products that some people thought were failures and some don't, and also help avoid uncited inclusions.Dugwiki 22:43, 14 August 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 International Institute of Management. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. 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. |
See talk page for closing arguments. `'mikkanarxi 06:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was 
Speedy keep. Someone make it more obvious that it's not online-only early in the article so we don't go through this again, nearly or otherwise. Morgan Wick 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ISold It
Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB guideline. Alexa ranking of 37,915 [2] --TBCTaLk?!? 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep see here[3]. They have a store down the street from me. It's an actual chain of stores, pendant on the "ebay phenomenon". Somerset219 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, sorry, I accidently mistook it for an online retailer. Thus, I'm withdrawing this nomination (so basically it's a speedy keep).--TBCTaLk?!? 04:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] T-kernel
Creator of subject created article. Violates WP:SPAM, WP:OR, and WP:VAIN.03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 August 2006.
- AfD not properly linked on article page - now fixed LinaMishima 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment-- thanks, LinaMishima. I'm not sure why it was such a struggle to get this listed. Could the links in the template I dropped be defective? Thanks for signing me. :) Dlohcierekim 14:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Whilst I personally think that this subject may warrant a reference quest, and it is certainly verifiable (it was presented at an academic conference), I strongly believe in setting an example against vanity. Whilst the content could be expanded in a usefull manner, to leave this would set a horrible example to vain people everywhere. LinaMishima 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: SoSP is the most exclusive conference on operating systems. It's quite difficult to get a paper into it. On the other hand, there's no way to know whether this will have staying power. Gazpacho 04:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to comment After sleep, I might try to track down the paper. The paper itself may reveal more about it's worth to be in wikipedia. Suspect it would be better used on an Operating Systems theory page as a reference, rather than as it's own article - most academic OSes see little real world use or notariety. LinaMishima 05:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I've decided this can wait until the paper gets a few citations. Gazpacho 05:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Waiting to determine if paper citation is a hoax, sufficient notability, or not, but right now it's vanispamcruftisement. Morgan Wick 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as is describes an OS from a one page paper that accompanies a poster in the SOPS poster session. The paper itself says little more than what the wikipedia article says, although the authors are working on a more elaborate paper [5]. Moreover, since we're talking about a SOPS paper from 2005 you would at least expect some citations to show up in google scholar. However, although the paper is there (when you search for Gu and Stankovic) there a no citations at all. Actually, also with google sec I'm unable to find any other papers that cite this one. Hence, in my book WP:VAIN applies. -- Koffieyahoo 08:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Koffieyahoo. Mr Stephen 08:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Categories exist; if anyone wants this list to complete categorisation, I will restore it to userspace on request. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of television shows currently in syndication
This article is yet another bloody list and as all the lists I have found seems to be in violation of both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The article has a small introduction which I shall reproduce here in full: "This is a list of television shows currently in syndication in the United States." A list then follows along with a second list "Shows entering syndication for the 2006-2007 television season" which is just made up of a brief preamble, this time slightly larger, and another list. Also I really do not see how this article can ever be verified as either complete or accurate. Displaced Brit 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I object to the organization and find the list almost unmaintainable, but it's not a ridiculous idea. I'll let other people comment. AdamBiswanger1 03:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete High mantainance lists (as opposed to ones with fixed membership, only growing) would be better as catagories. Plus, lists are best used when an explaining citation is needed for the entry to make sense - which in this sense should not be needed. LinaMishima 03:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also suffers from being entirely American in origin, inappropriate for such a broad name LinaMishima 03:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest taking a looking at Wikipedia:Categories vs lists or WP:LIST--TBCTaLk?!? 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also suffers from being entirely American in origin, inappropriate for such a broad name LinaMishima 03:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename List of television shows currently in syndication in the United States; it helps the reader navigate through articles of a related topic, thus fullfilling the criterias of the WP:LIST guideline. --TBCTaLk?!? 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Personal opinion is that sub catagories would be easier to maintain, and more appropriate, as Lists are best used when the entry onto the list should be qualified. But that's my personal stylistic opinion, and ultimately doesn't disagree with you as such. LinaMishima 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep and rename, but only because of the amount of red links here. I'd rather use a category otherwise. BryanG(talk) 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. Lists are good for encouraging content expansion, whereas this is impossible with catagories. LinaMishima 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's a big list with useful info. --Caldorwards4 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: There's a part of me that thinks this is a WP:POINTed nom, especially given the list's length and history. Morgan Wick 05:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)- Delete per nom. This will be IMPOSSIBLE to keep up to date. Doczilla 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - articles shouldn't say Current, especially not in the title. Jesus Murphy! WilyD 12:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I am not implying Black current should be deleted. It's good. WilyD 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per TBC's suggestion. This is a legitimate topic that people researching the media world might find incredibly useful. Failing a renaming, at the very least, categorize it. - Thorne N. Melcher 17:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It is a large, unmaintainable list, so it is better suited as a Category. Cdcon 17:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and categorize. Too broad and unmaintainable for a list. I would support a list (or category) listing shows produced specifically for syndication, as opposed to just listing the hundreds of rerun series out there, too. 23skidoo 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and categorize per 23skidoo. -- Slowmover 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and make it a category. As an article it's just going to be a whopping mess. --Wafulz 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep lists. They do not violate the proscriptions against original research or directories. Lists do not have to be complete to be valuable. Fg2 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- comment This applies equally to catagories, to which in terms of completeness lists do have the advantage, as non-existant articles can be featured. However one could argue that an out-of-date list is of little value, and this list's subject matter is prone to seasonal changes. As catagories are easier to keep up to date, this would make a catagory more viable LinaMishima 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete useless list of original research, outdated information, and no notable links to it. -- Xinit 21:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Seems like a bad faith nom, user is just out to nominate lists for deletion "I hate bloody lists!" --CFIF (talk to me) 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unmaintainable. -Sean Curtin 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 08:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this potentially useful list. NTXweather 13:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete (working around those asked to come here to 'vote'). Ian¹³/t 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TPWW
 |
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}} |
Doesn't look notable to me, especially given the inactive periods mentioned in the article. I could use some more opinions, though. --Spring Rubber 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's all about the forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destor (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 July 2006
I don't think it needs to be deleted. James
- Weak delete - the number of users may make it notable (not sure if there's a threshhold number), but it just doesn't feel notable. BigHaz 08:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - It's one of the most long-standing and popular wrestling sites on the Internet. and was even in a book. --MikeMetaled 11:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- My name is JT, a poster at the site and I was the one who started the article. There is much more about the site then what was mentioned, but I have left it to other members of the site (as well as visitors) to add their own input to the article. The site has been around for a total of 8 years, and does have a following notable enough among wrestling fans and smarks to be on Wikipedia. I actually started this article after looking up TPWW on Wikipedia and decided to start my own when I couldn't find one. Also, there is much more about TPWW then what I mentioned (popular articles, other trademarks), but have left it open to more knowledgable people to add to the article...and it will take more than one day (which is less then the amount of time given to the article before the deletion notice) to build it up. jayteecool 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also to note the inactive period of time...the site was never inactive. I mentioned the slowdown of the site to note the impact of the forums community which became even more popular during this period and lead to the revival of the news & column section, as well as other areas of the site. Also during the time, the forums led to some of the most popular staples of the site which were created on the forums. jayteecool 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Quite a big forum; it has about 400 active users. PTWC 7:02 5 August 2006
- Also, it was listed on DirectTV's top 100 websites in 2000.
- Very popular and noteworthy site. Keep it.
- Weak Keep The notable posters part needs to go, however. Danny Lilithborne 01:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Definite keep.
An excellent web site, I made changes to a few things on the page as per suggestions made, and cleaned up the grammar and spelling errors. It is definitely an entry worthy of keeping around as TPWW is certainly one of the most popular wrestling websites on the internet today. -Shaved Munkey
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 153,185 [21]; has not been mention in any majoy media sources (no evidence of being mentioned by DirectTV); and 39 Google results [22].--TBCTaLk?!? 05:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Here's the evidence of the DirectTV mention. [23] --MikeMetaled 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Strong delete per above, doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Definitely non-notable 203.45.253.41 13:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. I have to say this so often that I should write an essay about it. Forums have a very high standard for notability on Wikipedia. They must not only be popular, but have a reason for notability outside of the fact that they are a popular forum. My classic example is that of EVE Online, which has a forum with over a hundred thousand active members, over 370,000 threads, an Alexa rank of 5000, and millions of posts, yet it doesn't even get a mention anywhere in Wikipedia, even in the EVE Online article. Why? Its just not notable. There's no reason someone outside of the EVE Online community would have heard of it. Thus, it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's an unencyclopedic article (bordering on advertisement) for a seemingly non-notable site (which, as User:PTWC stated above, only has 400 active members). Its Alexa rank is an unencouraging 153,185. -- Kicking222 11:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per active member count, Alexa rank, no references, etc etc etc Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
- Delete fails WP:OR, WP:Websites with Alexa rankings below 100 000 really need some sort of importance to get articles , what have you. WilyD 12:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Doesn't seem to be notable - but that's coming from my perspective. I'm sure the only people who would ordinarily come in contact with this article would feel differently. Small, but mostly harmless articles should be kept. Cdcon 17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I realise WP:SPAM is only a guideline, not a policy, but it really makes a lot of sense. WilyD 18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The real question is whether or not its a vanity page. That's the only spam criterion it might trigger. I see the article as a good-faith, not-vanity attempt, but I can understand if you feel differently. Cdcon 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- An article can be both made in good faith and spam, it merely requires the creator not to realise that Wikipedia is an attempt to build an encyclopaedia, rather than free web hosting for their non-encyclopaedic content. WilyD 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I realise WP:SPAM is only a guideline, not a policy, but it really makes a lot of sense. WilyD 18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per above well-stated arguments. Wickethewok 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB, article fails to establish independent relaible sources giving the site non-trivial coverage.-- danntm T C 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I also ask why people are so convinced this is an advertisement when the site has been around and established for 8 years, with several new members every day. It clearly doesn't need to be advertised, we just want a notable website acknowledged. MikeMetaled 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable, Neutral and verifiable RaveenS
- Delete per WP:WEB, Mukadderat
- Keep A site that has no signs of slowing down. The forums are huge and so is the actual website. The article is pretty much harmless.
- Bullshit that this got erased. There is some crap on Wikipedia and this couldn't crack it?
