Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Keep - definitely. I wanted to look her up - so I came to wikipedia! 80.225.7.115 14:28, 22 March 2007 (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: weak opinions all round roughly split either way, no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rami_Grossberg
does not seem to be important 151.201.60.121 03:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment anon created this page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rami Grossberg, as anons can't create pages. Moved here to complete the nomination. No vote. -- Vary | Talk 06:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF, but I'm not sure as I'm not familiar with his area of research. I really don't think 28 publications a notable personage make. I imagine this fellow is non-notable, but... I'm not sure, so I'm voting for a weak delete. If someone can come by with some information to back his notability in his field, then I'll switch to keep. --FreelanceWizard 10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with the above. By the way, even though I'm a mathematician, model theory (the area Grossberg works in) is on the opposite end of the area I work in and I don't know anything about it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)- Abstain after reading Arthur's comment below. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. I've done some work in model theory, but not much in infinitary languages, such as
. (I know what it is, but couldn't tell you what's generally known in the field, not even talking about what the important conjectures are.) Perhaps we can ask Saharon Shelah if his work is significant (WP:PROF 4) or if he is important (WP:PROF 2)? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- Changed vote to Weak Keep. After correspondance with the subject (who expressed annoyance, irritation, and embarassment), he pointed out his work was featured at a recent conference. I couldn't verify that exactly, but he's a co-organizer [3] of that conference, which seems nearly adequate for WP:PROF if he's not on the faculty of the host facility or an officer of one of the sponsors. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- He's at Carnegie Mellon; but the conference is in Palo Alto. He doesn't appear to be an official of AIM, and an NSF officer is more notable than the average professor anyway. Septentrionalis 13:22, 11 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, Mailer Diablo 11:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep his doctoral advisor was, in fact, Shelah. So while notability isn't contagious and I don't understand more than two consecutive words of the article, it seems likely he is working on significant problems [4] Dlyons493 Talk 12:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The question, I think, is whether his work is getting anywhere on the significant problems...Septentrionalis 13:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep if expanded. —Xyrael 15:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It seems to me that the encyclopedicly notable person who mertis an individual page on Wikipedia is Saharon Shelah, not Rami Grossberg who's just trying to proove Shelah's theories. Maybe Grossberg would become encyclopedicly notable if he did indeed proove one of Shelah's theories, but that's not the case right now. Zaxem 11:47, 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 as follows: I took into account the arguments to delete, and at first glance, this looked like a clear "delete". However, having also (obviously) taken into account the arguments to keep, and given the circumstance that the article has been edited so that it is not plainly advertisement, I see no consensus either way. --Ezeu 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please note the the version that I based my descision on was edited extensively while I was writing the above basis for my decision. --Ezeu 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Out Now Consulting
blantant advert Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep. I'm afraid I disagree that the listing is a "blatant advert" Adam.
- I note too that the AfD guidelines state "Companies directly reported as significant players in major news events are generally notable is a reason for a listing in wikipedia."
The Pink Pound Conference in June 2006 UK featured Out Now Consulting MD as the Keynote Speaker.
Time magazine today covers the organisation. This year has seen Out Now Consulting covered in other media and in fact over 15 years Out Now Consulting has been frequently covered in news media in relation to the company's leading role in what is a new development in marketing - developing strategies to target gay consumers.
Some of these publications include: The Independent (UK) The Times (UK) The Guardian (UK) The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) The Australian (Australia) Business Review Weekly (Australia) Het Financieele Dagblad (Netherlands) De Morgen (Belgium)
TV appearances by Out Now Consulting staff have been many and include: BBC TV (UK) Jim TV (Belgium) TCN 9 (Australia) Nederland 1 (Netherlands).
There has been much other media coverage of Out Now Consulting's role in this development during this period.
In each case, Out Now Consulting is reported upon as a "significant player" in the "major news event" of - the emergence of a visible gay and lesbian consumer market. Perhaps to you that isn't a major news event but today's issue of Time magazine obviously does as the story about the emergence of gay advertising in Europe quoting Out Now Consulting's work is the one item from the current issue that Time magazine has chosen to highlight at the top of their homepage http://www.time.com/time/europe/ and see also the article at http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060807-1220477,00.html
Other media events include the coverage in much UK media of the revelation that 49% of lesbian and gay people feel unable to come out at work. http://www.sundayherald.com/53693 (Scotland) and http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article341714.ece - again media coverage of gay community research that Out Now Consulting was the significant player in.
I again request undeletion of the Out Now Consulting page.
Thanks for your attention,
Ian - 31 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outnow (talk • contribs)
- Note: the preceeding comment coincidently enough was made by the articles author. --Porqin 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Who also coincidentally enough has the same name as the company being described in the article... Dark Shikari 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- And whose only edits are either a) editing/creating this article, b) linkspamming other pages with links to this article, c) editing this AfD page, and d) leaving messages on user talk pages. Morgan Wick 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I did not think that was hidden from anyone at all - and was not the point of the post. Forgive my relative unfamiliarity with wikipedia technical aspects - I had thought that logging in as outnow was what was needed to identify myself as the poster and creator of the article. I repeat that that does not invalidate my belief that the entry is notable. If that is not decided by users then so be it, but please do forgive my unfamiliarity in the previous post outnow Outnow 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Ian Johnson, Managing Director Out Now. outnow on wikipedia. Now I hope those reading the article will let the content itself determine whether this company's work falls within the AfD guidelines mentioned by me above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outnow (talk • contribs)
Keep if a neutral third party volunteers to rewrite it. The various media mentions might make it notable per WP:CORP, but it's hard to be certain given the source of these claims. The current text of the article in fact is very POV to me (eg. "Out Now Consulting has been frequently covered in other news media in relation to the company's leading role in what is a major new development in marketing"). It needs to be filtered for encyclopedic content that is carefully cited with verifiable info from reliable sources. Willing to consider arelist in 4 weeksif someone volunteers to do this (thankless) task. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)- Delete per Chris Griswold below. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This article is publicity material for this organization, and cannot be reasonably used as the basis of any neutral article on the topic, if the subject even meets the WP:CORP or WP:ORG standards in the first place. Mangojuicetalk 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Mangojuice. --Bigtop 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Wafulz 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, WP:CORP, and WP:V - at first look it seems as if it could be saved, but I've been unable to find if any of the articles listed are about the company (rather than quoting them or their research). Yomanganitalk 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think it advertising. Article just states the fact and also cites a lot of websites. Also per outnow--Ageo020 02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Company with major-media news coverage and that stands out in its industry/segment. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is ordinary, everyday SPAM. --Xrblsnggt 03:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Rule of thumb: If it gets fewer google hits than I do (admittedly some of mine are irrelevant), it's not notable. Morgan Wick 03:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Keep only if a neutral third party volunteers to rewrite it per Kaustuv Chaudhuri.--Chris Griswold 05:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- Speedy Delete - I just took a look to see if I could make something of the article. You'll see what I found useable. Out Now conducted a survey in 2005, and most of the links briefly mention data, which, from my work experience, was sent to them by Out Now in a bid to be mentioned in an article. The article is nothing but PR: It has nothing to do with being created by a new editor, it's a loosely related collection of references to brief mentions of the survey. --Chris Griswold 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please keep
I left this comment days ago when the article was much fuller, there is so little info on gay marketing available, that students like myself previously found this article of great use. It is not SPAM when it helps me do an assignment.
Original comment follows....
Hi There,
I am a mrketing student in the Netherlands, and have found the article on Out Now Consulting to be most helpful and of exceptional interest on the gay marketing phenomenon.
It was quite hard for me as well as other students to find the information that we needed, though there was plenty to say on the subject.
Keep up the good work and it may be worthwhile keeping the article here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.87.154.90 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Recreation of previously deleted content [13] Dlyons493 Talk 12:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The current version is a stub whose history suggests that a great deal of promotional cruft was stripped out of it, and which seems objective and verifiable enough. The niche market this business is in suggests that it may be unusual enough to be more interesting than other firms of similar size; whether being interesting is enough to pass an article that otherwise probably fails WP:CORP is not something I have strong opinions about. Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I have obviously followed the various input with great interest as the author of this article. Some observations. With respect to Morgan Wick, Morgan it is not really so simple as your rule of thumb suggests. For example, if Out Now Consulting gets more Yahoo hits than you yourself do and MSN search which also has far more Out Now entries than Morgan Wick entries verifies this, then that seems to refute your logic for justifying deletion. 'Ask.com' also yields similar results - showing far more listings for Out Now Consulting than for Morgan Wick. Dare I say it, but this would, on your logic therefore seem to turn your 'delete' into a 'keep'. Without being disrespectful Morgan, I suspect that if you try applying that logic to much of what is in Wikipedia you could delete tens of thousands of entries right now. Many of the Morgan Wick entries that do come up actually seem not to relate to you, whereas all of the "Out Now Consulting" ones do seem to relate directly to the subject of this article. Even allowing all the Morgan Wick entries in these three main search engines to tally up towards you - we are left with a tally of just 834 listings for "Morgan Wick" (many of which seem not to actually be you), compared to 1368 web search entries in the four main search engines for "Out Now Consulting". That is just using the US engines. If we play the same game with other countries you see even more marked differences where your entries are much less. For example, in the UK web on Ask, there are no entries for Morgan Wick and 43 entries for Out Now Consulting, including entries from many of Britain's leading publications. For the record and for Chris Griswold too, some media coverage that results in much coverage of any organisation results from media releases put out by the organisation, that is hardly news to anyone. But much of the items deleted by him/her this morning should not have been as they fail to recognise several things. Out Now Consulting was established by Ian Johnson who is also the founder of the parent company Significant Others in Australia. As the firm's own website makes clear, the organisations function in concert and Out Now is a continuation of Significant Others work in non-Australian markets.
The fact that Out Now is the only gay marketing agency with offices in more than one country is a fact unique to the entity and increases the organisation's notability.
The deletions by Chris Griswold did far more than remove entries related to one survey. S/he removed many third party media reports of Out Now Consulting covering a range of issues, some related to Out Now's many different reports, some where the journalist sought Out Now Consulting as a notable source of expertise in its specific area. Given the extent to which s/he removed items and the little time it took for this user to do so I am somewhat concerned that s/he did not have time read through all these removed references sufficiently to see that they were clearly not just "a loosely related collection of references to brief mentions of [a single] survey". 37 minutes were spent deleting over 35 separate news articles, third party references and other citations from a range of sources. The article as left by this user this morning leaves only a single reference - to UK research from 2005 and removed everything else. There was also other research included previously. there was much more than reporting on research. For example, there were third party publications such as the Belgium Marketing Foundation, the Pink Pound Conference (UK), the Dutch marketing textbook "Principes van Marketing" (Principles of Marketing) also removed by this user - none of which was related to the British Gay Times and Diva research as s/he seemed to contend when removing it. On that point, where an esteemed newspaper such as the Sunday Independent - a leading national UK newspaper, devotes a double page spread feature article based primarily on, and extensively quoting research by, Out Now Consulting discussing a major workplace discrimination issue, which is also supported by remarks from other industry groups in the UK unrelated to Out Now Consulting, all commenting on the work of Out Now Consulting - does that not as C.Fred says: show Out Now Consulting to be a "company with major-media news coverage and that stands out in its industry/segment"? That seems to fall squarely within the Wikipedia guidelines as to notability for article's on companies being included.