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Uselessjunk
|
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 website Fireplace 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination Garrepi 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'd desperately love to see this article deleted, as history clearly shows the article is just a playground for the forum members from this site. I'll predict that before this AFD is over, this discussion will at minimum need to be SProtected. Fan-1967 15:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per WP:WEB and the fact that the article seems to be nothing but a dumping ground for vandalism. I count at least 15 reversions in the first 50 edits alone. Also fails WP:WEB by miles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment/perhaps a weak keep Googling "UselessJunk" gets about half a million hits (although only 188 are unique), and its Alexa rank is very high. Perhaps this site has enough notability to warrant a WP article, but the article itself should be semi-protected for a little while until a true article can be written and the vandalism dies down? -- Kicking222 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User:Hooveruj who claims to be the site owner has been indefinately blocked for vandalism along with a sock User:H00ver. Fireplace 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- QuestionDid the sock user H00ver have the same IP address as Hooveruj? There is a possibility of an imposter. Live Dog 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I noticed the alexa rating too! It is very high. However, google has indexed only 73 unique sites that link to uselessjunk.com. That is very low. If you ignore both of these facts and look at the site and how it pertains to WP:WEB, it fails. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Bigtop 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I began the article as a serious venture. My mistake was making it immediately known to other users who may not have taken it as seriously. I apologize for stepping on any toes, but Uselessjunk.com receieves 750,000 page loads per day. Uselessjunk.net (the forums) have well over 30,000 members. Perhaps this will go into your consideration. Live Dog 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Question I'm not disagreeing with your assesment, I'm just asking for your opinion. Why are there so many active members, but so few people link to uselessjunk? If there were 30,000 members, wouldn't some of those members link to uselessjunk from their webpage/blog/sites? I mean, google only found 73 (now 74) unique pages. Wouldn't some people be publishing reports and articles about the site? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:The "unique hits" in google are only filtered from the first 1000, so they're not accurate when the total is way over that. Fan-1967 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The members usually rarely link to their own websites for two reasons: to maintain some level of internet anonymity and because external links to personal websites are generally considered spam by the UJ community. I'm not sure about all the online rankings, Hoover would be a better person to ask about that. Alexa lists 508 sites that link Uselessjunk.com. As far as the unique hit calculations, I'm not sure of that either. But I said 600k-700k in "page loads". Not neccessarily unique users, but hoover could clarify that better.Live Dog 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:The "unique hits" in google are only filtered from the first 1000, so they're not accurate when the total is way over that. Fan-1967 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Question I'm not disagreeing with your assesment, I'm just asking for your opinion. Why are there so many active members, but so few people link to uselessjunk? If there were 30,000 members, wouldn't some of those members link to uselessjunk from their webpage/blog/sites? I mean, google only found 73 (now 74) unique pages. Wouldn't some people be publishing reports and articles about the site? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- QuestionHow does uselessjunk.com compare with phun.org, a similiar site in content, purpose and membership? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phun Live Dog 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — perhaps that page should be deleted too, but for now, this page fails WP:WEB and thats a fact American Patriot 1776 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-notable website and vandal magnet. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment:The nature of this site may make it a target for vandals, but that doesn't warrant the article not being incuded. George Bush's wiki article is vandalized fairly often, does that make him not noteworthy? -mafew
- Comment - The George Bush wiki article is vandalized fairly often. However, George Bush is notable. Uselessjunk is not. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment By who's accessment? Yours? 3/4 of a million page loads a day makes me think it is notable. -mafew45
- Comment By WP:WEB #1, Fake-a-wish.com, which is a prank site on the uselessjunk network has received national media attention several times. http://www.southernvoice.com/2004/5-7/news/localnews/falcons.cfm http://www.uselessjunk.com/article_full.php?id=558 http://www.uselessjunk.com/article_full.php?id=556 http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_925010.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2004173431,00.html
- Livedog, You should add those directly to the article. First read Wikipedia:Citing sources to see what, when, and where to cite and Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to cite. When you're done, come back here to state that you've asserted notability so we can all judge the new citations. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- CommentI am sure hoover could provide more links and documentation, but it seems he has been erroneously blocked for sockpuppetry. He is user:hooveruj. The user h00ver was some anonymous imposter. hooveruj edited the entry to improve the entry as he said in the edit "(site owner cleaning up inaccurate information published)". If anyone would like verification that hooveruj is the actual site owner, please feel free to contact him at his whois info with Netsol: sales@swelldeal.com. Please unblock this erroneously blocked user.- Livedog
- See Wikipedia:Appealing a block. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- CommentAnother similiar content site, ebaumsworld, had similiar vandalism problems when a wikipedia entry was first created. The article was up for deletion similiar to this case. The resolution wikipedia gave ebaums was to restrict access to the entry to prevent vandals. Hoover would like to request similiar treatment to get the history and facts of the article correct without vandal participation.- Livedog
- Delete: per above. The independant sources--well, one source, The Sun just says "a website"--refer to fake-a-wish.com not uselessjunk.com. On top of that, the articles are more about the rumors fake-a-wish.com has spread rather than the website itself. Mitaphane talk 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree with you on some stuff. The sun article doesn't even say what website posted the news and probably shouldn't belong on the article (right?). About the southernvoice article it does make mention to the fakeawish.com site and it seems to be semi-non-trivial coverage. However, this AFD is about uselessjunk not fakeawish. Even if this article was about fakeawish, though, one article isn't enough (multiple non-trivial published works). I disagree on one point. I think the southernvoice article was about fakeawish.com, not just the rumors that fakeawish spread. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: When I say an article is "about" a topic, I mean its the main topic being discussed. Given the headline, "Atlanta Falcons quarterback dispels gay rumors", I would say thats the case. If "about" means directly pertinent then I would say the article is about fakeawish,the rumor, and the Falcons. Regardless of our semantic differences, you are right; we need multiple non-trivial sources to gauge notability for this site. As the article stands, it does not have that. --Mitaphane talk 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree with you on some stuff. The sun article doesn't even say what website posted the news and probably shouldn't belong on the article (right?). About the southernvoice article it does make mention to the fakeawish.com site and it seems to be semi-non-trivial coverage. However, this AFD is about uselessjunk not fakeawish. Even if this article was about fakeawish, though, one article isn't enough (multiple non-trivial published works). I disagree on one point. I think the southernvoice article was about fakeawish.com, not just the rumors that fakeawish spread. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article's directly qoute Hoover, the admin of this site-network, and whom you've banned (ironically). This network of sites is important enough to have caused A star QB in the NFL to dispell rumors about his sexuality. How is that only trivial coverage? I'm sure if you ask Mr. Vick, he thinks it's important ~ mafew45
-
- Just curious: do you feel being cited as the source of malicious rumors is something to be proud of? Fan-1967 20:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I would just like to point out that the way many users found uselessjunk was after it was cited as being a reference of celebrity news by radio personalities such as Howard Stern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_stern (I believe it was mentioned multiple times by the character "Stuttering John") and/or Mancow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancow's_Morning_Madhouse The forum also frequently posts news articles for discussion, covering items such as foreign relations to marijuana law to gas prices to current celebrity news. Frequently I have found that the information on Uselessjunk is more current than that of local news stations. It seems that given the fact that it is used as a source of current information by radio personalities and individuals around the world (the forum browsers/users), it hardly would seem to be non-notable. I would urge you to allow the user Hooveruj (since he is the site owner/administrator) to address your concerns about Uselessjunk's "notability" H00ver 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply - H00ver, you need to find reliable sources that back up your claims. Once you find the reliable sources, then read Wikipedia:Citing sources to see what, when, and where to cite and Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to cite. When you're done, come back here to state that you've found references of notability so we can all judge the new citations. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Hooveruj has been unblocked for several days now and is welcome to contribute. Fireplace 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep - while there are numerous keep 'votes' from single purpose accounts accompanied by arguments that *cough* have little bearing on Wikipedia policy, the net of the numerous established editors arguing for keep and the potential citations presented is that this is apparently notable software. Now wouldn't it be nice if someone actually put those citations in the article? --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RemoteAccess
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
non-notable software. Prod was removed without explanation, afd'd for same reason. i kan reed 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No sources, does not meet WP:SOFTWARE --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
*not a policy (yet) WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.
- CommentIsn't that a matter of personal preference? I thought the point of Wikipedia is to provide info on anything. If you start bringing personal preference into it saying things are "not notable", then what's the point? It existed, it had it's following. Sure, it's dead now, but I think info should be here. Shouldn't be marked for deletion, either. Dopefish 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: "I thought the point of Wikipedia is to provide info on anything.". Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Fan-1967 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: OK, fair enough. But I still think marking this one for deletion while many other similar software articles are not seems like "picking on this particular subject". I wikified the article, there's several other articles about BBS software that should also be marked if this one was. Dopefish 16:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- There are probably thousands of articles that should be deleted. That's irrelevant to this one. Fan-1967 16:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: OK, fair enough. But I still think marking this one for deletion while many other similar software articles are not seems like "picking on this particular subject". I wikified the article, there's several other articles about BBS software that should also be marked if this one was. Dopefish 16:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment the real reason notability is used as a criteria, is to stop advertising bloat. It's hard to maintain NPOV when 10000 different articles are created by someone with a personal stake in it, and not very many people are familiar enough with the subject to maintain an NPOV structure to it. In the end, it would undermine wikipedia by going for the throat(credibility) i kan reed 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- No. Notability is not subjective. If you want to demonstrate that this subject is notable, please cite sources to show that one or more of the WP:CORP criteria for products and services are satisfied. Uncle G 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- pissed:I think that marking this article for deletion is extremely inconsiderate and ignorant. Remote access bbs software was a strong force in the pre-internet computer hobbist era. if you're going to delete THIS article then delete all the other bbs software entries, and go ahead and take out any internet related communications software articles pre 1995. i like some of these wiki-nerds need to find other hobbies, too. another thing i hate is people hiding behind politics and policies to defend their egos regarding their views on wikipedia articles Mroblivious1bmf 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Continue to make the arguments that you are, using the fallacious "if article A then article B" argument, and you will not make a case for keeping the article. I've already explained how you can make a case for keeping the article. Please cite sources. Citing sources can and does change editors' minds. Contravening the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy will not. Uncle G 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete per nom, and Brian (How am I doing?). Tychocat 23:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Remote Access As a whole was the BBS package to run in the 90's as well if you look at the links on the BBS page it is listed there. It was the main runner in the 90's and I think this page will grow with time. Although I have been the one of the ones changing it I would like it to stay. I still run a bbs so I am biased, but in time this page will be like everything else on Wikipedia. IMHO this is the first Draft and will grow with time when old sysops look up there software. You know they are still out there. And this page is accurate. Vagabond
- We don't accept personal testimony of Wikipedia editors. Readers must be able to check the accuracy of the article for themselves, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability. Currently, they cannot, because you have cited no sources at all. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm not sure why delete this entry would even be in question. RemoteAccess was one the most important pieces of software to hit the streets. It, with other BBS software, with their compliment of applications, forged the path to the commercial internet as we know it now. Omitting it from the Wikipedia would be like removing the civil war from US history books. If you aren't familiar with the subject matter, it doesn't necessarily make it insignificant nor not noteworthy. One resource to view is http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/ACTION 03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Importance is not the issue. Cited sources, demonstrating that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied, is. That hyperlink is not a source, for example, because the web page that it links to is a simple directory list of ZIP files for downloading, not an article written about the software. It provides no means for verifying the content of this article. Please cite sources. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Incorrect sir. The link includes articles to an entire time line to the BBS era (specifically - http://timeline.textfiles.com/ ) RemoteAccess is still in use today as there are BBSs using the software to power their BBS. I still haven't found article in the WP:CORP criteria that would void this entry, beyond someone has a undisclosed, personal reason for omitting it. One of the external links is to the software's own site, where you can still buy it. What else needs to be 'verified', it did and still does exist? ACTION 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not like it how people with more time on their hands than others can participate in ugly acts on wikipedia. Whether it be the structured anarchy of 'deletionists' who feel that anything they do no know about does not exist, and should not belong on wikipedia, or people that do outright vandalism. Remote Access is an award winning software. Hide behind as many policies as you want [even unimplemented ones], it doesn't change a fact that BBS softwares played an important part in the history of computing, and the internet. Mroblivious1bmf 04:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- In addition to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, please also read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This whole thing strikes of "Well, we don't know about it, so it needs to be deleted because you can't prove it exists". As was said by others, it was good solid BBS software for a long time. It's hard to find stuff on it, because most of the records aren't likely easily available. I never used the stuff personally, it just strikes me as a totally unncessary deletion, and yea, I agree with the remark about "hiding behind policy". I think it's a perfectly valid article, even before I wikified it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopefish (talk • contribs) 2006-08-11 06:25:36
-
- In fact that is one of our primary reasons for deleting things, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please cite sources. If "the records aren't [...] available" for something, then it is unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a primary source for documentation on something which has no available documentation outside of Wikipedia. The place to document and to record for posterity BBS softwares that aren't otherwise recorded is a book, a magazine article, or another web site. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. To demonstrate that this is not the case here, and that this software really has been documented by someone independent of its author already, please cite sources. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with keeping it.. I don't think someone should get rid of such an important piece of computing history at all. I would view that as ignorant and foolish, as would alot of other people who understand and know about what BBS's are.. AND how important they were in the coming around of the internet. Some people should do a little research before decided something is worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarknessBBS (talk • contribs) 2006-08-11 08:37:32
-
- Please base your arguments on our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If there is research to be done, then do it! Look for sources, and cite the ones that you find. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Clearly a lot of people want to keep this entry. Instead of complaining, and ignoring Wikipedia policies, I would think if they devote some effort they could find some sources. Votes that ignore Wikipedia policies are routinely discounted. Fan-1967 13:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Bschott; sources and citations, as explained at length by Uncle G, are the way to change minds. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - significant bulletin board software in its day. Outriggr 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. I am not one of the people who "dropped by" to vote Keep. I was interested to see an article on it, and the first thing I saw was AfD. The article itself is full of external links that imply its notability; I can't cite any peer-reviewed journals, no, but there are 33,000 google-hits for "+remoteaccess +BBS", and this is ten years after anyone cares about the software. Thanks, Outriggr 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment can you cite sources, provide links or Verify this? --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Source http://timeline.textfiles.com/1990/ Dispute this... ACTION 21:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT Alright...that is easily done. That is not concidered a Reliable source hence it is not acceptable to use for a source to support your position. Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources.
- I will also note that no one has provided Reputable Publications to cite this software's fame. All we have is people saying 'I remember it so it is popular'. Basicly this article (and all the arguments for keep) have failed to satisfy WP's Verifiable standard. --Brian (How am I doing?) 02:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT: I assume, BSchott, that you'll be spending the night putting about 700,000 Wikipedia articles through AfD because they do not meet your version of verifiability. You are being very coy with policy. For God's sake, we have featured articles on Bulbasaur and Torchic - why don't you start with those to make a WP:POINT? Outriggr 02:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT Outriggr, that was uncalled for. Please, do not use personal attacks and remain civil. These comments do not improve the article's chances of passing the AFD. Instead of insulting me, why not take some time to improve the article and cite a few sources, perferrably Reliable and Reputable to make people change their mind? This isn't to make a point...this is to refute arguements and try to show that per wikipedia's own standards, this article falls short. If someone could cite some reliable and reputable sources, then I would be happy to change my thoughts on this article. --Brian (How am I doing?) 05:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Question What about this article have we not verified. It merely states the software exists. What more do you want? Open the archive and read the WHATSNEW.TXT for more then that. Were you some WWIV BBS fan or something? Seems this is a personal battle for you. It's just an entry in the Wikipedia, that will probably only be viewed by those that know what a BBS is anyway. ACTION 12:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We've got a couple of decades of history guys.
What do you want? All we've heard is 'cite' this, and several links to wikipedia policies. We've cited. we've given websites, and documentaries that you can view for free. Honestly, what more do you want?
I would really like to come to a consensus with this. The people involved with bbsing were notified, and they have spoken. I don't want this to develop into some wikipedia ego war. It's obvious that having this article considered for deletion was a mistake. [talk of remote access bbs on a vintage computing website] [reference to a unix RA clone] Mroblivious1bmf 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and any software that existed pre Web (or pre web explosion) of the internet is going to be hard to find sources for. I think Uncle G is making a WP:POINT on software that existed pre-popular internet. Does anyone have old issues of BoardWatch? Otherwise most references will be to USENET postings or FIDOnet archives. 132.205.45.148 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment popular BBS software for DOS: Telegard (TG), Renegade (BBS) (RG), WWIV, SearchLight BBS, WildCat!, RemoteAccess. 132.205.45.148 23:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. RemoteAccess was a popular BBS software for the DOS platform, and somehow still manages to return a healthy 32,500 Google hits a decade after being obviated by the Internet. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep there was computer stuff around before the internet guys... this was one of the more important BBS packages. ALKIVAR™
12:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I am the person who submitted the RemoteAccess artical to Wikipedia, and I admit I am am a noob to submitting articals here. The initial issue I had was Wikipedia said that the artical needed to be "Wiki'fied", so I asked for some assistance in a #BBS IRC channel, and Dopefish was kind enough to jump in and help out. Then we ran into the issue that someone had requested for it to be deleted, and it was discussed by several people on IRC, but it was certainly not my intent to turn this into a war. As I understand it, the real issue is that the software is considered "Notible" unless media (newspaper, magizine) sources are cited. This is difficult since RemoteAccess was popular before the world wide web explosion. Andrew (and most RA sysops) lost intrest in it by 1996. There was only one popular media-publication for BBS software that I know of, which was a magizine called Boardwatch. While Boardwatch did contain frequent articals on RemoteAccess, these articals would be difficult to locate because Boardwatch no longer exists. Incidently Andrew Milner was on the cover page of the January 1995 issue, standing next to his Jaguar. You can see a thumb sized image of it here: http://web.archive.org/web/19991116131747/boardwatch.internet.com/mag/online95.html Unfortunatly Boardwatch did not post the older issues from 1990-1994 on their web site, and even the later issues from 1995-2000 are not well archived by the Internet Archive so most articals are lost. I think the best proof that RA existed, and its popularity can be cited by the large number of third-party utilities that were written for it. I have started adding links to RA specific files, and other links to prove not only that RA existed, but it was indeed very popular in its day. I will continue to search for more proof, but my concern is that someone will delete it before enough sources have been cited. Incidently, I have no commercial intrest in RemoteAccess. I was a RA beta tester since the early years, and I was also a North American RA Support Site. User:pcmicro
- Keep citing: http://www.rapro.com/ Rswindell 17:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. RemoteAccess was a very important piece of BBS software. Computer stuff, specifically "online communications"/telecom/whatever predates the internet be several years. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't make it non-notable. --Myles Long 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We have pages for Simpsons characters, but not for BBS software that thousands of people used? At least the stub entry should be left over so that someone else may add on to it. BBSes were the driving force of ALL computer hobbyists in the 1980s. Just because you are too young to remember it doesn't mean that an article should not appear! How incredibly arrogant!
ClintJCL 19:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - probably one of the most popular BBS software around. // Gargaj 19:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment if Uncle G is so hot and bothered on the policy citations and references why doesn't he go ahead and nominate thousands of articles on less significant bits that exist on Wikipedia without references? 132.205.93.83 01:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Guys, I understand your thoughts on this subject and how you can view it as popular, but the fact remains that Wiki does have policies and guidelines in place. If you could find old magazines, books or some form of hard copy at least that can back up your claims then this would be accepted by the wiki policies. The simpsons characters have pages because they meet all the standards. The claims are verifiable, not original research and presented in a neutral point of view. User:ClintJCL I will remind you to remain WP:CIVIL and stop making Personal Attacks. You are making general statements about people whom you do not know. User:Myleslong, I remember the BBS days and was using them on a 286 (with 640k of RAM and a 2400baud modem) long before the internet was around. I remember this software, and using it before being introduced to Gopher, Telnet, and finally the Internet. However, unless wiki's policies can be meet, the article can not be kept. This AFD is not about how many people raise their hands and say 'I remember the software, so let's keep the article' as the Admin who will make the call on keep or delete does not take those comments into concideration. Mainly what they look at is the arguments made and if the article passes all of wiki's standards. Also, it's not anyone's job to have to race all over wiki making AFD's. Instead of making personal attacks, contribute. Nominate those articles yourself if it bothers you so. Don't expect that it's someone else's job. --Brian (How am I doing?) 02:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- comment Brian, please put your life story on your own page, isnt this discussion supposed to be about this article?
also, i find it hard to understand how you keep referring to Personal Attacks when people are making generalizations, not attacking one person.
Wouldnt it be a personal attack if i were to say for example, that "brian is a guy who goes trying to get 'CRED' by around deleting articles and hides behind vague wiki jargon" ?? this ofcourse is just an example, i am more interested in retaining this FINE article instead of personal banter. Mroblivious1bmf 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- CommentMroblivious1bmf, I'm not taking this personally, nor am I engaging in personal banter. Someone is accusing people who this this article is worth deleting as being too young to know about the subject. I provided information disproving that. Also, note that the Articles for Deletion process is designed to get community input. Your views are not being heedlessly dismissed. Also remember that voting here is done by consensus, meaning that a majority is not enough to delete. If the article has merit as it stands, it will remain. Mr Obvious, how are we supposed to write a useful encyclopedia if we don't have a set of standards that govern what we will allow ourselves to publish? How are we supposed to verify that your, my, or anyone's submissions are accurate, for example, if this software has never been covered in the press? I hope you'll read Wikipedia:Verifiability and understand why we have these debates. I assure you that nobody here has anything against you or this software personally - it's just that many, many people try to use Wikipedia to publish announcements, opinionated statements, or unverifiable information. It's nothing personal - these articles just do not meet Wikipedia's standards. A word of caution: in the true Wikipedia spirit, voters/commenters should try to judge the merits of the article itself in the light of the rules (see WP:RULES)--Brian (How am I doing?) 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I understand the need for references, citations, etc, and why this is a big deal for Wikipedia. But couldn't we simply remove this article from AfD and instead put in a tag saying that citations are needed? I think that by now, even without "proper" citations, there should be little doubt that the software was actually notable. --Cotoco 02:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- comment while a nice thought, the problem is the AfD process is almost over at this point. The 'citations' tag really is used to give the authors a chance to cite their sources before the Prod and then AfD is assigned. If it is notable, then there should be newspaper, magazine or books mentioning it. If so, then people should cite them. If people feel so strongly about a keep, then obey the process and wiki standards/guidelines, and do research and cite sources. The burden of proof is on the article writers to provide evidence that the article shouldn't be deleted...not visa versa. --Brian (How am I doing?) 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- question you're really enjoying this, arent you brian? (this is not a personal attack, just a question)Mroblivious1bmf 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- comment Enjoying contributing to Wikiapedia? Yes I am. Anything that can clean up and make wiki more accurate is very much worth doing. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- comment i wouldnt really call it contributing, this all seems like some game you enjoy playing, not a personal attack [before you post a link], just my
[and others] opinion on this. Mroblivious1bmf 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- BOOKS
■ Bibliographic information Title: Tales from the Motherboard ISBN: 0973788003 Publisher: Jon Watson Author(s): Jon Watson PAGE 19 [AMONG OTHERS] REFERENCES REMOTEACCESS BBS SOFTWARE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
■ Essential Guide to Bulletin Board Systems Patrick R. Dewey Mecklermedia published 1987-01-01
■ Bulletin Board Book: Setting Up and Running a Successful Bulletin Board System/Book and 1 5 1/4 Disk IBM Tom Scott M & T Books published 1992-08-01
■ The Complete Cyberspace Reference and Directory : An Addressing and Utilization Guide to the Internet, Electronic Mail Systems, and Bulletin Board Systems Gilbert Held Wiley 1994-09
■ National Directory of Bulletin Board Systems, 1993 Patrick R. Dewey Mecklermedia Corporation 1991
■ Create a Computer Bulletin Board System L Myers Tab Books Hardcover 1991-12-01
■ Handicap BBS list: A listing of handicap electronic bulletin board systems Bill McGarry press:Research & Development Division 1991
■ Computer bulletin board systems and the First Amendment: The common carrier solution Jennifer R Dowd 1993
■ Electronic bulletin board system final report Duane Smith Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State 1998
- cite
■ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/bbs.htm
■ http://www.podfeed.net/podcast/Tales+from+the+Motherboard/1223 Show #7 - BBS SoftwareShow #7 - BBS Software BBSes are still alive and well, albeit in smaller numbers than before. There is software available for all platforms and support as well. This is the final show for TFTMB, I am moving on to host The Linux User Show on The Podcast Network. Stay tuned to this blog and my personal blog at http://www.jonwatson.ca for more info on that. Citadel BBS Software MBSE BBS Software Galacticom BBS Software Remote Access BBS Software BBS Documentary BBS Software List Fidonet Website Mikly Way BBS This will be the last TFTMB Podcast because I'm moving to The Podcast Network (TPN) to host The Linux User's Show.
■ http://www.cigital.com/silverbullet/
■ http://www.net-security.org/vulnerability.php?id=14731
■ V.E.R.A. -- Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/vera/vera_19.html (references RA bbs)
■ http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/hack.html :::thc-rahk.zip remote access bbs hacking tools
■ http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/bbsfaq03.txt introduction to remote access
■ http://computerdictionary.tsf.org.za/dictionary/terms/r.html references RA bbs
■ http://cd.textfiles.com/cream06/readme.1st remote access on cream of the crop Compact disc
Mroblivious1bmf 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment nicely done on the books though the websites are not acceptable by Wikiapedia's standards on Reputable and Reliable sources. The only missing information that would satisfy WP:V is specific page numbers in those books where RA is mentioned. I am just pointing out the standards in place so please stop the veiled attacks and stay WP:CIVIL. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
*Comment That is YOUR biased opinion regarding those websites. Not all of those websites are privately run and owned.