For that matter, why would Time magazine this week in Europe choose to quote Out Now Consulting's opinion about the state of gay advertising in Europe if the company is not notable for readers of Time? That seems to fall within Wikipedia guidelines. That comment had absolutely nothing to do with the British research mentioned above. We were relied upon by the journalist of Time as a notable authority in the area of gay marketing. The magazine includes a photo of Out Now Consulting's campaign for the German National Tourist Office in their print edition as an example of gay advertising.
I note also that the comment made by the student 86.87.154.90 talk is a relevant one. Each week we usually receive several inquiries from students wanting our help. I agree our article is not SPAM to these students. Just today we received the following email -
"My name is Katharina and I study in Germany and have to write en essay for my university on gay marketing.It would be really helpful for me if you could send me some information, because it is such a new and present topic and I could not find any books so far. I would be really pleased if you could help me. Thank you very much, Katharina"
That sort of thing is fairly common here - if any of the Wikipedia editors wishes to contact me direct I would welcome them doing so to obtain more information about the similar student emails we regularly receive requesting assistance from Out Now Consulting with research about the gay market and other gay social issues. There really is a uniqueness to what we do - which is why media, students and others contact us. It is also why we are noted in such a leading textbook as Kotler's Principles of Marketing textbook in section 4 about niche marketing. That has nothing to do with our research - it features a full page discussion of advertising we created for Lufthansa and South African Tourism in the Dutch market. It also seems to fall squarely within Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion.
Any of the above factors taken alone should make you think our firm is notable but when taken in concert, - and in respect of so many third party citations about the company (removed today by Chris Griswold) I believe firmly that such a combination of factors renders this article well worth keeping and Out Now Consulting notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. To delete everything in the previous entries down to just what was left there this morning seems not in keeping with the Wikipedia principles. Finally, just in case you did not pick up on it above I am the author of the article and am the MD of the firm, so you might be tempted to discount all I say trying to believe that our article is SPAM however it is not just me saying it.
The search engines, the students such as 86.87.154.90, users such as C.Fred and Ageo020 and many media publications around the world seem to concur that our business has a unique industry position in a major new development in marketing. I would much prefer that there be restored some of what was deleted this morning from the article with a NPOV, and where third party items where the work of Out Now Consulting is the major aspect of the citation. Ian Johnson -- User:outnow
-
- Comment - To meet the notability criteria the the company should have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. From what I saw yesterday the vast majority, if not all, of the included references were about other subjects with Out Now's research or comments being quoted for information. If there are works in which the company is the subject of the article by all means put them back in to reinforce your claim to notability. Yomanganitalk 14:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The largest piece of the text is "specialised gay marketing services to large companies by researching gay lifestyles and using the information to develop strategies to target gay consumers", which strikes me as a rather obvious or self-affirming statement and sounds like it was lifted directly from a PR or ad copy. Some arguments for keeping an article on this specific company don't compel me: they often speak of interest first in gay marketing not specifically in this company, just that they happen ask this company directly for info about the general field. I see the existing page on the topic does have a section for listing of the major companies (a common and reasonable thing to have in such articles) and that does link to Out Now. DMacks 16:03, 11 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 - his userpage already exists. Sango123 02:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ken Keisel
Delete - vanity entry, creator and subject are the same person, does not assert notability either--Nobunaga24 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no assertion of notability. -- The Anome 00:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Move to user page, get rid of the rest of the stuff. --Wafulz 01:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Pure vanity. Article was created by article name. No reason to move or userfy. SynergeticMaggot 01:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 01:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom. --דניאל talk contribs Email 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete When they list their email address, it's celarly vanity --Xrblsnggt 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Closest thing to notability asserted involves either a) "G" on some "wall of fame" that would probably venture into indiscrim-collection territory if we listed everyone with equivalent notability, or b) "M" being an extra on some movies (no IMdB profile, hmm...). Despite the "no assertion of notability" theme, though, these are remotely plausible assertions of notability, and thus not speediable. A pitiful 51 G-hits, 47 non-Wikipedia, and of those, 25 unique. Morgan Wick 04:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — per Morgan Wick. Very few hits on Google, Yahoo!, and MSN. Kalani [talk] 06:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete note the article is about two people (one of whom shared a bunk with Chuck Yeager). Dlyons493 Talk 12:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or userfy. This is apparently an autobiographical disambiguation page, created by User:Ken keisel who is presumably one of the two people profiled in this article. Userfying would be appropriate in this case because User:Ken keisel has actually contributed to other articles in the encyclopedia (as opposed to just writing an autobiography). --Metropolitan90 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. vanity BookLover 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:VAIN Ohconfucius 04:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Move to userpage, and delete, as requested by user on OTRS 2006072310014311. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-13t13:02z
- Move to user page. This person has made a lot of contributions and has no "user" page. He may just not have known how to create one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken keisel (talk • contribs) 2006-08-13t17:52:27z
- 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.
- Keep This is very famous catchphrase known in all earth. It is part of american culture, very well known in Europe. Perhaps article written poorly, paerhaps article needs some sprucing up, but do not delete it. It will big mistake. If someone can improve this article, please do that. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2008 (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 USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. This isn't going anywhere, as far too many articles were bundled together into a single AFD.
If someone wants to open a much smaller (not more than four articles at a time, please) AFD on one or some of these articles so that the individual merits of specific articles can be discussed, feel free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Warcraft character articles
I am retracting this nomination as it seems to be spiralling towards a brawl. I doubt any good faith consensus can result from this discussion. I'll approach this from another angle later. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have reverted your close. Nominators have no special rights to close an AfD after a second person has supported deletion, and this one seems to have been headed fairly close to a delete consensus when you changed your mind. --Aquillion 01:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, but I am then striking out all my comments as I do not support this nomination any futher. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is my parting message for this Article: I'm going the same way as Kaustuv, he knew what he was doing when he jumped ship on this one... This list is a mess and doesn’t even begin to encompass all the good/bad character articles related to Warcraft. The only thing this will lead to is: At best, a purging of a few bad articles. At worst, a complete annihilation of a slew of good and bad articles. I started some heavy research into these articles; an Excel document where I tried to at least organize this heap of articles. Through this process I discovered at least twice again as many articles that fit into this category better than Medivh! One didn't even exist ("Blackhand")! Some of the propositions stated below are very intelligent and the sadly failed objective of this article (to set a standard for AfDs brought up by WP:FICT) was a noble cause, but this is not the place that that is going to happen. My advice is to scrap this page before someone gets hurt, and try again with a more specific organized and comprehensive list. For crying out loud, the originator of this nomination left! OrcShaman42 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Old discussion
This is a group nomination of a series of Warcraft character pages. My deletion rationale is as follows, in bulleted form but not necessarily in order of importance.
None of the characters are notable outside the Warcraft fandom. None of the articles provide a clue how to verify from reliable sources why the nominated characters are notable except as elements of the Warcraft plot.There is already a page, List of Warcraft characters, that has encyclopedic summaries of all of these characters. One might argue that WP:FICT recommends splitting off articles on major characters to keep the list sized properly, but that does not obviate the need for individual notability of such characters.Many of the character articles have long and detailed plot and biographical exposition. They skirt the boundary of game guide territory, although they are for the most part not instruction manuals (i.e., they do not say how to kill the mobs for phat loot). I think this amount of detail is wrongly placed in Wikipedia. The common epithet for such articles is gamecruft, i.e., information that is only of interest to fans of the game.
The information in these articles is freely (in the GFDL sense) available in a much more comprehensive form in WoWWiki, which I have linked using the legend "ww" for comparison purposes. Many of WP's articles are word-for-word duplicates of their WoWWiki entries (eg. Captain Placeholder), cite their counterpart on WoWWiki (eg. Hakkar the Soulflayer), or are completely unsourced (eg. Grom Hellscream). There is even a template, {{wowwiki}}, designed to help citations of WoWWiki easier. I should hardly have to point out that wikis do not qualify as reliable primary or secondary sources.
|
|
For precedents, see the following concluded AfD and the precedents therefrom.
Note: this AfD, if it achieves consensus either way, will become a strong precedent. Please carefully consider whether Wikipedia should contain unsourced (or improperly sourced) articles on individual NPCs, mobs, and "lore" entities of dubious notability in a MMORPG, or whether a summary article such as List of Warcraft characters suffices for our encyclopedic purposes.
— Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Main Discussion
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 06:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Guess I'll be the first. First and foremost, wikipedia is not an indescriminant collection of information. It is not a game guide. Such things can be promoted and listed on other, more in depth websites, such as, in this case, WoWWiki. As its already word-for-word copies. Delete them all. We even have an interwiki link for it, wowwiki:. Add to that the nom's notes about verifiability. Is this interpreted material? If so its original research on wowwiki, and is not a good source for information here. Is it paraphrased from a game manual? Its copyvio then. I see so much wrong with this set of articles as a result. A list would be a much better place for this. --Kevin_b_er 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete individual articles, an annotated list might not be bad, but this level of detail is not necessary for a general encyclopedia and the distiction between cannon/OR and fan fic makes these kind of articles especaiily problematic for wikipedia.--Peta 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Find the examples of fan fiction and OR (material that has been interpreted and not directly stated in the games, manuals, books, or comics), and feel free to remove that material. That's different than deleting the articles. Also, AFD is not the right place to request a merge.JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of information. also per well researched nom.--Ageo020 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I am reluctant to delete so many articles that are reasonably well-written, but it is complete Craftcruft and not of interest to anyone outside players of those games. Not an indiscriminate collection of information, etc. BoojiBoy 02:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reduce, merge all except major characters, or delete. theProject 02:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment AFD is not the right place to request a merge. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- As a general principle, Strong Delete. If any of these are individually notable, I cannot possibly say, but I allow that a few could be. Applaud nominator for doing the work! - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Sorry folks, this isn't a game guide. Is there a Warcraft Wiki? Maybe there should be one for stuff like this. RedRollerskate 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Please state how character articles constitute game guides. Also, the existence of the information on other wikis is not grounds for deletion in and of itself. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete For god's sake it's just a game. You don't need to have bios on inanimate characters. --Xrblsnggt 03:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Read WP:FICT. Wikipedia is the place to have bios on notable inanimate characters.JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Geez, that made the Satchel Cohen hoax look like a piece of cake. Yanksox 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Self-promoter! :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete per BoojiBoy although keep important characters if any of them are significant to the game such as main characters. --דניאל talk contribs Email 03:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. AFD is not the right place to request a merge.JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Relist separately: There are simply too many articles with too many different variables here for us to consider them all together. Some characters obviously need to be merged back to the list or another article (such as captain placeholder). Other characters are obvious keeps (such as Grom, Jaina, Uther Sargeras, etc).