Furthermore, those "standards on Reputable and Reliable sources" are just a guideline, not a policy. At this point, there is NO question that Remoteaccess is notable :D Mroblivious1bmf 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Out of the hundreds of bbs packages in the "List of BBS software" article, RemoteAccess is one of the few notable packages that deserves its own article. Better citation may be in order, but deletion should be out of the question. --Sodium N4 20:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It should be noted that Jason Scott, creator/author of http://www.textfiles.com and of the BBS Documentary is probably the most prominent BBS historian in existence. Therefore, his website should not be discarded as an unreliable reference just because it's a website. --Cotoco 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I wish to cite the following additional electronic Newpaper/Magazinepublications:
FidoNews is an electronic NewsPaper for FidoNet, published by Tom Jennings, the original founder of FidoNet.
FidoNews Volume 7, Number 13 ( 26 March 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0713.txt
Page 2: Dale Barns states that the new version of Menu Master will support Remote Access BBS.
FidoNews Volume 7, Number 24 (11 June 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0724.txt
Page 5: An announcment that the "RA_UTIL" echo was added to FidoNet, for discussions on third party utilities for RemoteAccess.
Volume 7, Number 26 (25 June 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0726.txt
Page:25 Dave Thompson mentions he writes programs for QuickBBS and RemoteAccess.
Volume 7, Number 33 (13 August 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0733.txt
Page 11: Dennis McClain-Furmanski mentions RemoteAccess and FrontDoor in an artical about BBS Networking The Soviet Union.
FidoNews Volume 8, Number 6 (11 February 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0806.txt
Page 12:John Bierrie breifly mentions RemoteAccess and 5 other BBS programs in his BBS_UTILS echo artical.
FidoNews Volume 8, Number 8 (25 February 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0808.txt
Page 7: Todd Looney mentions that his SNETDOOR is compatible with RemoteAccess.
FidoNews Volume 8, Number 18 ( 6 May 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0818.txt>
Page 7: FidoCon '91 will include a seminare on configuring Remote Access. Page 24: Dave Appel mentions that the Fidonet FileBone currently carries 24 FDN's including one for Remote Access.
FidoNews Vol. 8 No. 24 (17 June 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0824.txt
Page 24: WORLDCON 1991 Announcment mentions that Andrew Milner, author of RemoteAccess will attend.
FidoNews Vol. 8 No. 25 (24 June 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0825.txt
Artical by Tom Jennings on FidoCon '91. FidoCon was a yearly convention of Fidonet sysops, and the speaker list included notable people such as Steve Wozniack of Apple Computer. Page 18 lists the "Remote Access Representitives will attend, for a discussion on how to install RA.
FidoNews Vol. 8 No. 32 (12 August 1991
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0832.txt
Page 3: In the announcment for the The 1991 International BBSing and Electronic Communications Conference, it mentions that Andrew Milner (RA Author) will be present to describe the future of RemoteAccess.
FidoNews Vol. 9 No. 29 (20 July 1992)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0929.txt
Page 4: Fredric Rice explains how to configure a user-defined origin line under Remote Access.
FidoNews Vol. 9 No. 31 (3 August 1992)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0931.txt
Page 6: Announcment for the Second Annual International BBSing and Electronic Communications Conference, IBECC'92 mentions that Online Communications will be attending to represent both FrontDoor and RemoteAccess.
FidoNews Vol. 9 No. 34 (24 August 1992)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0934.txt
Page 24: RemoteAccess is one of the 24 FDN (Fido Distribution Networks) carried by the FidoNet Filebone at this date.
FidoNews Vol.10 No.30 (26-Jul-1993)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1030.txt
Page 5: Larry Eggers complains about RemoteAccess representitive Bruce Bodger enforcing shareware registrations in FidoNet.
FidoNews Vol.10 No.45 (07-Nov-1993)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1045.txt
Andrzej Bacinski briefly mentions RemoteAccess.
FidoNews Vol.11 No.17 (25-Apr-1994)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1117.txt
Page 4: Ralph Merritt mentions that the NewtNet File Distribution network main hub runs RemoteAccess.
FidoNews Vol.11 No.27 (34-Jun-1994)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0952.txt
Page 14: Fredrick Rice describes confusion with configuring Remote Access use the RA to UUCP utility. Page 17: Fredric Rice describes how to allow Remote Access users to access the internet from the BBS.
FidoNews Vol.11 No.37 (12-Sep-1994)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1137.txt
Page 8: Andrew Leniart describes "FALSE SECURITY PROMOTION" in the way that RemoteAccess stores the users passwords as CRC-32. According to this artical, the same artical originally appeared in the the Australian PC Review computer magazine.
There were several additional FidoNews articals which also mention RemoteAccess. Another note, all these issues of FidoNews mention the current version of RemoteAccess near the last page. In case anyone does not consider textfiles.com a valid source, there is another link to the same articals (archived as .LZH files) found in the FidoNet Artical.
WoeZine Electronic Magazine from the Underground BBS Scene. By definition, an ezine is an Electronic Magazine or periodic publication.
Woe was a much respected BBS modding group in the 1990's, and their ezines are also archives at scene.org, which catered to the underground scenes: demo scene, art scene, music scene, and bbs scene.
Here is an artical on RemoteAccess found in Woezine issue 10, 1998
http://www.thuglife.org/woezine/
http://www.thuglife.org/cgi/load/load.cgi?/woezine/releases/wz010.zip
http://www.scene.org/file.php?file=%2Fmags%2Fwoezine%2Fwz010.zip&fileinfo
:: The RemoteAccess(ra) Scene Where did the RemoteAccess scene go? this famous and in many eye's infamous BBS-software. In early 1994 when the first Betas of RA was realeased many sysops looked there eye's up and saw this BBS-software, this software who was too easy to configurare that people never used more than a few weeks to mod it and it was ready. A lot of PCB sysops look'd at this pathetic software and wondered, was is this shit? and took a look at it. They saw the most easiest to use menu system ever being made to setup a board that even my kidbrother who is 7 years old could start a BBS and make it popular. Alot of newbie sysop's started to build there BBS:s in RemoteAccess and soon almost 50% of the europian Bulletin Board Systems where RemoteAccess certified And with alot of board running RA the modding people started to build there groups to release "doors" to RA and to there own boards. Around 1996 there where about hundrets of Modding-Groups active like: RA-force, MAD, TRAP, RUDE, CROW, IDS, COT, COFFEE, NAILBOMB, NOVA STORM, S!P, DX, XPress and alot more or less unknown groups. German was a big holdout for alot of these groups. You didn't have to do anything as a sysop, everything could be found at most of these modding groups. As a lame newbie sysop you could find about 100 of LastCaller Doors, about 50 Note 2 Next User door, a total of 200 Doors with unknown features (like lamer-killers, random quotes and userdupers) About 20 different rumour doors, somelike 300 page-the-sysop doors, userlisters, bbslisters, userconfig doors, and even clocks you can tell the user what the local time is (whaow!, i'm impressed!). And the best - they all where free. Doors with shareware shit never got used becouse RA-sysop's could always find a look-a-like door that was freeware. With all these plugins/doors it wasen't hard for a newbie sysop to choose system. Not to say all the utils that was available, status-doors, top download/upload and so on... As usual in the scene, all PCB-sysops got pissed off all these newbie sysop's didn't know how to run a REAL board, so all the modding groups As usual in the scene, all PCB-sysops got pissed off all these newbie sysop's didn't know how to run a REAL board, so all the modding groups started to say "now with pcb lightbars" / "now got pcb-ansi" / "pcb style" so all RA-sysop's thought that was kewl, they will soon run a 100% pcb clone. Alot of ideas to doors to RemoteAccess (RA) where directly taken from the PCB modding groups, even the ansi where ripped, that's the main reason the PCB-sysops got angry. Well, as every good start it have to end, alot of modding groups died most becouse of the "ideas" was empty, and the BBS-scene in general was fading out, and worst of all - The Developers behind RA have stopped developing it. Ofcouse was RA 2.50 not buggy but alot of sysop's wanted to see Even more features but there it stopped. RemoteAccess source code was later sold (expensive) to a man with name "bruce morse" who still (today) is working on a new version but he seems to work very very very slow so alot of RA-fans started to build there own RA-clone's, as the structure of RA was free. In 1998 the RA-scene is 100% dead, there is only 1 real active group left producing RA doors - Coffee from UK - Respect! One of the more famous RA-clones is "eleBBS" which is still in beta-status and the GUI/windows version that is named "tcRemoteAccess/32" they are both being developed and they are both in Beta-Stage, but they are not giving up so respect to them too! They are both YK2.
The Offical BBS FAQ describes RemoteAccess in detail. This electronic periodical was first written in Augest 1994, and is still maintained by the sysopworld staff.
http://sysopworld.com/bbsfaq/ch03.3.5.htm#3.5.20
As a final Citation, I would like to point out that Wikipedia currently has a definition for the JAM Message Base Format which was developed by the author of RemoteAccess and the author of FrontDoor. I hope that this entry further valiates that RemoteAccess is indeed notable. I now rest my case. :)
Pcmicro 07:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep RemoteAccess was one of the most important softwarepackages used for BBS's. Need proof? Simply google RemoteAccess BBS Software and most of the 220.000 hits are about this particular softwarepackage... Tdevries 16:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (once a RemoteAccess BBS Sysop, 2:280/704)
- arf arf i'm going to beat chester to the punch here and say that i believe wikipedia doesn't accept google hits as citations. That being said,
i'm sure the entry is saved, _BUT_ I hope to see some more support and constructive comments. This camaraderie is really showing the youtube generation of the internet what made bbses special. Mroblivious1bmf 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP' are you nuts? RA was one of the most popular Shareware BBS Systems for the PC. I called at least a dozen local BBS's that ran on RemoteAccess --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable software with high historical value. bbx 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rod Allen Drinking Game
|
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}} |
Unverifiable and no original research. This article has no encyclopedic value, and the origin of the game can be traced to one blogger who admits to creating the game three days ago. [37] --dtony 05:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. You don't have to be in school for it to be made up in school .... Daniel Case 05:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-encyclopedic rubbish. - Richardcavell 05:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - extremely non-notable, unverifiable, and very stupid. --S-man 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedic Value? Are you kidding me?! Search drinking games as a general subject on Wikipedia and tell me how many hundreds of entries there are! I assume that those, however, ARE of "encyclopedic value." This was very clever and I vote that it stays. I had it forwarded to me, and I have since forwarded it on to several family members and friends. With the Tigers gaining so much television and media exposure, and all with Rod Allen and Mario Impemba as the faces of these great Tigers, I would say that it falls into the category of current event relevance. As far as it being "verifiable," I verified it at Buffalo Wild Wings on Saturday night with a group of friends - what a great and fun game.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.57.149 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per Nomiator. Couldn't say it better myself. Also, I believe this is something to remember: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. --Bschott 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Submitter is a life-long Tigers fan and has nothing but respect for both Rod Allen and Mario Impemba (worthy successors to George and Al!). As easy as it is to get swept up in the current Tiger fever, drinking game articles are more suitable to blogs or personal websites than an encyclopedia, especially games that are specific to a small group of friends. --dtony 17:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is user's sole edit. Daniel Case 13:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since you raised the issue, I went and checked Category:Drinking games. Yes, it's well-populated ... but looking at a random selection of articles there, I was astounded at how many are utterly unsourced. And the one Google I did, on Thunderdome (drinking game) turned up one hit independent of Wikipedia or its mirrors, at barmeister.com, which I do not have the time to check for reliability.