Comment it would be better if you point out which characters are "obvious keeps" and why, so I can withdraw the nom for just them. I hardly think most, a majority, or even many of these characters are major characters. I personally have no taste for 49 separate AfDs on Warcraft characters. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- Separate AfD's runs the risk of inconsistent outcomes. Propose subsections for those articles where a special argument may be made. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here is a list. Many of these characters are mentioned in various print publications apart from the games: Archimonde, Arthas Menethil, Balnazzar, Grom Hellscream, Gul'dan, Illidan Stormrage, Jaina Proudmoore, Kel'Thuzad, Malfurion Stormrage, Mannoroth, Medivh, Orgrim Doomhammer, Prince Kael'thas, Sargeras, Sylvanas Windrunner, Tichondrius, Tyrande Whisperwind, Uther the Lightbringer. And yes, separate AfDs do run the risk of inconsistent outcomes, but if you want to make a policy page, go make one and debate it and achieve consensus. Otherwise, you should delete an article based on its own indivudal merits, not merely because of an attempt to establish some sort of policy/precedent. --Hetar 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
All right, below are individual subsections for each of the 18 characters in your list. Please either add the reliable sources for notability of these characters to these articles, or list these sources in this AfD, comprehensively or article-by-article. This AfD is not an attempt to create policy; my note is merely a warning that the outcome will be cited as precedent. No extra policy or guidelines are necessary for this nomination, in my opinion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- Precisely my opinion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- As I said before, these articles deserve separate nominations so that they can be deleted or kept on their own merit, and not because someone wants to establish some sort of precedent. Also, it should be noted that we don't delete articles simply because they don't cite their sources, many articles are kept so that we can take the time and effort necessary to source them properly. --Hetar 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you are misreading the nomination. That this AfD will be cited as precedent is a statement of what I expect will be the case, because of which I warn participants to carefully consider their votes. The reasons for the deletion were clearly specified in the nomination; nowhere have I listed establishing a precedent as a reason for deletion. As to unsourced articles, WP:V (from WP:RS) is a core policy here. The week long AfD process will give interested editors plenty of time to add support for the keep votes with proper sourcing, which will increase the objective quality of these articles independently of the outcome of this AfD. I suspect we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion on the means used in this AfD, so let us agree to disagree as long as you accept my reasons for what they plainly state, not as a cover for a hidden motive. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Yet another baseless attack on gaming. Why not delete every single character from every single book, movie, tv show in history as well?Macktheknifeau 06:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. The entire Warcraft storyline should be one article. --Chris Griswold 06:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Coment And while we are at it, let us delete everything on Wikipedia associated with other major books, films, games etc. I could compile a list if you want, of every universe created that has articles seperate from the main story line article. Havok (T/C/c) 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Chris, I understand that you're heavily involved in editing comic book articles here on wikipedia. Would you support reducing every Superman character and every X-man onto one page? Because that's essentially what you're suggesting.JoshWook 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Non notable? I have no idea what you mean by that seeing as they are well known to over 6 million people who actually play WoW, not to mention the people who play Warcraft.. merging is out of the qestion as many of the characters are big articles. And they are all good articles, stating non notability seems to be the only weapon you deltionists have against these articles. As I have stated a billion times before, even if you don't see pressidence for notability, does not make it any less notable for everyone else who have even a remotly idea what this is. And also, they are here to educate people who want to know more about the Warcraft universe. If you want to delete these, I'll go on a AfD spree and nominate every article associated with The Lord of the Rings, Marvel Universe, DC Comics, The Simpsons and so forth. This is perhaps one of the silliest AfDs I have seen in a long time. Havok (T/C/c) 06:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that this was not an indiscriminate list of all Warcraft character articles. See, for example, Thrall (Warcraft), which was not nominated because the article asserts that he is a main character, and my brief perusal of the articles in Category:Warcraft books convinced me that he was a major character. Please also note that notability is not the sole reason: amount of detail, and verifiability from reliable sources of the contents of the articles are others. If you want a good yardstick, compare Archimonde with Link (The Legend of Zelda series), a featured article on a video game character. Observe the amount of attention in the latter paid to citing a wide range of sources, and assertions of notability outside the Zelda fandom. I am willing to accept that some of the nominated (but not a majority or even a large portion of them) might meet the threshold of "major character", but short of becomming a seasoned Warcraft player overnight I have no way of verifying it. The articles certainly give me no clue how I might verify if some character is a major character or not. Of course, if you still choose to see this as an attack on gaming articles, i.e., a bad faith nom, then I am sure your opinion will be noted by the closing admin. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- Comment Umm... Archimonde is a major character.. And why do you AfD when you have no knowledge of the subject at hand? Shouldn't it be up to the editors who actually work on these articles to decide if they are verifiable or not? Deleting them won't give us any chance to state reliability, verifiability or even work with the articles. And yes, I do see it as a bad faith nomiation, because you state yourself that you have no knowledge of the subject. I have no knowledge about anything relating to LotR other then what I have seen in the movies, does that mean I can go and AfD every character bio on Wikipedia for that lore, stating "I have no knowledge of this, so therfor it must be right of me to delete them." Hiding behind WP:RS and WP:V is all good, but not if you have no chance yourself to state WHY the characters are not major. From the list you compiled I see most of them as major characters in the lore of Warcraft, which is also the reason they have their own article, and deleting them would be foolish. What you could have done instead of this AfD was to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft and ask us to verify them before you nominate them, you could have started a dialoge with the community behind these article, and not just outright AfD them. Havok (T/C/c) 07:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, I see no problem with you going through the list of LotR character articles and nominating the unsourced (or improperly sourced) and unverifiable articles on non-notable characters of interest only to LotR fans for deletion. If your nomination is well-argued, I will support it. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Umm... Archimonde is a major character.. And why do you AfD when you have no knowledge of the subject at hand? Shouldn't it be up to the editors who actually work on these articles to decide if they are verifiable or not? Deleting them won't give us any chance to state reliability, verifiability or even work with the articles. And yes, I do see it as a bad faith nomiation, because you state yourself that you have no knowledge of the subject. I have no knowledge about anything relating to LotR other then what I have seen in the movies, does that mean I can go and AfD every character bio on Wikipedia for that lore, stating "I have no knowledge of this, so therfor it must be right of me to delete them." Hiding behind WP:RS and WP:V is all good, but not if you have no chance yourself to state WHY the characters are not major. From the list you compiled I see most of them as major characters in the lore of Warcraft, which is also the reason they have their own article, and deleting them would be foolish. What you could have done instead of this AfD was to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft and ask us to verify them before you nominate them, you could have started a dialoge with the community behind these article, and not just outright AfD them. Havok (T/C/c) 07:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind WP:POINT. Going on an "AFD spree" as you put it will likely result in it being labeled a bad-faith nom and a strong warning, maybe even a block. Just because these articles might get deleted doesn't give you the rationle to nominate every other similar article for deletion. Hbdragon88 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If these articles are deleted on the basis that you don't find them to be anything major, it so absolutly gives me the right to do so with other "lesser known" characters, places etc. from other lores. This AfD for me will set precedence for other articles of the same type. If the nominator can state "I have no idea what this is about, but I feel myself that X, Y, Z, is not a major character and should therefor be deleted from Wikipedia." why can't I do the same? It's all in the eye of the beholder, he dosn't see this as anything major, but it is for many of us, and AfDing it in my book is just disrespectful if you have no grasp on the subject matter. Havok (T/C/c) 07:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If you think this is a bad faith nom, report it at WP:AN. If if it is a bad-faith nom, the sysops deal with it, and let them punish him. Don't get yourself in trouble if the sysops agree with him and don't believe it's a bad-faith nom or if they decide that the decision is delete. So what if he isn't familiar with the subject matter? What, is owning the game and being immersed in the whole atmosphere a requirement now to edit and make informed decisions about the status of the articles? He should, as an outsider, be able to discern from the article why the subject of the article is notable, and if he can't, then it should either be reworked to make it notable or be deleted. He has chosen the latter path. Hbdragon88 08:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If these articles are deleted on the basis that you don't find them to be anything major, it so absolutly gives me the right to do so with other "lesser known" characters, places etc. from other lores. This AfD for me will set precedence for other articles of the same type. If the nominator can state "I have no idea what this is about, but I feel myself that X, Y, Z, is not a major character and should therefor be deleted from Wikipedia." why can't I do the same? It's all in the eye of the beholder, he dosn't see this as anything major, but it is for many of us, and AfDing it in my book is just disrespectful if you have no grasp on the subject matter. Havok (T/C/c) 07:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note these names appear in the Warcraft 3 game, not WoW, to my knowledge.--Paraphelion 07:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep IV : The Voyage Home Years from now a space-born relative of the humpback whale will return to earth and may ask for this information or else its ceaseless cries will destory our planet. It would bode well for the human race to have this kind of information all in one place.--Paraphelion 07:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Restated I like the idea that a first time visitor to wikipedia might use the random page feature and it will bring up a bio about some obscure fantasy character that is longer than a bio for some nobel prize winners. That to me is the magic of Wikipedia and what it is all about.--Paraphelion 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per well-researched nom. Sure is a terrible thing that no one seems to want to believe in WP policies and guidelines. Good luck with the whale thing. Tychocat 08:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment : Just because the nominator withdrew his comments why must everyone here who has stated they agree with the original nomination restate their rationale for deletion? Just because someone changes their mind doesn't mean everyone else who had similar notions has to confirm theirs.--Paraphelion 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment The nominator did more than "change his mind" in this case - he was accused on multiple fronts of making a bad faith nomination. In that light, any votes that reference the nomination must qualify why they believe the articles should be deleted, aside from "per nom," when the nominator himself has expressed reservations about the AFD.JoshWook 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment However he did not admit to a bad faith nomination, as you of course know becasue as he states at the top, he removed his nomination merely because it became a brawl. Your threat to discount all votes unless they are restated is laughable.--Paraphelion 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
*Relist separately Someof these (like Grom Hellscream) are major characters. Some should be merged into something like List of minor Warcraft characters. This AfD has about zero chance of determining which is which. Ace of Sevens 08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
Comment: as mentioned above, I have offered to withdraw the nomination of any characters that can be shown to be "major characters" using verifiable information. An unsourced summary of the plot as written by an editor doesn't count as evidence for notability, I am afraid. 49 separate AfDs will be killed outright as WP:POINT or something similar, and I certainly don't have the energy to tend to 49 separate discussions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all A good number of these should be kept. If any need to be merged to a minor characters list, AfD isn't the place to handle it, but none should be deleted. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) gives no basis for a deletion, only merge. Ace of Sevens 22:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the fact that the articles are not currently sourced properly is no reason to delete them. The Warcraft universe is propably the most notable universe in computer gaming. Many published books have been written about this universe which could potentially be used as reliable sources. The nominator states that he has no knowledge of this topic and the thing to do here would have been to start a dialogue with the WikiProject, not dump everything in this AfD. This is just further evidence that there are many Wikipedians who look contemptuously at video game content and what they consider "fancruft". This is not fancruft, this is not "gameguide". If this had not been from a video game but from the Lord of the Rings or the Simpsons, this would never have been allowed to come this far: Ajaxfan 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Again, the reason is not solely verifiability. The characters have to be shown to be notable. Read WP:CRUFT. A notable character is not notable solely because of internal plot-related reasons. A fictional character must have real world notability. The character must be known outside the fandom. Currently I see no evidence of this as everything I have been able to find about a character such as Aegwynn, to take a random example, keeps revolving around the WoW fansites (or Wikipedia and mirrors). The published books you speak of are guides for the game, or novelizations of the game. Again I note the comparison to Link (The Legend of Zelda series), which I am increasingly coming to see as the ideal game character article. Is Aegwynn equally notable? Is Orgrim Doomhammer? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- Dude... WP:CRUFT is an essay not a guideline or policy. It cannot be used as the basis for an argument for deletion. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and WP:CRUFT is not my sole rationale. Essays can be illuminating even if they are not policies or guidelines. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- Maybe you should read an actual guideline like WP:FICT The first two points cover why AfD is not appropriate. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dude... WP:CRUFT is an essay not a guideline or policy. It cannot be used as the basis for an argument for deletion. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: The nom has failed to assert a valid reason for deletion. I checked a dozen of the pages randomly I saw no use of WoWWiki as a reference, directly refuting a claim of the nom. The indiscriminate collection of information applies to lists, by the way. If anything should be a game guide a simple edit should suffice. In regards to sourcing video game characters, the games themselves are a source. If you wish to go as far as citation, I have created {{cite video game}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I provided an example of a WoWWiki citations in the nomination. Hakkar the Soulflayer. You can go through the rest by yourself, I hope. The game, being a primary source, is only usable as a source for the plot. It doesn't qualify as a source for notability, which is a critical opinion of a character and requires secondary sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- Comment: Your examples are non-existant: the 4 (Balnazzar, Hakkar the Soulflayer, Sylvanas Windrunner& Zul'jin) articles that have a WowWiki link do so in the external links! Not as a direct reference. And being that Wikipeida and WoWWiki are both GFDL licensed, of course there is going to be some identical text. That is the whole purpose of the license. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Does anyone even read WP:FICT before taking this route. To clarify Wikipedia guidelines specifically state "Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character)." Its the first point on WP:FICT. Its obvious the person nominating these has no knowledge of Warcraft lore to say Archimonde is not a major character or Illidan or Grom Hellscream Tichondrius, Uther or Kel'Thuzad, Arthas Menethil is so notable to lore there is a town named after him, this is obvious a bad faith nomination, and prescedence is going to lead to people nominating characters from Harry Potter and Da Vinci Code for deletion soon as the main characters there have articles written about them. How about the Sopranos? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Not only do I have no knowledge of Warcraft lore, I have no way to verify them except by becoming a dedicated Warcraft player. You are free to nominate unsourced (or poorly sourced) characters from Harry Potter that are non-notable and only interesting to Harry Potter fans for deletion. If the nomination is well argued, I see no reason not to support it. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- Comment::That's the spirit! Come see me on the Argent Dawn server when you have a few hours to spare and I will take you through a quick tour of highlights in WoW which will assure you of their importance in the game. It would go a long way to covering my in-game expenses if you could buy a about 50 gold from a reputable outfitter such as http://www.dgamesky.com/.--Paraphelion 10:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You sir are wrong again, as per point 2 in WP:FICT, which I am asking you now to read. "Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles." So in any case this should never have been put up for deletion as it should have been put up for merging if you feel they are non notable minor cahracters. This AfD should be closed, its breaking the very first two rules that deal with Fictional characters. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment::That's the spirit! Come see me on the Argent Dawn server when you have a few hours to spare and I will take you through a quick tour of highlights in WoW which will assure you of their importance in the game. It would go a long way to covering my in-game expenses if you could buy a about 50 gold from a reputable outfitter such as http://www.dgamesky.com/.--Paraphelion 10:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Characters in the Sopranos routinely engage in acts of bad faith.--Paraphelion 10:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep per WP:FICT. I personally think World of Warcraft is crap, but this kind of nomination is silly: deleting every article here would justify cleaning out tens of thousands of other fiction-related articles from TV series, movies, and the like simply because they "weren't notable enough in the real world." While one has to take notability into account when keeping or deleting articles, this kind of deletionism is not going to get Wikipedia anywhere. If you want to merge some of the less notable characters, clean out the unverified information so that the articles are short enough to merge, don't ask AfD to do it for you. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and condense into a single list bar any major characters. Combination 10:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment For everyone's convenience I will post the appropriate WP:FICT policies here with emphasis added:
- Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character).
- Fiction includes books, TV series, films, computer games and roleplaying games, and possibly other sources.
- Major characters from major works deserve their own article.
— Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all. If someone wants to take on the task of merging these then they don't need to do it via afd. Otherwise these are more than notable enough to be kept, as far as fictional universes go. —Xezbeth 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep If we have pages for every single Pokémon (more than 300), then we can certainly have pages for all Warcraft characters, they are far less than those cute little monsters... Shandristhe azylean 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Warcraft is not just "WoW". World of Warcraft is just a game based on the long established universe that is Warcraft. The legacy of Warcraft is akin to many other works, such as Tolkien's Middle Earth. Warcraft spawns books, video games, board games, clothing, and other things related to the fiction works. To say all the character profiles should be removed is ridiculous.--Ndrfx 05:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: section on individual challenges moved to talk.
- Keep - Should a bunch of these be merged together? Yes. Is that something for AfD? No. Nominating 30 articles at a time never works out well. There's no way to go through and say this one is notable, that one isn't, etc. Trying to set a precedent by nominating a mass of articles is almost WP:POINT. --PresN 15:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Once Kaustav's comments are gone, I don't see how this discussion could possibly have been considered to be "heading fairly close to a delete consensus". If these articles are simply deleted, then it opens the door to deleting pretty much every fictional character from wikipedia. This is a compilation of the major and supporting characters from an extremely notable video game series; the precedent this would set would be chilling. We might as well say goodbye to Harry_Potter_(character) and Luke_Skywalker, if fictional characters are not worthy of the attention of wikipedia. WP:FICT is pretty clear - major characters get their own pages, and minor characters should be merged into a list. And yes, video games fall under those guidelines, unless we want to have a discussion on if video games are an inherently inferior medium. Even if some of the characters in this AFD are believed to be relatively minor, AFD is NOT the appropriate medium to debate their notability relative to one another in preparation for a merge. That can be done elsewhere. If the quality of the articles is a problem, then please, help fix them - but there's no reason to set a precedent of deleting every fictional character from wikipedia. JoshWook 17:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - many of the characters are also part of Wc3 which does not have its own wiki and therefore a delete would cause all information about these characters to be lost from people only interested in Wc3 and not WoW. eventine 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even more bleak is the prospect of people only interested in WC3 and not WoW and not Wikipedia - the information would be totally lost to them as well. If only we could somehow find this demographic and ensure they are made aware in some other way.--Paraphelion 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I feel that the fiction represented by these characters and the universe in which they reside is notable enough for them to merit their own articles. I'm sure there's a legitimate reason, but I find it interesting that some people on Wikipedia strongly consider many computer game articles as 'cruft', even while other people have found the means to make Bulbasaur a featured article.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I, a very long time ago, worked on several Starcraft-related pages which were later deleted. I wasn't too happy about that, but I completely understand that 'Starcraft battlecruiser' (for example) is probably comfortably in that obscurity/cruft zone. I cannot say the same for the character pages nominated here. AustinZ 03:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with cleanup - currently all the articles appear to be OR. They all need to be tagged for verification, and if reliable sources can't be found, then they should be deleted. There are enough Warcraft fans here that these articles should be able to be verified (if that is possible) within 5 days. Once that is done, they'll be safe from deletion. -Mako 21:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- What does OR mean? Shandristhe azylean 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- OR is original research, which I do believe to be a problem in some of these articles, but one which is fixable through good editing.JoshWook 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The source for the articles are the games themselves. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Writing an article based on one's observations of a game is the very definition of original research. Kafziel 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Its not from observations, its fromt he story of the game itself. the story is told in the manual, in the game, and in seperate books. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then those separate books need to be cited. Kafziel 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Correct but since the manual is also cited, it means the content is sourced. Also what is proper cite format for a videogame? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's clearly a lot of information here that is not specifically covered in the game manual. I don't know about Wikipedia's format, but APA has standards for citing computer software (as is the case, I'm sure, with every other modern style guide). Kafziel 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can you give me some examples of things not in the manual? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Various trivia sections, quotes, and presumed etymologies of the character names, among other details. Kafziel 12:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Most trivia sections arent sourced, as its trivia ... Please tell me you do actually have the manual and arent guessing about what is and isnt in it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unsourced trivia is still unsourced. As for the manual, anyone can see what's in it. [22]
- Most trivia sections arent sourced, as its trivia ... Please tell me you do actually have the manual and arent guessing about what is and isnt in it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Various trivia sections, quotes, and presumed etymologies of the character names, among other details. Kafziel 12:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can you give me some examples of things not in the manual? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's clearly a lot of information here that is not specifically covered in the game manual. I don't know about Wikipedia's format, but APA has standards for citing computer software (as is the case, I'm sure, with every other modern style guide). Kafziel 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Correct but since the manual is also cited, it means the content is sourced. Also what is proper cite format for a videogame? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then those separate books need to be cited. Kafziel 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Its not from observations, its fromt he story of the game itself. the story is told in the manual, in the game, and in seperate books. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Writing an article based on one's observations of a game is the very definition of original research. Kafziel 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- What does OR mean? Shandristhe azylean 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete gamecruft. Kafziel 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Coment Please define your reasoning for calling this "gamecruft". Share with me your vast knowledge on the subject. The fact that you call it gamecruft, when in reality Warcraft is just as much lore as Lord of the Rings, or Marvel Universe (both of whom are not games first and formost).