I think it's time to go through and winnow this category down some ... it's far too vulnerable to WP:NFT-type stuff. Daniel Case 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- I'm going to have to agree that the category needs to be whittled down a bit. Wikipedia shouldn't become a drinking game repository. For reference, barmeister.com is of the "Submit a drinking game" variety, so its reliability is questionable; it's best as a backup source. --Wafulz 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Buffalo Wild Wings not being a reliable source. --Wafulz 12:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is a game that is fun for the whole family and just as notable as any of the other drinking games. --X96lee15 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Fun for the whole family"? A drinking game? Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- well, that part was sarcasm, but the other part about being as relevent as any other of the drinking games on wikipedia stands. If you delete this article, you have to delete every other article. --X96lee15 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, just the ones that fail to show any existence independent of the Wikipedia article or its mirrors. I went through the drinking games category and found about four that are now on AFD. Thanks for the heads-up ... we appreciate it! Daniel Case 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- you obviously didn't look hard enough, because I was able to find independent existence of this game. Just because a thing is new, does not preclude it from a Wikipedia entry. Rod Allen has just recently become the Tigers' announcer and only this year has hit excitement level rising enough to warrant his own game. If the consensus is to delete this article, then I will save the wiki-source for this page and will re-submit the article at a later time when I'm sure it's deemed "worthy" --X96lee15 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The so-called "independent existence" is the blog post linked to up top. As you'll note, it is three days old.
As a rule you'll notice there are no TV-based drinking games in the drinking games category, because not only are they quintessential fancruft, they never really catch on and I doubt anyone actually plays them (Besides, they're not really games, just observations about the show's clichés made in the form of a drinking game. And "X drinks when Y happens" gets old fast). Daniel Case 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The so-called "independent existence" is the blog post linked to up top. As you'll note, it is three days old.
- you obviously didn't look hard enough, because I was able to find independent existence of this game. Just because a thing is new, does not preclude it from a Wikipedia entry. Rod Allen has just recently become the Tigers' announcer and only this year has hit excitement level rising enough to warrant his own game. If the consensus is to delete this article, then I will save the wiki-source for this page and will re-submit the article at a later time when I'm sure it's deemed "worthy" --X96lee15 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you post what you found please? Also, if the page is deleted, resubmitting it will just get it deleted and protected. --Wafulz 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- [38] shows 10 non-Wikipedia references. Granted, it's not a lot, but the activity in question is only a few days old. And concerning a re-submit, I will wait until it is more notable. Like I said previously, things being new do not preclude them from wikipedia. I'd call myself an anti-deletist. --X96lee15 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately, pretty much every link mentioning it is a blog, which do not count as reliable sources. And unless the Rod Allen Drinking Game becomes an enormous sweeping phenomenon, or outrageously popular, it won't merit an article. It is still not notable, not verifiable, an inside joke, and is basically something made up at school one day. The fact that it's barely half a week old is only one of the many, many reasons it should be deleted. I could just as easily create a Mike Lange drinking game with drinks based on every time he says something outrageous, and it would just as easily be worth deleting. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor should it become a catalyst for insignificant fads. --Wafulz 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- who the heck is Mike Lange and why would you want a drinking game for him?!?!? That's preposterous. Like it ot not, Rod Allen is an excellent sportscaster and this article is without-a-doubt-relevant. And maybe one of the 10 links returned from google was a blog, the others were not; they were message boards. There is a very big difference between the two. --X96lee15 03:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- This pretty clearly illustrates my point. Mike Lange is significant to the Pittsburgh Penguins and to NHL fans and has his own drinking games. There's no difference between his significance and that of Rod Allen. About message boards: If you'd like I could make a post on hfboards (hockey fan boards) to spread the Mike Lange drinking game to prove message boards are also unreliable sources. --Wafulz 12:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- While I don't care about Mike Lange, you have the right to create a Wikipedia article on him and/or his drinking game, if it's significant enough. If there is significant message board chatter, then I'm all for it. --X96lee15 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, quite the opposite is true. I do not have the right to create an article on a Mike Lange Drinking Game if there is significant message board chatter; message boards are not reliable sources. It would be very easy to create a message board fad- this is why articles like Happycat are constantly being deleted. Wikipedia is not for fads or something made up at school one day (WP:NFT). --Wafulz 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. My only beef with this whole deletion is that there are other less-relevant (IMO) "Drinking Games" already on Wikipedia. That's why I'm opposed to this deletion. X96lee15 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately, pretty much every link mentioning it is a blog, which do not count as reliable sources. And unless the Rod Allen Drinking Game becomes an enormous sweeping phenomenon, or outrageously popular, it won't merit an article. It is still not notable, not verifiable, an inside joke, and is basically something made up at school one day. The fact that it's barely half a week old is only one of the many, many reasons it should be deleted. I could just as easily create a Mike Lange drinking game with drinks based on every time he says something outrageous, and it would just as easily be worth deleting. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor should it become a catalyst for insignificant fads. --Wafulz 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- [38] shows 10 non-Wikipedia references. Granted, it's not a lot, but the activity in question is only a few days old. And concerning a re-submit, I will wait until it is more notable. Like I said previously, things being new do not preclude them from wikipedia. I'd call myself an anti-deletist. --X96lee15 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, just the ones that fail to show any existence independent of the Wikipedia article or its mirrors. I went through the drinking games category and found about four that are now on AFD. Thanks for the heads-up ... we appreciate it! Daniel Case 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- well, that part was sarcasm, but the other part about being as relevent as any other of the drinking games on wikipedia stands. If you delete this article, you have to delete every other article. --X96lee15 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Fun for the whole family"? A drinking game? Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep What are you people, Sox fans??!? --Beal99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.33.95 (talk • contribs)
— Possible single purpose account: 24.148.33.95 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
-
- Volunteer online open-content encyclopedia editors who uphold standards that were established long before most of us began editing. Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is hilarious --Tony Eveready—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.235.195 (talk • contribs)
- Yes, but not in the way that you think. Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep This keeps younger (21 years+) kids watching Tiger's games—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.235.195 (talk • contribs)- Note Hilarity and appeal to younger viewers are not arguments for notability or encyclopedic value, and both of those "keep" votes were entered by the same IP address. --dtony 08:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, 69.241.235.195, but I struck your last keep because you have already had your say. Also, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. (what was per the WP:AFD page) --Bschott 17:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--referenced today in Detroit Free Press--71.13.216.11 21:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Mike C. Tiger's Fan
- Keep Mentioned in the Detroit Free Press. Is it notable yet? [39] --ThatsHowIRoll 22:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- More accurately, the fact that it was in Wikipedia got mentioned. This strikes me as hilariously irresponsible journalism considering the piece was written today but the article was marked for deletion before then. The Rod Allen Game, featuring the Tigers' television analyst on FSN, has made it into on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia.com. --Wafulz 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I wasn't using the newspaper as a source for the game; just saying the fact that a journalist and his editors thought the game was notable enough to mention it in a major Detroit newspaper adds some validity to it. There is only one line about Wikipedia in the article; the rest of it is about the game, First, it was Big League Chew. Now, another Tigers-based fad is sweeping the state. Like Wafulz said above unless the Rod Allen Drinking Game becomes an enormous sweeping phenomenon, or outrageously popular, it won't merit an article. The Detroit Free Press said it was sweeping the state, does that mean you change your stance on the issue? --ThatsHowIRoll 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The game was three days old when it was posted, and the article mentions Wikipedia as its only source. Everything outside of the first paragraph is quoted from Wikipedia. It celebrates the fact that a drinking game based around Rod Allen made it onto Wikipedia. Basically, the only reason the game got a trivial mention in the online ticker was because it had a Wikipedia article, which is exactly why we don't want articles like this on the site. My stance remains. --Wafulz 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete — WP:OR and all the others above. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I first saw the term Rod Allen Drinking game on a Myspace comment that dates back to 7/6/2006. So the game wasn't invented 3 days ago, just posted on a blog a few days ago. I understand that Wikipedia does not feel like Myspace and blogs are good sources. But no matter how the game got notable, the fact is now the game is notable. People play the game. It was mentioned in the Free Press. If you search Rod Allen on Yahoo, the first "Also try" is "Rod Allen drinking game" [40] If you don't watch the games or know who Rod Allen is, I don't feel like you should decide if the game is notable or not. I dont expect people in California to find it notable, but in Detroit it is. Just because a thing is new, does not preclude it from a Wikipedia entry. --ThatsHowIRoll 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The fact remains that it was a completely trivial mention based off of notability implied in that it had a Wikipedia article. The newspiece asserted notability through Wikipedia having an article- you argue the Wikipedia article asserts notability through the newspiece. Do you see the same problem I see? Also, the Yahoo! thing is irrelevant. See Google bomb. --Wafulz 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- We have different opinions on the news piece. You seem to think it is about how the game got an article on Wikipedia. I feel like the article is about telling more people about the game, hence the another Tigers-based fad is sweeping the state line. Followed by the rules and an example of the game quoted from the Wikipedia article. Its not a nation thing, it a Michigan thing. I'm sure most people don't know the importance of Big League Chew to the Tigers, but in Detroit, everyone knows. The problem is that the Wikipedia article has become the sole source of the game. That doesn't mean the game doesn't exist. --ThatsHowIRoll 03:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The "sweeping the state" line gains a lot of support based on the fact that it has a Wikipedia article. Big League Chew has also been around for about 25 years and is significant to more than just Tigers fans- the fact that it's important to them has a brief mention in the "Trivia" section. You're making it sound like the Big League Chew article exists solely because of its significance to the Tigers. --Wafulz 12:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Detroit Free Press mention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Jeff, The DFP mention was only in relation to the Wiki Article. The newspiece asserted notability through Wikipedia having an article but you saying Keep as if the Wikipedia article asserts notability through the newspiece. The newspiece came out 3 day after the AFD was put into place. The only mention of this 'game' was on a users blog, they admit to making up. Before making a snap decision, I recommend looking over the history of this debate. --Bschott 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I know. I also know that the game was widespread enough for someone to have thought about a news article about it, check wikipedia about it, and then note that Wikipedia has an entry on it. The game is obviously notable if you need notability to make a decision, and the game is now verifiable. My position stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Jeff, The DFP mention was only in relation to the Wiki Article. The newspiece asserted notability through Wikipedia having an article but you saying Keep as if the Wikipedia article asserts notability through the newspiece. The newspiece came out 3 day after the AFD was put into place. The only mention of this 'game' was on a users blog, they admit to making up. Before making a snap decision, I recommend looking over the history of this debate. --Bschott 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I also want to remind people, one newspaper article does not make anything 'notable'. Notability standards usually require citing more than one major news source. Please look at a few of the Wiki guidelines. Wiki is not a Publisher of Original Thought - Specifically - Original inventions: If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move (or drinking game), it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day! Since the newspaper article was written after the Wiki page, and refers specifically to the wiki page, the article is in violation of this rule. Sources cite on an article must be Reliable - Specifically - Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference. The newspaper article references the wiki article as a source, hence the wiki article would be self-referencing by using the newspaper article as a source to verify this game. The fact of the matter is, this article fails two of the Wiki policies on Article Standards. No Original Research, and Verifiability, and the majority of anons in this discussion are not basing their statements on the Wiki Standards but on their personal feelings for a sports team. As it is jeff, I personally feel your stand holds no merit when applied to the Wiki Article Standards. --Bschott 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- So are you trying to say that the article would be okay if the Detroit Free Press had written the article and I created it today? The point is simple: this article does not run afoul of any sourcing as the subject has been reported about in a third party publication. We are not citing the article as a source, the Detroit Free Press is the source. Whether they relied on Wikipedia for part of the article isn't relevant. My stand is entirely within policy and guideline here. Just because the article was created two days earlier than you may have preferred doesn't mean it's a bad article now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff, the article most likely would not have been written if the wiki article was not here. But beyond that, one mention in one newspaper does not make this notable. Notability, as a guideline, usually requires three or more major news sources for verification. There is only one local newspaper mentioning this 'game' in only one small article. That, by most standards, is not enough for notability...especially as the article was written after the wiki article, and the 'game' has been shown to have few ghits. --Bschott 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speculation as to whether the article would exist without the wiki article coming into play is idle speculation at best. Notability, as a statement of fact, has no official policy. The article, as it stands, is verifiable by a reliable source, so it should stay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you will throw out the few ghits and the WP:OR citations as not worth paying attention to in this discussion. Because one Local newspaper gave a small article to this game, it should have an article? Well, I have been mentioned in the Fargo/Moorhead Forum numerous times, so I should have a large article as well, right? It's Verifiable by a Reliable source right? No, we have to look at the trinity of the Standards and the wiki article must meet all three..Neutral POV, Verifiable, AND No Original Research. Since the only source for this game (before the newspaper article) was a blog where the author admitted to making up the game, and there are no media mentions before the wiki article (or this DFP article) was made, this falls into OR. The DFP article only refers to Wiki as a source, which makes citing the DFP article in the wiki article self-referencing. There is no mention of the blog on this DFP article. We may also want to look at the fact that the DFP newspaper may fall into a 'trivial' newsource. It is not a national paper (it's local only) and is not nationally known. No other newspapers or media have picked up on this 'game'. The game itself is only a locally known thing, and only because of the wiki article and this newspaper article. Nationally or world wide, it is just unknown. If you dismiss all that, the wiki article does fail OR, and if an article fails any of the three main Standards so harshly, then I believe there really isn't any reason for the article to exist.