- It's gamecruft because nobody that doesn't play the games will care. That's what cruft is. The Lord of the Rings and Marvel comics are both many decades older than Warcraft, and have a much more established place in literature and culture as a whole. Kafziel 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- A fictional character from the game was featured on Jeopardy, I think your assumption that "nobody that doesn't play the games will care" is pretty incorrect. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's gamecruft because nobody that doesn't play the games will care. That's what cruft is. The Lord of the Rings and Marvel comics are both many decades older than Warcraft, and have a much more established place in literature and culture as a whole. Kafziel 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Thank you, you just made your entire vote void. Now go read WP:NPOV and leave the game articles alone. Stating that something is "older" does not make something less notable. The Warcraft-series of games are one of the most successful franchises in the world of gaming, and have won many awards in mainstream press. [23] Havok (T/C/c) 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment To make the point more clear, would anyone who didn't read Marvel comics / watch Marvel movies care about the characters? Icewolf34 13:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Please read WP:FICT Would anyone who did not watch X movie, read X book, case for X character from that? Luckily that is not how it works here. WP:FICT will help yuo see the propsed guidelines relating to fictional characters. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, I'm familiar with the guidelines. Particularly the one that says the articles for these minor characters could have been merged without any discussion at all. Consensus has already been reached on the importance of some other works of fiction, and this isn't the forum for discussing those. Kafziel 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Good then you should be well aware that AfD is the wrong medium to seek merging of minor characters and that major characters get their own articles as per points 1 and 2 of WP:FICT. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Exactly. Hence if these are deleted because people "simply don't care" I'll start nominating Lord of the Rings articles seeing as I don't care about them. No, I'm not going to do that, because I resepct that people do find that interesting, and the whole point of an Encylopedia is to teach people new things, and if only one person learns something, or get's some re-newed knowledge about the subject, then it's all good. Simply having your attitude Kafziel would only pull Wikipedia down. This has become somewhat of a catch phrase with me, but Even if you don't see the value of it, there are people out there who do find value in it. Havok (T/C/c) 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- First of all, this is not a "vote". Secondly, whether or not my opinion is "void" is not at your discretion. In fact, you clearly missed my point: the examples you gave are more valid not because they are older but because they "have a much more established place in literature and culture as a whole". Yes, that established place in culture can come with age, but age was not my reason for deleting these articles. These are characters from video games, and nobody else is interested in them. Six million people (the supposed number of Warcraft players, according to your entry above) is a drop in the bucket compared to the readership of Lord of the Rings and Marvel comics. That's what makes this cruft. This is nothing personal; I vote the same way on articles about minor Star Wars characters, Dragon Ball Z characters, etc. Kafziel 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- These characters reaching 6 million people is more notable then the names of most towns we have articles on in Wikipedia oddly enough. Also you still have not shown that any of these characters are not known, some of them are main characters and as per WP:FICT specifically get their own articles when they do not fit in the main article. The minor characters get merged into one article, further making this the wrong place to seek merging and making deletion wrong all together. Again, please read the very frist two points of WP:FICT. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not the one who nominated this for deletion. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Also your treatment of some fictional works as "less then" others is quite disturbing. Do you plan to have Da Vinci Code characters deleted next? Who are they notable to outside of the readership or movie watchers? What is the circulation of X-Men comics anyway these days? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I might support deleting characters from The Da Vinci Code, yes. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Out of curiousity, what determines "more established" in your opinion? I'm genuinely curious, I haven't decided which way I swing on this articles yet. Icewolf34 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- A simple test would be to walk up to a random stranger and say, "Have you ever heard of Spider-Man? Have you ever heard of Anub'arak?" Another simple test is to see how prevalent the given storyline is in other media. Tolkein's stories and the Marvel Comics universe have been covered in books, comics, cartoons, film, video games, and even music. None of these are strict criteria for inclusion, but there is no official policy regarding notability. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- However, wouldn't you agree that a random stranger wouldn't have heard of, say, Wizard (Marvel Comics), or a number of other minor Marvel characters...? I do appreciate the clarification, though. Icewolf34 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Being known by the general public is a pretty bad standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia. There are lots of things that I've never heard of in the Brittanica, much less some random moron on the street. Actually, chuck the Brittanica. Do you realize that there are more specialized encyclopedias out there, covering topics ranging from religion, science, or the occult? Go to your library and look, and see if you've heard of everything in those. JoshWook 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Coment Please define your reasoning for calling this "gamecruft". Share with me your vast knowledge on the subject. The fact that you call it gamecruft, when in reality Warcraft is just as much lore as Lord of the Rings, or Marvel Universe (both of whom are not games first and formost).
Reduce Just some ideas. I think most of the characters on this list, in all actuality can be deleted. Most are just extra information that can be found on WoWWiki (as stated above). There are a few that, in my opinion, should be kept. Capt. Placeholder for example is a very unique character in WoW and borders on meme status. If only one out of the whole list was to be kept, he would be the one. Another possible criteria for deletion could be "stub status". Any of the above mentioned characters that are marked as stubs should be deleted, but the others left. Seeing as most of the articles on the list are stubs, this would reduce its numbers, but keep the prevalent articles. Finally, I think all city/race leaders’ articles can be kept as they are important characters not only to WoW, but to the entire Warcraft universe. Their individual histories are important to the canon of Warcraft. On top of that, they are not "enemies" and therefore would not merit sections based on strategies or loot tables. OrcShaman42 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Why does everyone assume it's WoW we are talking about, they are Warcraft characters, and Warcraft goes beyond WoW. Captain Placeholder could just as well be merged into the World of Warcraft article. As for your proposal; a majority of the characters are major to the lore of Warcraft, and should be kept. For this AfD to be fair, each character should be nominated individualy. Havok (T/C/c) 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree that the scope of this AfD entry may have been too broad. It might be tedious, but might also be helpful to list the articles separately. Some of these characters may be more notable than others. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Capt. Placeholder lies outside of Warcraft lore. He is not a part of the canon, but rather a humorous character that was spawned songs, websites, etc. With full respect for Kafziel's comment below, merging Capt. Placeholder into the WoW article is as inappropriate as merging the Leroy Jenkins article into it (WoW). As such, I firmly believe that Capt. P should be removed from this list entirely (without an AfD decision being made) and, possibly, posted as a separate AfD. OrcShaman42 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reduce per above. --Peephole 14:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep many of these characters are important to the warcraft universe. When i say warcraft universe i dont only mean WoW. People like Sargeras,Jaina Proudmore,Arthas,Thrall,Medivh are main characters in the story of warcraft III not to mention they also appear in world of warcraft or at least mentioned. If your gonna delete those entries then you might as well delete the entries for the characters of Harry Potter or Lord of the rings. If you consider 6 million people as "a drop in the bucket" then i should go ahead and delete many articles about anime characters who have far less viewership —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.212.98 (talk • contribs)
- User's first post. Kafziel 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't make it any less true. Illidan Stormrage is about as important to the Warcraft series as Severus Snape is to Harry Potter. Furthermore, Snape's article does *not* currently cite its sources. Now, would the best option be to a) tag the article for cleanup, b) cite the article yourself if you're able, or c) AFD it because you don't like Harry Potter? I choose a or b. JoshWook 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Man, if I had a nickel for every AfD where somebody used a different crappy article as a reason why the crappy article in question should be kept, I'd be a rich man. Why can't anyone ever argue for an article based on its own merits, rather than calling out the myriad other examples of cruft they find? This AfD is not about X-Men, or Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, or anime, or The Da Vinci Code, or anything else. If those categories contain equally unsourced and non-notable subjects, feel free to nominate them for AfD (without being disruptive, of course). The simple fact that these other articles exist does not imply tacit acceptance on my part. If you feel other articles are equally insignificant or poorly written, feel free to nominate them. Kafziel 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Umm, that's how votes go about. The outcome of this AfD will sett precedence for others like it. We have given you lots of reason for it's inclusion and reason to stay, but you ignore them and follow your own aggenda, you even state that you don't care, and yet you continue to argue. Please read WP:CIVIL. Havok (T/C/c) 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, the old CIVIL card. The last refuge of every editor who can't win a discussion any other way. Funny how it never seems to apply to the person who ends up using it. [24] I continue to reply to your questions because this is not a vote. Some Warcraft fans evidently feel that they can bully other users into quitting, but that won't work on me. I will defend myself all day if need be. I shouldn't have to, because I gave clear reasons for my position, but if you are intent on making snide comments to every user who argues for deletion, then I'll be compelled to reply. Kafziel 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- You have not given clear reasons. All you've done above is describe the articles as "cruft" and then claimed non-notability, without saying what standards of notability are appropriate, except that every random stranger should have knowledge of the subject (not a widely held view of what should be inclusive in a good encyclopedia). You're not being bullied - all that's being asked for is specifically citing valid policy for deletion. WP:CRUFT is not, and never has been, and never will be, grounds for deletion. JoshWook 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, I'm not being bullied. You don't have the capacity to bully me. But other editors have been bullied (the nominator, most obviously), and I won't stand for it. Kafziel 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- You have not given clear reasons. All you've done above is describe the articles as "cruft" and then claimed non-notability, without saying what standards of notability are appropriate, except that every random stranger should have knowledge of the subject (not a widely held view of what should be inclusive in a good encyclopedia). You're not being bullied - all that's being asked for is specifically citing valid policy for deletion. WP:CRUFT is not, and never has been, and never will be, grounds for deletion. JoshWook 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, the old CIVIL card. The last refuge of every editor who can't win a discussion any other way. Funny how it never seems to apply to the person who ends up using it. [24] I continue to reply to your questions because this is not a vote. Some Warcraft fans evidently feel that they can bully other users into quitting, but that won't work on me. I will defend myself all day if need be. I shouldn't have to, because I gave clear reasons for my position, but if you are intent on making snide comments to every user who argues for deletion, then I'll be compelled to reply. Kafziel 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I will not. That would blatant bad faith on my part - if you feel that these articles are bad, it is *your* responsibility to AFD those articles. Your attempt to get me to do it was an attempt to catch me making a WP:POINT and be chastised for it. My reason for the comparison is that while I think that these articles and the Snape article contain some OR and need cleanup, the existence of a Snape article is not a problem in and of itself. But, AFD is not the place to say that articles need cleanup or merging - it's a judgement on whether wikipedia should cover certain subjects. Did you even read WP:FICT? JoshWook 16:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, Josh, I specifically told you not to violate POINT, and even put in the link to it. You're all giving me other examples of crappy articles and saying, "Well, if we have that one, we should have this one". Your logic is flawed, though, because I never said I thought we should have those other ones. You're making the assumption that I think Snape is worthy of an article, when I never said I did. Kafziel 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly is your opinion then? Should fictional characters be covered at all on wikipedia? If the answer is no, then I think you'll find that your opinion is supported nowhere in wikipedia policy or precedent. JoshWook 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Some should, yes. It largely depends on WP:V and WP:NOR, both of which this article fails. I think you will find that your opinion is supported nowhere in policy either, as there is no official policy regarding notability. There are guidelines, but not policies. As for precedents, those are set here. Kafziel 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please read WP:FICT The first two points are most relevant here, thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Believe me, I've read it. I've done a lot of work on fiction articles (and videogame articles, for that matter) and I'm well aware of the guideline. But it's a guideline, not a policy, and any user may choose to disregard it if he or she feels an exception may be made. Kafziel 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Can you show me the policy that states fictional characters need to meet WP:V and notability independently from their own main article, even though they are being split because they size of the article not their own notability. See what you fail to understand is that WP:FICT states to give them their own articles, not because they are notable characters to the world, or that they deserve their own articles without an article on the main story but, because there is no room in the main article and we work with article size contraints. So notability and WP:V are not applicable here, these arent really articles on their own because they meet policy, they are articles on their own cause they do not fit in the main article. Which is why I keep telling you to read WP:FICT. Because it states you can off shoot articles for main characters when the main article gets too big, and states nothing of them needing to be article worthy on their own, because then there would be really no point to stating you can create seperate articles for them, cause that would be common sense if they were already notable to the world and verifiable outside of the media in which the fictional character exists. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I will say again, there is no policy on notability. There are guidelines. And what the guideline actually says is that characters can be broken off into their own articles if the information is encyclopedic. I contend that this is not encyclopedic, because in order for information to be encyclopedic at Wikipedia it must be notable, verifiable, and obtained from a trustworthy source. What the guideline recommends is combining them on one page, such as List of characters from The Sopranos in the DiMeo Crime Family. Kafziel 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- That is for minor characters, again read WP:FICT, this is my last reply to you as it seems you are just refusing to acknowledge WP:FICT at all which is odd since your example is a list of minor characters being put on a page as per WP:FICT. Again they are minor characters, which is point 2 of WP:FICT, now just acknowledge point 1 and we are all done. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- And I will say to you again that WP:FICT is not a policy. It's a suggestion. There are no hard and fast criteria to decide which characters are major and which are minor. Who decides that? Fans of the genre? Fans of that particular universe? Fans of that specific character? The Sopranos list came to mind because the Sopranos community had a problem with a fan who absolutely insisted that a certain character was "major". The line is not black and white as you are trying to make it seem. In cases such as that (and such as this), whether or not a character is "major" is subject to consensus, which is what we are trying to reach here. Kafziel 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I think you have everything mixed up then, this is not the appropriate venue for you to find out who is a major character, and putting them all up for deletion in an attempt to is completely against the purpose of AfD. Perhaps you should read up what AfD is used for, but its not for merging, or for finding out what characters are major and which are not. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be mixed up, because I didn't put any of these up for deletion. You managed to bully that poor guy into silence. I just happened to agree with him, and I was willing to put up with many kilobytes more bullshit than he was. AfD is actually used for merging quite often. You'll know that after you spend a bit more time here. I do agree with you, though, that it's not for determining whether characters are minor or major. I think they're minor, therefore cruft, and that's really the end of it as far as my stance is concerned. Kafziel 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not address me again since you seem to be resorting to baseless accusations after failing to prove via the appropriate guidelines that this AfD is appropriate. Have a good day and please be more civil in the future. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- As for your comment "AfD is actually used for merging quite often" I leave you with a wonderful quote "To which I responded that that doesn't mean it's okay." --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please do not address me again since you seem to be resorting to baseless accusations after failing to prove via the appropriate guidelines that this AfD is appropriate. Have a good day and please be more civil in the future. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be mixed up, because I didn't put any of these up for deletion. You managed to bully that poor guy into silence. I just happened to agree with him, and I was willing to put up with many kilobytes more bullshit than he was. AfD is actually used for merging quite often. You'll know that after you spend a bit more time here. I do agree with you, though, that it's not for determining whether characters are minor or major. I think they're minor, therefore cruft, and that's really the end of it as far as my stance is concerned. Kafziel 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you have everything mixed up then, this is not the appropriate venue for you to find out who is a major character, and putting them all up for deletion in an attempt to is completely against the purpose of AfD. Perhaps you should read up what AfD is used for, but its not for merging, or for finding out what characters are major and which are not. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- And I will say to you again that WP:FICT is not a policy. It's a suggestion. There are no hard and fast criteria to decide which characters are major and which are minor. Who decides that? Fans of the genre? Fans of that particular universe? Fans of that specific character? The Sopranos list came to mind because the Sopranos community had a problem with a fan who absolutely insisted that a certain character was "major". The line is not black and white as you are trying to make it seem. In cases such as that (and such as this), whether or not a character is "major" is subject to consensus, which is what we are trying to reach here. Kafziel 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is for minor characters, again read WP:FICT, this is my last reply to you as it seems you are just refusing to acknowledge WP:FICT at all which is odd since your example is a list of minor characters being put on a page as per WP:FICT. Again they are minor characters, which is point 2 of WP:FICT, now just acknowledge point 1 and we are all done. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I will say again, there is no policy on notability. There are guidelines. And what the guideline actually says is that characters can be broken off into their own articles if the information is encyclopedic. I contend that this is not encyclopedic, because in order for information to be encyclopedic at Wikipedia it must be notable, verifiable, and obtained from a trustworthy source. What the guideline recommends is combining them on one page, such as List of characters from The Sopranos in the DiMeo Crime Family. Kafziel 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can you show me the policy that states fictional characters need to meet WP:V and notability independently from their own main article, even though they are being split because they size of the article not their own notability. See what you fail to understand is that WP:FICT states to give them their own articles, not because they are notable characters to the world, or that they deserve their own articles without an article on the main story but, because there is no room in the main article and we work with article size contraints. So notability and WP:V are not applicable here, these arent really articles on their own because they meet policy, they are articles on their own cause they do not fit in the main article. Which is why I keep telling you to read WP:FICT. Because it states you can off shoot articles for main characters when the main article gets too big, and states nothing of them needing to be article worthy on their own, because then there would be really no point to stating you can create seperate articles for them, cause that would be common sense if they were already notable to the world and verifiable outside of the media in which the fictional character exists. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Believe me, I've read it. I've done a lot of work on fiction articles (and videogame articles, for that matter) and I'm well aware of the guideline. But it's a guideline, not a policy, and any user may choose to disregard it if he or she feels an exception may be made. Kafziel 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- You have given no evidence to show that every sentence of these (not this, there are several being considered here) articles (which would be required for a deletion instead of a merge) is original research. Provide that. JoshWook 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe not to you (I don't have to repeat myself to every editor who disagrees with me) but I did give examples to Zer0faults in an earlier thread. I didn't say every sentence was original research, but combined with WP:V they are pretty weak. Kafziel 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- You didnt really provide evidence other then to say the trivia sections were OR, which I responded by telling you they usually are. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- To which I responded that that doesn't mean it's okay. Kafziel 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- You didnt really provide evidence other then to say the trivia sections were OR, which I responded by telling you they usually are. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Maybe not to you (I don't have to repeat myself to every editor who disagrees with me) but I did give examples to Zer0faults in an earlier thread. I didn't say every sentence was original research, but combined with WP:V they are pretty weak. Kafziel 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please read WP:FICT The first two points are most relevant here, thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Some should, yes. It largely depends on WP:V and WP:NOR, both of which this article fails. I think you will find that your opinion is supported nowhere in policy either, as there is no official policy regarding notability. There are guidelines, but not policies. As for precedents, those are set here. Kafziel 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly is your opinion then? Should fictional characters be covered at all on wikipedia? If the answer is no, then I think you'll find that your opinion is supported nowhere in wikipedia policy or precedent. JoshWook 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, Josh, I specifically told you not to violate POINT, and even put in the link to it. You're all giving me other examples of crappy articles and saying, "Well, if we have that one, we should have this one". Your logic is flawed, though, because I never said I thought we should have those other ones. You're making the assumption that I think Snape is worthy of an article, when I never said I did. Kafziel 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Umm, that's how votes go about. The outcome of this AfD will sett precedence for others like it. We have given you lots of reason for it's inclusion and reason to stay, but you ignore them and follow your own aggenda, you even state that you don't care, and yet you continue to argue. Please read WP:CIVIL. Havok (T/C/c) 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Man, if I had a nickel for every AfD where somebody used a different crappy article as a reason why the crappy article in question should be kept, I'd be a rich man. Why can't anyone ever argue for an article based on its own merits, rather than calling out the myriad other examples of cruft they find? This AfD is not about X-Men, or Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, or anime, or The Da Vinci Code, or anything else. If those categories contain equally unsourced and non-notable subjects, feel free to nominate them for AfD (without being disruptive, of course). The simple fact that these other articles exist does not imply tacit acceptance on my part. If you feel other articles are equally insignificant or poorly written, feel free to nominate them. Kafziel 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't make it any less true. Illidan Stormrage is about as important to the Warcraft series as Severus Snape is to Harry Potter. Furthermore, Snape's article does *not* currently cite its sources. Now, would the best option be to a) tag the article for cleanup, b) cite the article yourself if you're able, or c) AFD it because you don't like Harry Potter? I choose a or b. JoshWook 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment I hate to have to be the nanny, but can we keep stop the flaming/trolling and get back to the real issue please? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are not debating definitions of article types or WP essays, we are debating specific articles on the AfD list. There is no reason to drag this page on and on with selfish and wasteful personal attacks. Let's just get this over with, I know there are other things we would all like to be doing (maybe).—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:OrcShaman42 (talk • contribs)
- Comment I'd recommend closing this AfD and relisting the less notable ones for deletion. Consensus seems to be that we can't categorically delete each of these entries, so far as I can tell. Especially since the relevant deletion arguments are "WP:V and WP:NOR," which certainly can't be covered for every article at once. Icewolf34 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- A little more support for this stance: "In cases such as that (and such as this), whether or not a character is "major" is subject to consensus, which is what we are trying to reach here" is Kafziel's (very reasonable) position, which is again better served through discussion on individual pages. Icewolf34 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Completely agreed. Kaustauv was right in predicting a drawn-out, uncivil no consensus that would lead to nowhere. Any time more than a dozen articles of varying quality is put up for AFD, we're going to end up with nothing more than shouting matches. The reason for that is that trying to delete big portions of wikipedia en masse is an attempt to circumvent the policy-making procedure. If policy is to be changed, do it, because right now there is no policy that justifies deleting every one of these all at once simply because they are game characters. Otherwise look at each article one at a time and decide on its own merits. JoshWook 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Leave it alone until someone decides they have time to merge it or care enough to merge the "minor" characters in to the main article they should be in. That entire "these other things have cultural importance, warcraft doesn't" seems a little weak. It's probably just that people have different levels of exposure to different sections of "culture". I think its better to leave this "cruft" if some people find it useful. Cackalacky is an example of this where Wikipedia having something minor was useful to me, even though some people on the discussion had never heard of it.Justbobdanish 21:05, 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 CSD G7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hashkafah.com
Does not assert meeting WP:WEB, nevertheless PROD tag was removed. I find no coverage of this site as prescribed by WP:WEB, also it's apparently only been mentioned on a total of 8 different websites [27] suggesting that it has an active community but is not of much interest to anyone outside that community. To meet WP:WEB, evidence needs to be presented that this site has been written about by reliable, independent sources. --W.marsh 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Note: Alexa rank of 88,321. Morgan Wick 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Question: The article says the site has 2500 members. Assuming this is true, does that in itself impart sufficient notability? - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not really. "Notability" is nice but it doesn't really matter if there isn't any verifiable information on the topic to write the article from, and WP:WEB is really just about making sure that information exists. 2,500 members doesn't directly mean that reliable sources have covered something, or that it otherwise meets WP:WEB. --W.marsh 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete well written article. Sorry, Aishel. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. --Daniel575 05:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — per Crazy Russian. Sorry, Aishel. Chris Griswold 07:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - as per everyone else. Makes sense.--69.220.225.232 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- whoops, that was me, I forgot to sign in.--aishel 22:21, 11 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 no consensus to delete at this time. The comments from anons/new users shouldn't be ignored because they actually make meaningful arguments. And several established contributers also want to keep... so there's clearly no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (2nd nom)
 |
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 textbook cruft. Unverified through anything other than listening to the show, of limited interest to a circumscribed minority. At the first AfD they glossed over this point. This could be smerged back in to the article on El Rushbo - a half dozen terms at most. But this article as currently constituted is ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. fancruft and Wikipedia is not a collection of FAQs. Gazpacho 04:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete list page and mergeonly those instances into Rush Limbaugh that can be strongly verified using reliable secondary sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- This is an illegal vote. GFDL requires that history be preserved. If we're merging, we must redirect. If we're deleting we cannot merge. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh? Fine, read it as reduce, merge, and redirect. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, to be really precise GFDL doesn't protect facts or sources. So if someone took the time to re-investigate and type into the article themselves very simple information (as opposed to copy/pasting) then it would be GFDL compliant. - brenneman {L} 05:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is an illegal vote. GFDL requires that history be preserved. If we're merging, we must redirect. If we're deleting we cannot merge. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Qualifies for inclusion as a glossary of terms used by Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh's use of lanuage and rhetoric is widely discussed and analyzed - books and articles are written on the topic [28]. By citing an essay and personal opinion on the interest of the material, the nom has not made much of a case for deletion. However, looks to me that the subject would have very broad interest among those researching American culture, political history and etymologies. A number of the terms do seem to be referenced, but better referencing would be welcome. --JJay 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Provides a useful space to merge Limbaugh's new epithets as they are invented, and having them here is preferable to having articles on each. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This page was interesting. If anything it should be moved to the "Rush Limbaugh" page, but it's definately relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.230.228.233 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete, I'm sure one of the editors has a Rush Limbaugh fan website where this would be much more at home. Recury 18:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely Keep, Limbaugh jargon is used to parody and satirize the object of the jargon. It is a distinguishing feature of his program and therefore required for a encyclopedic entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.90.97.254 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete-complete fancruft and at best it's a list of neologism which have no place here anyway. Now if there was a reliable source somewhere that had an article explicitedly about rush Limbaugh's jargon then you would have grounds to keep it. As it stands, it's WP:or cruft. 205.157.110.11 23:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per the Crazy Russian. This is clearly cruft, although I agree with User:Ihcoyc that this is better than independent articles on each neologism. Is that really the alternative? Eusebeus 09:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above unless fixed up to reference the sources which JJay refers to for each and every item; Wikipedia is not a dictionary of quotations and neologisms, verifiability is not optional and there are no eventualists round here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Following your logic, articles like List of High Kings of Ireland might have to be immediately deleted since there are not references for "each and every item". There are plenty of eventualists here. It's a very valid approach. --JJay 12:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- You nominate it and I'll give you my opinion at the AFD. There's at least a degree of difference between "I picked up a book and copied out what it says" lists, which are verifiable and sourceable by adding the book(s) the material was extracted from as reference(s) (i.e. there are two lists of High Kings of Ireland in Frank Byrne's Irish Kings and High Kings, albeit neither matches the main list in the article in question), and "who knows where this stuff came from ?" ones like this. The fate of both articles should be to be reduced to verifiable, and thus shorter, lists. However, we're now at AFD for the Limbaugh list, so the time for eventualism is past. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Following your logic, articles like List of High Kings of Ireland might have to be immediately deleted since there are not references for "each and every item". There are plenty of eventualists here. It's a very valid approach. --JJay 12:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for the following reasons.