--Bschott 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, we're just running around in circles at this point. The article is verifiable by the Detroit Free Press (highly non-trivial and nationally known), it's NPOV, and no longer/doesn't fail original research. I'm failing to see the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article is trivial in both length and content, it sources Wikipedia, and the Detroit Free Press is "nationally known" on the basis that it has "Detroit" in its name. It is still a local newspaper- it just happens to be in a large city. The original research still stands- where did the material come from? Blogs and message boards. What did the news article add to the wikipedia entry? Nothing. It apparently can't be stressed enough that this article is self-referencing. --Wafulz 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- So it's a stub in reality. No problems there. As for the Detroit Free Press, it's the 12th largest paper by circulation in the US, that stands for something. Whether the material came from blogs is irrelevant, truly - the information was important enough to be used in a newspaper article. The news article itself may not add anything new to the article proper, but it does infer notability and verifability that may not have existed before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, we are running around in circles, but I am not willing to concede to your point, jeff, that it somehow magically passes OR. Looking at the history
through untinted glasses[Edit: I don't know if you are a Tiger's fan or not]] shows that this was OR when the AFD was created. The DFP article (trivial or not) still has the article falling short of multiple third-party sources. Since the article references Wiki as the source of this game, I can't, in good faith, accept the DFP article as a mention of notability or Verfibiliy. If the article had mentioned the blog AND there were other newspapers that had picked up on the story before the AFD, I would concede this had merit. As it stands, there isn't an article that references the blog (only verifiable source of this game outside of wiki), and so...it fails OR. --Bschott 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)- Well, this Red sox fan disagrees. It doesn't "magically pass" OR. It passes WP:OR easily, note the key phrase that applies here: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Detroit Free Press, even if it notes the Wikipedia entry for this article, meets this. The part you're attempting to cite here is at WP:RS: "Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference." Wikipedia is not citing itself in the article in question. The DFP article uses Wikipedia as a source, but that does not run afoul of policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then you run into issues with verifiability. Who do we have to verify this by? A few blogs and message boards, which are not reliable sources. What does the local newspiece say? That Wikipedia mentioned the game, so therefore the game must be notable because it is on Wikipedia. This is very circular logic. Please also take into account the length, relevance, and content of the article and not just the fact that it mentions the game. If the circumstances were the same, but the subject in question were a dog winning a local dog show, would you consider it notable? --Wafulz 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The newspiece cites Wikipedia as an example of how widespread the game's popularity has gotten. That doesn't mean they're treating Wikipedia as a source, nor would that disqualify it. If the circumstances were the same, but the subject in question were a local, unknown dog, maybe it'd be different. This isn't about a dog or a little-known event, though. People who don't watch dog shows typically don't know the names of the dogs. The Detroit Tigers aren't a dog show. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The newspiece is citing Wiki as an example of how 'widespread' the game's popularity is...but a google search does not back up that claim nor is Wiki an example of popularity as anyone can make an article here. Just look at all these AFDs around this one. Are they automatically 'popular' because they are on wiki? And the DT's are not a dogshow...Yes, you are correct in that, HOWEVER we are not talking about the DT's nor are we talking about the merits of the game's link to the DTs. We are talking about if this Game had any notability beyond the blog that stated they created the game and it merits a page based on such criteria as only having one questionable source....a personal Blog. That stinks of OR. --Bschott 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, now we're getting somewhere. A Google search is a poor factor of notability, it's why we don't use Google as a verification tool when it comes to verifying notability. So we have to figure out what would be a proper notability situation. As it is a drinking game, it doesn't fit into the basic notability guidelines we have available, so let's look at another aspect: is it verifiable? The answer is yes. Is it original research? If it was before, it isn't now that it has the DFP mention. To quote the nonbinding notability essay (since you're insisting on notability here): "while all "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important." The article is verifiable, it doesn't run afoul of any major policies, so what's the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Either you wish not to comprehend or you are arguing to argue. Either way, the points have been laid out...we will let an Admin decide. --Bschott 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well then. It's actually your unlisted third: I want to comprehend, but I'm not understanding your protests given the policies you're citing. Sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Either you wish not to comprehend or you are arguing to argue. Either way, the points have been laid out...we will let an Admin decide. --Bschott 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, now we're getting somewhere. A Google search is a poor factor of notability, it's why we don't use Google as a verification tool when it comes to verifying notability. So we have to figure out what would be a proper notability situation. As it is a drinking game, it doesn't fit into the basic notability guidelines we have available, so let's look at another aspect: is it verifiable? The answer is yes. Is it original research? If it was before, it isn't now that it has the DFP mention. To quote the nonbinding notability essay (since you're insisting on notability here): "while all "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important." The article is verifiable, it doesn't run afoul of any major policies, so what's the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The newspiece is citing Wiki as an example of how 'widespread' the game's popularity is...but a google search does not back up that claim nor is Wiki an example of popularity as anyone can make an article here. Just look at all these AFDs around this one. Are they automatically 'popular' because they are on wiki? And the DT's are not a dogshow...Yes, you are correct in that, HOWEVER we are not talking about the DT's nor are we talking about the merits of the game's link to the DTs. We are talking about if this Game had any notability beyond the blog that stated they created the game and it merits a page based on such criteria as only having one questionable source....a personal Blog. That stinks of OR. --Bschott 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The newspiece cites Wikipedia as an example of how widespread the game's popularity has gotten. That doesn't mean they're treating Wikipedia as a source, nor would that disqualify it. If the circumstances were the same, but the subject in question were a local, unknown dog, maybe it'd be different. This isn't about a dog or a little-known event, though. People who don't watch dog shows typically don't know the names of the dogs. The Detroit Tigers aren't a dog show. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you will throw out the few ghits and the WP:OR citations as not worth paying attention to in this discussion. Because one Local newspaper gave a small article to this game, it should have an article? Well, I have been mentioned in the Fargo/Moorhead Forum numerous times, so I should have a large article as well, right? It's Verifiable by a Reliable source right? No, we have to look at the trinity of the Standards and the wiki article must meet all three..Neutral POV, Verifiable, AND No Original Research. Since the only source for this game (before the newspaper article) was a blog where the author admitted to making up the game, and there are no media mentions before the wiki article (or this DFP article) was made, this falls into OR. The DFP article only refers to Wiki as a source, which makes citing the DFP article in the wiki article self-referencing. There is no mention of the blog on this DFP article. We may also want to look at the fact that the DFP newspaper may fall into a 'trivial' newsource. It is not a national paper (it's local only) and is not nationally known. No other newspapers or media have picked up on this 'game'. The game itself is only a locally known thing, and only because of the wiki article and this newspaper article. Nationally or world wide, it is just unknown. If you dismiss all that, the wiki article does fail OR, and if an article fails any of the three main Standards so harshly, then I believe there really isn't any reason for the article to exist.--Bschott 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speculation as to whether the article would exist without the wiki article coming into play is idle speculation at best. Notability, as a statement of fact, has no official policy. The article, as it stands, is verifiable by a reliable source, so it should stay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff, the article most likely would not have been written if the wiki article was not here. But beyond that, one mention in one newspaper does not make this notable. Notability, as a guideline, usually requires three or more major news sources for verification. There is only one local newspaper mentioning this 'game' in only one small article. That, by most standards, is not enough for notability...especially as the article was written after the wiki article, and the 'game' has been shown to have few ghits. --Bschott 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- So are you trying to say that the article would be okay if the Detroit Free Press had written the article and I created it today? The point is simple: this article does not run afoul of any sourcing as the subject has been reported about in a third party publication. We are not citing the article as a source, the Detroit Free Press is the source. Whether they relied on Wikipedia for part of the article isn't relevant. My stand is entirely within policy and guideline here. Just because the article was created two days earlier than you may have preferred doesn't mean it's a bad article now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I emailed the author of the Article yesterday and (he sounds like a really nice guy) here is his reply to my email. I commented that the Game's wiki article was up for deletion and if it was deleted, his article may need a footnote mentioning this.
| “ | From: Jahnke, James <jjahnke@freepress.com>
To: Brian Schott <****@gmail.com> Date: Aug 9, 2006 5:48 PM Subject: RE: THE TICKER: Tigers fans wet whistle listening to Rod Brian, Thanks for the info. I know the game is pretty short-lived on Wikipedia, but The Ticker is designed to be tongue-in-cheek. I hope people realize that it's mostly a joke. Thanks for reading, JRJ |
” |
Just incase anyone wanted to know. --Bschott 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd hope people didn't take drinking games seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Must not have been to too many frat parties. ;) --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken, haha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Must not have been to too many frat parties. ;) --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Here's a link that mentions the Rod Allen Drinking Game back in 2004: [41] I think this adds a new twist to the situation. The article is now definitely not original research and it has been around longer than 3 days ago. These were the two points mentioned as to why the article was up for deletion. I do not see how anyone with a clear conscience can delete this article with this new information X96lee15 14:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's still an Internet forum which is not a reliable source, not verifiable, and personal, which qualifies as original research. I could just as easily go and write about a drinking game "Drink when x does y." Please, just stop grasping at straws here- you're bringing up nonsense for the sake of trying to justify what is basically a joke. --Wafulz 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do not appreciate my comments on the subject being called "nonsense"; that is not very professional. And the subject of the article in question is not a joke. It has been around for over 2 years and it mentioned in many different places, including the Detroit Free Press. For the reasons given for deletion, this article should NOT be deleted. X96lee15 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's still an Internet forum which is not a reliable source, not verifiable, and personal, which qualifies as original research. I could just as easily go and write about a drinking game "Drink when x does y." Please, just stop grasping at straws here- you're bringing up nonsense for the sake of trying to justify what is basically a joke. --Wafulz 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Sigh" While you are doing a good job researching this, you are mis-reading the Original Research standard here at wiki, or you haven't read it all together. Wiki needs independent, reliable, third-party mentions to make something verifiable and notable. All we have is a few Blogs (which are not acceptable by wiki standards as Reliable
-
- Primary sources- present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
- Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.
- Where are the primary sources?
-
- In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.
- I can't see that this is easily verifiable by and reasonable adult with specialist knowledge.
-
- In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.
- And...
- ..That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article...
- I can't see how this was published by a reputable third-party publication before the wiki article was created. The Blogs and forums do not count as they are self-published.
- See " What counts as a reputable publication?" and " Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable.
- Reading those will show that blogs and the discussion forms do not count as Reputable publications nor Reliable Sources.
- Even the article made the the DFP was quoted by the author to be just a tongue-in-cheek joke.
- HERE IS THE KICKER
-
- The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it.We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.
- I think this may end the debate if this is worth an article or not --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NFT, and Wikipedia is Not an Instruction Manual on how to play a game. The cardinal sin here, though, is that this article is inherently Unverifiable. Assuming this is even notable (which I do not concede), how does one verify any of what's claimed here? Scorpiondollprincess 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - it's still unverifiable. -- Whpq 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment: I'm afraid I still don't see it as verifiable. If, for example, someone questions the legitimacy of one of the "3 Drinks" rules, what is the verifiable, reliable, third party source to authoritatively consult? There's nothing but a passing mention in one newspaper article cited. That only verifies that the game exists (and has a wikipedia article). What's to prevent someone from adding, modifying, or making up new rules and listing them here? The rules themselves are not verifiable and smell strongly of WP:OR and WP:NFT. Scorpiondollprincess 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete, unencyclopedic. Gazpacho 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I imagine that there are plenty of subjects that have slipped by the new page patrol that are speedyable; the fact that a newspaper noticed one doesn't automatically make it notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment my vote above still applies. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with the 4 or 5 delete votes above. Recury 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. A short summary of this game belongs in the Rod Allen article. The game does not conatin enough independent notability to carry an article on its own. The news article is the only thing saving it from an outright delete, as it appears to be a fair, independent confirmation of the subject. Cdcon 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This game was only mentioned in a news source because it has an article on the Wikipedia. This game originated on a blog, and the game remains very regional. This game at best should be mentioned in Rod Allens article (which it already does). --Porqin 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V, WP:NOR. Is this a joke? The only source referenced in the article cites this very Wikipedia article as a source! Even if this game actually exists (i.e. is played by more than two people worldwide), it's still so silly as not to warrant mention in an encyclopedia unless it has some sort of actual notability. Sandstein 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep IRONY ALERT - to all the blowhards that want it gone - do you realize that pages of heated debate are they very thing that make it relevant? If this was complete garbage that went unnoticed, it would disappear without a trace. What this has turned in to is NOT a debate of the worthiness of the article [the debate validates the worthiness], but rather a matter of pompous, holier-than-thou informationistas [Daniel Case] who are offended that a fun, creative individual with a sense of the moment has DARED to tread on their sacred bastion of intelligencia, and they are trying to eliminate it. This would kill the essence of what Wiki was supposed to be.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.145.11 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for the compliment. It'll make a great epigraph to the deletion section on my user page. Daniel Case 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- This would kill the essence of what Wiki was supposed to be. — This is Wikipedia, not Wiki, and the essence of what Wikipedia is supposed to be is a verifiable encyclopaedia containing no original research and written from the neutral point of view. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment per my comments above -- if you read the Freep article, it only mentions that the game has been mentioned on wikipedia. It does not say that it originated on wikipedia. Therefore, any arguments saying that the newpaper article was only written because of the wikipedia entiry are invalid, IMO. X96lee15 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't address the charge that the article is unverifiable. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Scorpiondollprincess has hit the nail on the head. The only way that has been put forward by ThatsHowIRoll, Badlydrawnjeff, and others, to verify any of the content of this article is to use a news article that used this very Wikipedia article as its source for the information in the first place. Clearly, that isn't a source. (It's also a gross misunderstanding of our long-standing Wikipedia is not a soapbox official policy, which exists precisely because people attempt to mis-use Wikipedia to make the sort of shortcuts around the process of publication, fact checking, peer review, and absorbtion into the corpus of human knowledge outside of Wikipedia, that Badlydrawnjeff is asserting are acceptable.) The only other source, independent of Wikipedia, put forward that describes this game in any detail is a post on a web log, made a scant few days ago, and that provides no evidence that (despite what the post claims) this game and its rules are not the creation of a single person and that they have actually become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. I cannot find any further sources at all. This article is original research and unverifiable. The way for this game to get into Wikipedia is for it to be properly documented by multiple reliable sources outside of Wikipedia first. Shortcuts are not allowed. Delete. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- ^ The newspaper article does NOT use wikipedia as its information! It merely mentions that it has been published there. X96lee15 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The newspaper article text looks lifted straight from Wikipedia, and it cites no other source. No way it can be considered an independent source. Fan-1967 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not to mention the editor himself said it was tongue-in-cheek and a joke, as noted above. Also I hope my delete is still being counted from the original AfD.--Wafulz 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
- "The newspaper article does NOT use wikipedia as its information! It merely mentions that it has been published there"
That one goes in the hairsplitting Hall of Fame. Kinda reminds of the early Soviet government getting rid of the death penalty yet continuing to shoot people; they were just no longer being sentenced to be executed, merely shot. Daniel Case 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)- This is not anywhere near hairsplitting at all and is actually a completely valid point that hits at the crux of the argument that the article from the Detroit Free Press is commenting on how relevant and popular the game has become, that there is now a wikipedia article about it. I'd also ask that you refrain from comparing innocent civilians dying due to oppressive governments to whether a newspaper article was using a wikipedia article as a source or not. For that wildly inappropriate and childish comment, I'll ask that all of your comments be stripped from the argument as they are an amalgamation of how you've been nothing but condescending, presumptuous, and pompous through out the whole debate rendering your side and those on it ineffective and exposing your arguments under the supercilious and pedantic light that you and those on your side inexplicably shine proudly from. 134.215.210.125 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- ^ The newspaper article does NOT use wikipedia as its information! It merely mentions that it has been published there. X96lee15 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. An article on a drinking game? Are you people serious? JIP | Talk 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- We have dozens of others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think he meant an entirely minor, new, unverifiable drinking game. --Wafulz 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- If he was, it wasn't clear, as this certainly isn't all that new or unverifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your repeated claim that this is verifiable has yet to answer the question posed to you by Scorpiondollprincess above as to how readers and editors are to verify the content of this article. 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- If he was, it wasn't clear, as this certainly isn't all that new or unverifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think he meant an entirely minor, new, unverifiable drinking game. --Wafulz 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- We have dozens of others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per UncleG and Scorpiondollprincess. --Kinu t/c 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. There are local variants of this for every broadcaster who has a catch phrase: You can put it on the board... YES!. -- Fan-1967 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - If the only reason you can think of to keep it is because there are other drinking games on here that need to be deleted, you need to read up on the Wikipedia policies some more. --PresN 20:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Uncle G; misses WP:V by a long way and WP:NFT applies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep there are a number of other drinking games listed on Wikipedia, and although while this is a new game it has been played by many in Michigan following the 2006 Tigers MidnightSwinga 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Again, we run into the problem of it being local, original research, a how-to and essentially unverifiable. The fact that other drinking games exist on Wikipedia has no bearing on the merit of this article. --Wafulz 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with this article that it is unverifiable. Your only argument against that is to cite sources that can be used to verify its contents. Any other argument, such as personal testimony that the game has been played, is irrelevant. Please cite sources. Uncle G 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep For reasons I listed under Daniel Case's unfortunate, disrespectful, immature, and ill-conceived comment about oppressive governments killing innocent civilians, as the drinking game is so relevant that the Detroit Free Press wrote an article about how popular it has become that there is now a wikipedia article for it.134.215.210.125 22:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- comment I don't know how many times people have to say this, but the DFP article was meant as a joke. I emailed the author, and posted his response to me above. The DFP article cited only wikiapedia as it's source. In any case, there is nothing reputable that can be cited here as a SOURCE. Just one news article (ironically three days after the AFD was in discussion) does not make something wikiapedia worthy. --Brian (How am I doing?) 02:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article may have been tongue-in-cheek, but the fact remains that the Rod Allen Drinking Game is a real thing that has gotten quite a bit of attention (based on the newspaper article, message board posts from 2004 and the lengthy discussion here). The article was pointing out that the ALREADY EXISTING Rod Allen game phenomenon has gotten so big that it even has a wikipedia entry. It's sad that so many people want to have this article deleted. Also, it does not matter that the author of the article said it was a joke; from WP:V:
| “ | A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry. | ” |
-
- Because of this, I do not think we can include the Free Press article author's email in this discussion. X96lee15 04:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- comment Since Blogs, Personal Websites, and message board posts are not concidered Reliable or Reputable sources, can you cite sources that do pass the verifiable, Reliable, and Reputable sources test. The news paper does not count as a primary source as it 1) is published after the wikipedia article was made and 2) does not cite the source of this game. If this game is so big and widely known, where are the other articles or news stories on it? Where is the primary source of information for this? --Brian (How am I doing?) 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nandesuka 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Land Arts of the American West
Notability/importance in question. This is just one of many field study programs that occur every year at universities across the country. ghits: [42] — NMChico24 
19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanity article, does not indicate notability (which is different from uniqueness). Gazpacho 22:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I looked at the official website's press links, and they're to scholarly publications. Based on that, I don't think it has acheived importance. —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I am the primary author of the article (at this point) and I disagree with the statement that there are many such field programs like this. Please provide examples. As far as I know there are not any other programs in the visual arts that combine such a range of sites through direct contact with the landscape as this program. I am eager to learn of any other models that exist as they would help the general effort of our work. In response to the question of importance, I am a bit confushed why references in scholarly publications preclude importance. Guess I always thought it should be a matter of 'both and'. Here is a list of additoinal citations and references about the program that are not included on the program website from a range of source types:
- Quantum ArticleKUT public radio spotUT Austin main page web featureCLUI Newsletter referencePrinceton Architectural Press publication--with essay on programGlasstire ReviewContemporary Arts in the Public Realm exhibit inclusionExhibition reviewCLUI Newsletter referenceNPR Interview with TaylorLannan Foundation UNM Endowment GrantCCA ExhibitionSanta Fe Reporter review of 2006 CCA Exhibition
- It is my belief that the string of press we have consistently received (this is an edited list of web accessible materials) has substaintiated the notability of the program---in addition to it's uniqueness. As a co-director of the program it seemed to me to go on about how notable the program is would be to succumb to the creation of a vanity entry. I figured that portion of the entry is for others (than I) to expand upon. C dog taylor 15:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Most of the press you've received is limited to the local area or to academia. I admit that your program is unique, but Wikipedia is not a collection of the unique. It is an encyclopedia to chronicle notable people, events, inventions, scientific discoveries and phenomena, societies, etc. The key word there is notable. Unfortunately, unless your programme has received wide national exposure, or been involved in notable discoveries or experiments, then simply being a unique field study is not sufficient to imply notability. — NMChico24 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the press you've received is limited to the local area or to academia. I admit that your program is unique, but Wikipedia is not a collection of the unique. It is an encyclopedia to chronicle notable people, events, inventions, scientific discoveries and phenomena, societies, etc. The key word there is notable. Unfortunately, unless your programme has received wide national exposure, or been involved in notable discoveries or experiments, then simply being a unique field study is not sufficient to imply notability. — NMChico24
- I understand your concern for notability and do feel that you are not evaluating the material submitted from within its context. I welcome a review based on merits and content and thus far do not feel one has occured. It seems that a decision has been made early on and attempts to clarify or provide additional substaintiating material have not affected the view held. Being new to the world of Wikipedia, its formats, and protocals, perhaps the problem has more to do with syntax. If that is the case I welcome feedback that will allow progress to be made. If you would like to deem this entry a stub from our website and encourage other users to flesh out the entry that would be fine by me. My interest is in contributing to the network of ideas that are already underway (and referenced) within Wikipedia. Productive feedback on those fronts would be welcomed.
- The endowment grant from the Lannan Foundation is profoundly notable in the spheres of visual arts, literature, and academia. Their support of other projects included and referenced in Wikipedia is not a coincidence. The program is currently the subject of a book that will be published by the University of Texas Press. I would gladly make available a copy of that contract if you would like. I will also gladly furnish a full list of publications and press the program has received if that will help in the evaluation. It is a considerable list that ranges from the very local, correct, to national and international. This listing above are only references available online and they include a range that exceeds the local --- NPR, Princeton Architectural Press, CLUI Los Angeles. A selection of other publications in print include:
- Fox, William L. “Land Arts of the American West.” Sculpture, Vol. 24 No. 78 (October 2005) p. 80.
- Ulbricht, J. “Toward Transdisciplinary Programming in Higher Education.” In Interdisciplinary Art Education: building bridges to connect disciplines and cultures, Mary Stokrocki Editor (Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association, 2005) pp. 17-30.
- Taylor, Chris. “Artifact Reason: research beyond image boundaries.” Working Papers in Art and Design (Hatfield, England: University of Hertfordshire, 2004), 9 manuscript pages http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/research/papers/wpades/vol3/ctfull.html (illustrated and refereed).
- Taylor, Chris. “disposable oppositions.” Architrave (Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, School of Architecture, Spring 2004) pp. 8-9 (illustrated).