- I am new to wikipedia, but if what I hear is really true--that, for example, lists and descriptions of each and every Simpsons episode reside here--then I don't see how Limbaugh jargon qualifies for deletion. "Unverified through anything other than listening to [or watching] the show" (quoting CrazyRussian above) ? Check. "of limited interest to a circumscribed minority"? Check. Simpsons episodes and Limbaugh jargon must plead guilty to both charges.
- As for a positive argument for "keep," I endorse what the "absolutely keep" entry said above: "Limbaugh jargon is used to parody and satirize the object of the jargon. It is a distinguishing feature of his program and therefore required for a encyclopedic entry."
- As for the verifiability problem:
- This can be fixed for most entries in this article. For example, a lexis-nexis search on " 'feminazi' AND 'limbaugh' " yielded 120 results in "major papers" and five in "magazines and journals." I am sure that among those is an article that could be cited where relevant information about "feminazi" could be mined.
- For any entry that cannot be found in published articles, it would suffice to reference a date when the term was heard on Limbaugh's show, since audio archives of the show are available.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.180.23 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete on Wikipedia/Add to Wikiquote A solution that editors on the Mark Levin page came up with, for dealing with a similar list of Levin jargon that was overwhelming the article, was to move the full list to Wikiquote and keep a representative sample of 5 items behnd on the master Levin page. Would that not work here as well?NYCTommy 03:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is precisely what I suggest in my nomination. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that. Also wanted to chime in and mention the Wikiquote option that we used on Levin, which helped win over those opposed to outright deletion of the list. If implemented on Limbaugh's page, the Rush jargon would survive intact at Wikiquote and you culd easily provide a link to it in the jargon section of the 'pedia article. I suggest voters here check out Mark Levin for an example of how this worked in practice.NYCTommy 13:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is precisely what I suggest in my nomination. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. OK guys, I did a little research and I see that there is an article on wikipedia titled "List of neologisms on The Simpsons." It is 78 kilobytes. I just don't see how the list of Limbaugh jargon is any worse. Maybe the title of the Limbaugh article should be changed to "List of neologisms used on The Rush Limbaugh Show"? 152.3.246.168 05:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there are many items in that list that should be pared. However, the list itself should stay. There are several notable entries with their own articles on it, such as D'oh! and Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Some entries are sourced. The ones that are not sourced and do not assert significance should be removed. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fancruft. CaliEd 01:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is a history of phrases coined by Limbaugh that enter common use, such as feminazi and drive-by media.--Bedford 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The Limbaugh Show in itself is notable enough for a glossary of terms used on the program. -- Crevaner 01:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Like Limbaugh or not, the terminology used in his show has permiated society. Even if you don't agree with him, knowing what in fact is being inferred is a worthwhile excercise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.180.203 (talk • contribs)
- 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 deleted by User:Ral315, author request. Morgan Wick 05:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Cheetah Girls 3
Movie is complete crystal balling, as IMDB has 0 entries on this movie. Prod removed by author as well Wildthing61476 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
IMBD does not always have everything up that fast. This was all said in a press conference and Deborah Gregory said this in a interview. Jtervin 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mind linking to an article about this interview and/or press conference, then? —NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 03:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fake promo pic made in MS Paint sealed the deal for this article. —NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 03:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the exact address but if you look on Google for The Cheetah Girls 3 i found a video for the press conference live and there is no promo pic. What promo pic?Jtervin 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I mean the image in this revision of the article, which you removed after I made that statement. —NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 03:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete It was on a live video feed and it was a press conference and it was on the news in my hometown like 2 weeks ago. Jtervin 03:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment' Funny, Googling "Cheetah Girls 3" gives NO link to this press conference. Wildthing61476 03:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Said Google search also turns up ~200 G-hits. Morgan Wick 04:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That is what I did and it took me to Deborah Gregory's Pay-Per_view site and I payed 5.95 to watch the press conference live.
- Comment Funny, NO mention of this on her website either. I'm starting to lean to a speedy the more I hear this. Wildthing61476 03:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It might have been a cable company's site but it just said "Deborah Gregory PAy-Per-View at the top and looked like her offcial website Cheetahrama.Jtervin 04:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not remove that image by the way. I thought you did Neo.Jtervin 04:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nice try. This diff shows that you were the one that removed it. —NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok i just found a link and i will post it in one sec!!! Jtervin 04:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is the link:
http://www.xanga.com/CheetahGirlsMovie3
and I did remove it the second time (Personal attack removed)
-
- Comment So the site was created on Friday August 11, 2006 at 12:08 AM eastern....7 minutes ago. Please stop, you are making your case MUCH worse. Wildthing61476 04:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I reposted that from somebody else's XangaJtervin 04:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment So the site was created on Friday August 11, 2006 at 12:08 AM eastern....7 minutes ago. Please stop, you are making your case MUCH worse. Wildthing61476 04:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, where is the proof? I'm REALLY gving you the benefit of a doubt, but was this mentioned in ANY major newspaper/publication/media source? Obviously a successful franchise, such as this, would be noteworthy enough if a sequel was being made. Wildthing61476 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as wishful thinking/hoax. Gazpacho 04:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete original article was bad enough, behavior of author is even worse. A Xanga?! Danny Lilithborne 04:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I am sorry for my behavior but it was there but now its been removed and so I'm not mad t you guys but the poeple from the pay-per-view site. Sorry!!Jtervin 04:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you've decided it doesn't actually exist, copy this into the article: {{delete-because|author request}} Gazpacho 04:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Or {{db-author}} Morgan Wick 04:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Note: I wanted to see if this user has engaged in any questionable behaviour, specifically, if he's furthered hoaxes in the past. Here's what I found: He recreated The Cheetah Girls TV series after it got deleted; that is now nommed as a db-repost. He has also modified user pages that aren't his, but my real concern is less than 100 edits in less than a day... awfully new user, though he may have edited previously as an anon. Not the dirt I was looking for, but there's some clods in there. Morgan Wick 04:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you've decided it doesn't actually exist, copy this into the article: {{delete-because|author request}} Gazpacho 04:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no legitimate evidence that the movie is real. The website in question would also not be acceptable by verifiability standards.
Also unsigned personal attacks are not welcomed.Atttack was already removed. --Edgelord 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) - Comment You can delete this but like i said I was sorry about me exploding on you peeps it is the fact that i cannot find the link is what makes me mad.Jtervin 04:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to Note Yes i have edited before i just never had a user-name and i did re-create the Tv series page because it needed to be fixed and is fixed and is not deleted yet so maybe it will stay up and I SAID I WAS SORRY FOR MY BAD BEHAVIOR!!!!