- C dog taylor 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.45.177 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 204.65.45.177 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, NMChico24 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Rewrite. Notability is not a problem. Please rewrite in a coherent, non-advertising fashion. Mention press coverage and cite independent sources. Cdcon 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the various independent sources writing about the project indicate it has sufficient notability. Although User:Cdcon is certainly correct in observing that the article is desperately in need of an overhaul.-- danntm T C 01:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- For reference purposes a Bibliography of Press, Publications, and Exhibitions has been added to Talk:Land_Arts_of_the_American_West C dog taylor 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Voon
This is almost patent nonsense. There are no reliable sources, I don't know why it was previously kept despite never providing reliable sources and a large amount of sockpuppetry. No claims of importance, notability, or even existence. Judging by the sources listed and such, this is a joke at best (also see Encyclopedia damatica entry). Wickethewok 17:41, 10 August 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}} |
- Delete per WP:V, and Wikipedia is not an indicriminate collection of information. --Porqin 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per the website cited as a source: "Voon was first mixed, or at least first appreciated, at the end of a 3 day party somewhere in Melbourne on Sunday the 11th of June 2006." Safe to say it can't be very notable yet, then. Sandstein 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nonsensical, unencyclopedaic. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — it is a bit humorous, perhaps Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense worthy American Patriot 1776 19:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Porqin, and let's hope the socks from the first AFD don't return. Fan-1967 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn nonsense. G.He 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. This is exactly why I nom'ed it the first time, and no improvements have been made to the article since, nor do I see how there could be any given the sockpuppetry.Derek Balsam 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's nothing else to say. Yomanganitalk 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We had this argument last week. The cultural significance of voon cannot, like a man stuck in a tomato, be denied. Take, for example Marcy Rylan. I would suggest that such an insignificant personage trifles in comparison to the glories of voon, prophesized by Bob the Slack. Insert horse. --Sidless 09:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sidless (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep Should today's glories be any lesser than glories of days past? Are the stumps in my house slowly being eaten by termites, such that one day my home will fall on me? Is the man with the one eye and the lime-juice shot glass looking at me strangely because I'm sitting in a hand bag? You know what the appropriate course of action is. Keep. -Doctor Boris Smith 07:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Doctor Boris Smith (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Could we get an early close on this? Its clearly a good chunk of nonsense despite the previous AFD "keep". The sooner this sockpuppetry nonsense ends the better as well. Wickethewok 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per non. I would however, diagree with it being close to patent nonsense thought since that would mean that the entery is either random characters with no connection or that the content is so confused that an intelligent could not make sense of the entery. If anything it is more likely a hoax. To clearify I do what the article deleted. --Edgelord 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Voon
This is almost patent nonsense. There are no reliable sources, I don't know why it was previously kept despite never providing reliable sources and a large amount of sockpuppetry. No claims of importance, notability, or even existence. Judging by the sources listed and such, this is a joke at best (also see Encyclopedia damatica entry). Wickethewok 17:41, 10 August 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}} |
- Delete per WP:V, and Wikipedia is not an indicriminate collection of information. --Porqin 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per the website cited as a source: "Voon was first mixed, or at least first appreciated, at the end of a 3 day party somewhere in Melbourne on Sunday the 11th of June 2006." Safe to say it can't be very notable yet, then. Sandstein 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nonsensical, unencyclopedaic. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — it is a bit humorous, perhaps Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense worthy American Patriot 1776 19:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Porqin, and let's hope the socks from the first AFD don't return. Fan-1967 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn nonsense. G.He 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. This is exactly why I nom'ed it the first time, and no improvements have been made to the article since, nor do I see how there could be any given the sockpuppetry.Derek Balsam 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's nothing else to say. Yomanganitalk 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We had this argument last week. The cultural significance of voon cannot, like a man stuck in a tomato, be denied. Take, for example Marcy Rylan. I would suggest that such an insignificant personage trifles in comparison to the glories of voon, prophesized by Bob the Slack. Insert horse. --Sidless 09:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sidless (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep Should today's glories be any lesser than glories of days past? Are the stumps in my house slowly being eaten by termites, such that one day my home will fall on me? Is the man with the one eye and the lime-juice shot glass looking at me strangely because I'm sitting in a hand bag? You know what the appropriate course of action is. Keep. -Doctor Boris Smith 07:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Doctor Boris Smith (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Could we get an early close on this? Its clearly a good chunk of nonsense despite the previous AFD "keep". The sooner this sockpuppetry nonsense ends the better as well. Wickethewok 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per non. I would however, diagree with it being close to patent nonsense thought since that would mean that the entery is either random characters with no connection or that the content is so confused that an intelligent could not make sense of the entery. If anything it is more likely a hoax. To clearify I do what the article deleted. --Edgelord 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Boomerang (penis)
Rridicolous content for an encyclopedia Jestix 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There exists an article already for this condition Peyronie's_disease. There isn't need for a duplicated article, as well as a blurry photo of male genitalia. --Porqin 18:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete inasmuch as the topic, certainly an encyclopedic one and not at all ridiculous (at least where properly presented) is appropriately addressed at Peyronie's disease and Penis#Normal variations. Whilst a redirect to Peyronie's might be appropriate, a Googling returns few results relative to the use of the locution, such that a mention at boomerang (disambiguation), linking to Peyronie's per WP:DAB and consistent with the formulation employed with boner, should suffice; I added such mention (the dab page previously contained a link to this article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahiegel (talk • contribs)
-
- Just a site note, do we have to google test *everything*? Is google really an aproperiate mean to ask for encyclopedic relevance? (I know the WP: site talking about that...) --19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with our verbose friend Jahiegel. -- Slowmover 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or at least redirect. No need for a duplicate article for each piece of slang. Piccadilly 23:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Furthermore, the photo – uploaded by JADPadgett (contribs), who appears to be the author of the article – is captioned as "Source: Paul Waterman, Sheffield University". But the user's description of the upload reads, "I took this picture myself." This obscure slang for Peyronie's doesn't add anything, except maybe titillation. — VoxLuna
(talk) 05:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC) - Delete. Since there is no evidence to suggest that this is common usage, no need to redirect. --Nlu (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep, though this was a close call. Nominating an article hoping that it gets kept to set a precedent contradicts general expectations that those who nominate articles for deletion want them deleted. This comes close to WP:POINT and may qualify under Wikipedia:Speedy keep as such and may also fit the description of a situation in which "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. These are also to be kept." This seems to be a nomination for the sake of process, and the nominator has stated he wishes for an outcome besides deletion (in this case, a keep). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wookieepedia
per WP:WEB, SPAM Jabrwocky7 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not treat this as a personal attack on Wookieepedia. Lostpedia, a wiki for the ABC series Lost, has had its page deleted based on this policy. I hope that Wookiepedia survives this review and a precedent is set for other articles on Wikipedia. A quick look at the stats of both sites shows that Lostpedia, with an Alexa rating of 11,175, has over 19 million page views. Wookieepedia reports 8.9 million page views. The Alexa rating for this site includes all of Wikia, so those stats don't compare. The Wookieepedia article does not list any notable external references to the site, whereas Lostpedia was listed in businessweek.com and was a Scifi.com site of the week. --Jabrwocky7 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Uh...don't think so. It's been around a while, and I don't consider it spam. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Wookieepedia is a very large database of Star Wars articles frequented by a great deal of people. It has a very impressive alexa rating of 3,230. — NMChico24 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The alexa rating of 3,230 is for all of wikia.com. --Jabrwocky7 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Not spam, and one of Wikia's biggest wikis. BryanG(talk) 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all -- Samir धर्म 22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OC Transpo Route 1
I nominated this article for Deletion for the reason that it is not encyclopedic content, it is totally useless to Wikipedia and it's too short to be an article. --Deenoe 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I also nominate by the same occasion :
- OC Transpo Route 2
- OC Transpo Route 5
- OC Transpo Route 6
- OC Transpo Route 7
- OC Transpo Route 10
- OC Transpo Route 22
- OC Transpo Route 23
- OC Transpo Route 25
- OC Transpo Route 28
- OC Transpo Route 31
- OC Transpo Route 33
- OC Transpo Route 37
- OC Transpo Route 55
- OC Transpo Route 64
- OC Transpo Route 70
- OC Transpo Route 85
- OC Transpo Route 87
- OC Transpo Route 99
- OC Transpo Route 118
- OC Transpo Route 125
- OC Transpo Route 145
- OC Transpo Route 154
- OC Transpo Route 182
I am basically asking to remove all the OC Transpo Routes article EXCEPT for Transitway Routes 95, 96, 97 has they are importants and they do have content. --Deenoe 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- if the content posted for 95 & 96 is of the same nature, you should not hesitate to push for a delete of those too, regardless of its importance until there is something important or insightful. The info within is tiresomely trivial and merits no place here WP:NOT. Ohconfucius
-
- Well.. I wouldn't go for a delete of 95,96,97, but maybe more of a merge, since those routes (especially 95 & 97) contributed to the expansion of the city of Ottawa. --Deenoe 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Doesn't even say which city this is in (I had to follow a link to find out that it was Ottawa). Poorly written articles on non-notable bus routes. -- Necrothesp 00:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. I think this is obvious. --Deenoe 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all as wikipedia is not a bus schedule, but include a route map in the OC Transpo routes article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koffieyahoo (talk • contribs)
-
- Comment I agree.. I'll go do that now. --Deenoe 01:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Does anyone know what tag to use for a map? --Deenoe 01:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Mmm, browsed to some underground articles and most appear to have a map drawn by some volunteer, hence either creative commons or GFDL licensed. The first article I came across that has an official map is the Copenhagen S-Tog, see [56] and that one is tagged fair use. -- Koffieyahoo 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Does anyone know what tag to use for a map? --Deenoe 01:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree.. I'll go do that now. --Deenoe 01:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jumping Jehosephat, I thought it could get no worse! Mea culpa. Oh, the article forgets to mention all of the trees and lampposts along the route ;-) Delete all, of course. Ohconfucius 01:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I see I am tilting at windmills, but these articles are a bit of a work in progress, so they may need to have more content added. ""OCtranspo is the municipal transit operator in Ottawa, Ontario Canada"" comes to mind for one. My reasoning is partly that the group includes information about the relationships between geographic features in the capital of Canada, the transit way system in Ottawa is unusual, with different bus routes for different uses, (region wide, local, express, etc) once one has compiled this information it can be used by menay folks who are interested in other aspects to extract knowledge. It would not be hard to imangine articles on points of interest in the capital linking to the bus routes that serve then to allow the link-to to be used to find what is logicaly accessible by the OC transpo system.cmacd 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't agree. The routes articles does not give any useful information. They are not historical (except for routes 95 and 97) and the articles are just non-encyclopedic and are against the WP:NOT policy, that's undeniable. --Deenoe 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Would that type of information no be better placed in the OC Transpo Routes article? Having individual route articles seems to be too granular as I suspect many routes are not remarkable in any way. -- Whpq 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you could put them in a travel Wiki. Vegaswikian 06:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete- Wikipedia is not a bus schedule -- Whpq 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Delete or Delete All? --Deenoe 21:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all -- Whpq 14:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all - Wikipedia is not a bus schedule 132.205.45.148 23:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- * Ok you can trash all the remaining bus route pages but I though of doing this instead but with just the starts and ends or terminals of routes. P.S If Wikipedia is not a bus schedule, then all the London U.K bus route pages should go for deletion as well no matter the history except maybe route 30 as it was the route where the double decker bus exploded on 7/7/05. --JForget 23:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment : We have something similar at OC Transpo Routes I believe, but it is not at detailed as the London bus routes list. Also, London routes have history. Ottawa routes doesn't (except, as I said, for 95, 96, 97). --Deenoe 00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment : However I really like your idea JForget, so I'll start working on that today, hopefully I'll be done by tomorrow. --Deenoe 13:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. They might be excellent in a travel wiki. Vegaswikian 06:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Undecided.....any more consensus, as in
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottawa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottawa articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
- Thanks for that Deenoe - so I think the result of this discussion is to delete the expresses, peak, and routes 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 85, 87, 99, 118, 125, 145, 154 & 182 route articles. Of course, notes can be added as I see there is some space beside each route.--JForget 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all I agree with Deenoe. --Seamesse 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I think this discussion is over and that we should delete the articles. --Deenoe 22:33, 18 August 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.
![[7]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Woman_Pearl_Necklace.jpg){kind=link}
![[56]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S-tog.gif){kind=link}