- Delete per WP is not a crystal ball, and failing WP:V, at best. Tychocat 04:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Being Deleted I will delete this article to prove to you all that I can do it and that I am not just trying to pull an hoax but when this page come back up it will be veryfiable but put up by somebody else. ALSO please help me with the tours section of The Cheetah Girls Girl Grup i can't make thouse boxes Sorry!! :)
- 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. Sango123 03:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2011 in film
I know this has an organized template and everything, but isn't 2011 looking a little far ahead, especially since there's only one film listed and it's a red link? Opabinia regalis 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This can be recrated at a latter time when we have a larger list of movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgelord (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 August 2006
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I suspect the one entry on here is crystalballery. No way any film has been confirmed, let alone production begun, when I'll likely be out of college when it comes out and I haven't even started yet. If so, no way they'd know the year that certainly. Morgan Wick 04:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete way too premature. Crystal ball as to the Dark Knight Returns. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above -- | Shishir Rane | talk 05:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
- All signs point to delete. Gazpacho 05:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOT). Kalani [talk] 05:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete — Crystal ball Chris Griswold 06:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete crystalballing Konman72 11:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, recreate in 2010. Nuttah68 13:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Per above. SynergeticMaggot 16:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - premature. 23skidoo 19:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. - It's only 2006... --Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not place for making article crystal ball, and premature. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:32, 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. Discounting socks and newbies, the consensus seems fairly solid. As Jayjg points out, lists of this sort implicate fundamental questions of NPOV; at the very least, selectively permitted some "terrorist by nationality" lists and not others is problematic. As suggested also, imprecise definitions of "terrorist" and "Pakistani" call into question whether the list is meaningful and maintainable. Xoloz 15:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terrorists of Pakistani origin
|
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}} |
Article duplicates Category:Pakistani terrorists and is presently used by User:Robcotton for original research and crystal-ball gazing. Attention closer, please see the discussion about sockpuppets on the talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: This is not about Pakistani terrorists operating within Pakistan. This is about terrorist of Pakistani origin (most of them not Pakistani citizens), operating outside of Pakistan. Viriditas has been vandalizing the article, he has been removing the contents withought justification. This is an article containing a list and not a category. The information used for the article is widely published and readily available. Just click on the Wikipedia and external links provided.--Robcotton 05:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The list you created is original research which duplicates an already existing category. Your definition of who is or isn't Pakistani is subjective and open to interpretation, and in the case of Haq, you list him as a terrorist based on your beliefs and not on reliable sources. Furthermore he was US-born, so how does that make him a Pakistani terrorist? Ramzi Yousef's nationality is disputed, Hasib Hussain was born in the UK, as was Shehzad Tanweer, Mohammad Sidique Khan, and Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. The article as it stands is not based on objective criteria and reads as original research. You've also added speculative content to the article; Wikipedia does not engage in forecasting the future, as the "Yet to be named" news section you've added implies. And, who are the "Murderers of Indian diplomat Ravindra Mhatre", and if they can't be named, how do you know they are Pakistani terrorists? Also, the external links you provide do not seem to substantiate the article you created. Just because a UK-born terrorist might have a Pakistani father, does not imply that such a person is a "Pakistani terrorist"; that is your original research. More importantly, Wikipedia convention appears to categorize terrorists after their place of birth, not by the ethnicity or nationality of their mother or father as you are doing. —Viriditas | Talk 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Question of nationality ;Viriditas's text justifies why the article is called "Terrorists of Pakistani origin" (and not "Pakistani terrorists"). There is a common thread among them, and yet most of the persons listed are not Pakistani citizens. This is an useful article with an appropriate theme.--ISKapoor 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- We use nationality for categorization for the sole reason that it is verifiable. How do you even begin to verify "descent"? This is completely absurd and serves no useful, informative, or encyclopedic purpose other than to push POV and original research. What does it mean to be of "Pakistani origin" and how do you verify it? We don't list occupations in this way for that reason. What's next, List of engineers of Indian origin? Category:Indian engineers exists because it is verifiable and helps sort the engineer category. Why is "descent" notable, and what usefulness does it impart? —Viriditas | Talk 05:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Question of nationality ;Viriditas's text justifies why the article is called "Terrorists of Pakistani origin" (and not "Pakistani terrorists"). There is a common thread among them, and yet most of the persons listed are not Pakistani citizens. This is an useful article with an appropriate theme.--ISKapoor 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The list you created is original research which duplicates an already existing category. Your definition of who is or isn't Pakistani is subjective and open to interpretation, and in the case of Haq, you list him as a terrorist based on your beliefs and not on reliable sources. Furthermore he was US-born, so how does that make him a Pakistani terrorist? Ramzi Yousef's nationality is disputed, Hasib Hussain was born in the UK, as was Shehzad Tanweer, Mohammad Sidique Khan, and Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. The article as it stands is not based on objective criteria and reads as original research. You've also added speculative content to the article; Wikipedia does not engage in forecasting the future, as the "Yet to be named" news section you've added implies. And, who are the "Murderers of Indian diplomat Ravindra Mhatre", and if they can't be named, how do you know they are Pakistani terrorists? Also, the external links you provide do not seem to substantiate the article you created. Just because a UK-born terrorist might have a Pakistani father, does not imply that such a person is a "Pakistani terrorist"; that is your original research. More importantly, Wikipedia convention appears to categorize terrorists after their place of birth, not by the ethnicity or nationality of their mother or father as you are doing. —Viriditas | Talk 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with prejudice as a manifest violation of WP:NPOV. In its present form it pushes a POV that "descent" is a notable feature of a person being a terrorist. Those members of this list that are of British origin (i.e., born and raised in the British Isles) belong to Category:British terrorists per the categorization guidelines (see also: 1, 2), not Category:Terrorists of Pakistani descent or any such ad hoc category. Similarly for the others. Also echo Viriditas's reasons above regarding original research and speculation. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it is a notable list and one that shouldn't be hard to source. If it is not possible to source the ethnicity then it's OR and will have to go but otherwise there do not appear to be any reasons to delete. Ethnicity is a valid descriptor, the US for instance would describe Pakistanis who are American citizens as Pakistani-American. The article does not duplicate category:Pakistani terrorists as that only refers to those with Pakistani citizenship. MLA 11:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the list duplicates Category:Pakistani terrorists with two entries, Abdul Hakim Murad and Ramzi Yousef, with the rest belonging to other categories as Kaustuv Chaudhuri and myself point out above. Articles should follow the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline. Terrorists are categorized by their nationality, not by "descent", "origin", or ethnicity. For examples, see Category:Nationalities by occupation and Category:Occupations by nationality. While there is nothing stopping anyone from adding these terrorists to the appropriate subcat under Category:People by ethnic or national origin (such as adding Naveed Afzal Haq to Category:Pakistani Americans) occupations are not categorized in this manner. This ignores the fact that User:Robcotton added Haq as a "terrorist" for no other reason than he thinks its the right thing to do, sans sources. The list serves no useful purpose other than to promote Robcotton's POV. —Viriditas | Talk 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The catagory doesn't seem to be as extensive as the list Zr2d2 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a good reason to expand the category then. The list is longer since a lot of it seems to be crystal ball gazing, and who counts as "Pakistani" or even a "terrorist" is ill-defined. --NinjaCharlie 15:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Viriditas's well-reasoned explanation. -- Merope 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MLA--Bandyopadhyay 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Viriditas--NinjaCharlie 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MLA -- LeoO3 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Viriditas's well-reasoned explanation. Zr2d2 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MLA. It is interesting to note that all these well-known individuals have something significant in common. That can help in figuring out the reasons people become terrorists.--Whitesurf 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, no. That'd be like having a list of all left-handed, bald child molesters. Guilt by association isn't sufficient IMO. We'd need a well-referenced article that clearly demonstrates the connection. — RJH (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I hear all terrorists are Dihydrogen Monoxide users. Do I smell a list? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MLA. Zelse81 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Further information added:Viriditas had asked who are the "Murderers of Indian diplomat Ravindra Mhatre"? . Mhatre was murdered at Birmingham, UK in 1984. I have the answer which took me a while to find: Mohammed Riaz and Quayyam Raja. They were among the six convicted by a British court in 1985. [37]. Raja Abdul Qayyum was expelled by UK upon his release in 2005. They belonged to the same Mirpuri (They are considered to be "Kashmiri", but speak Mirpuri, a dialect of Punjabi)community as some of the other individuals from UK in the list of terrorists.--Robcotton 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I also request the readers to see People's Justice Party (UK). Note that there is a whole group in Birmingham, UK, who supported Mohammed Riaz and Quayyam Raja.--Robcotton 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MLA. nicesai 19:18, 11 August 2006 (EST)
- Delete: per nom. --Ragib 05:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The article poses some serious questions like the fact that many terrorists will be of different nationalities and should Wikipedia serve as a listing of Terrorists of each nationality/region? There are nearly 200 countries and dependencies in the world and I'm sure many will have terrorists from their country being involved in incidents. I don't think this should exist. If anything meaningful is there it can be salvaged and put into Terrorism in Pakistan as a side note. Idleguy 05:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MLA.--amit (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MLA. canadaolympic989 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (This vote was originally made by User:142.167.235.126 [38])
- Keep per MLA. SC (There is no user by this name. This edit was made by User:68.98.133.49 [39] who at the time of this vote had only one edit, consisting of only this vote)
- Delete per comments of Viriditas and Kaustuv; inflammatory, non-encyclopedic, OR, by its very nature violates NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Terrorism and social groups: Many criminal groups, gangs, terrorists, crime groups rely on social networking to recruit members. Thus there is Sicilian Mafia,Tamil gangs, Mexican Mafia, Irish Gangs, Korean Gang Gangpeh, Russian Mafia, Chinese triads List of Triad Societies, Criminally Influenced Tongs and Chinese Gangs etc. To know how such groups work, ethnicity needs to be considered as a common factor. Discussion of crime and terror will be very hard if references to ethnicity is considered non-PC. That will amount to prohibiting a candid discussion of terror and crime. --ISKapoor 21:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- With no exceptions all articles on these terrorists mention their ethnic roots. The question here is one of categorisation, not political correctness. (PC is itself a violation of WP:NPOV in any case.) The situation here is akin to creating a list of criminals who play video games or list of opponents of same-sex marriage with gay children. The notability of such features is hotly disputed, and Wikipedia should not be yet another front of these disputes. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- By all means start an article on Terrorism and social groups and put any sourced information on the relationship there. "Pakistani origin" is not a social-group category. It is a racial category. Clayoquot Sound 08:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per comments by several of us.--Robcotton 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Terrorism: random or correlated? Kaustuv Chaudhuri has claimed that it is a random event that some individuals of Pakistani descent are terrorist. Please see the following.
Articles
Terrorism pipeline flows to Pakistan, Chicago Tribune, August 13, 2006 [40][41]
Pakistan missing link in extremist battle, Sydney Morning Herald, August 14, 2006, [42]
Just whose side is Pakistan really on? The Sunday Times - Britain, August 13, 2006 [43]
Pakistan’s Help in Averting a Terror Attack Is a Double-Edged Sword, New York Times, August 12, 2006[44][45]
Books
Book: Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism: Allah, The Army, And America's War On Terror, Hassan Abbas, Jessica Stern [46]
Book: Pakistan: Eye of the Storm, Owen Bennett Jones [47]
Book: Pakistan: Between Mosque And Military, by Husain Haqqani [48]
Other
Congressional Briefing: Rep. McKinney 9/11 Congressional Briefing[49]
--Robcotton 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)- May I also suggest another article. "The history of Britain's Mirpur population may help to explain why some became suicide bombers", Madeleine Bunting, Guardian, July 18, 2005 [50]
--Robcotton 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)- I have not claimed anything of the sort. I have, in fact, expressed no opinion on the nature of terrorism. If you want to argue that terrorism has ethnic causes, you might find your view already expressed adequately in terrorism#Perpetrators. That article could use several more pairs of eyes in any case. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- May I also suggest another article. "The history of Britain's Mirpur population may help to explain why some became suicide bombers", Madeleine Bunting, Guardian, July 18, 2005 [50]
- DELETE! this article i am afraid more slander than truth. If you want to talk about research in these matters, why don't you follow the research being done that shows that none of the people mentioned by the CIA and US Govt had anything to do with it, you can look at Loose Change video for a very very thorough treatment of 9/11. The term Pakistani origin is v v much debatable, you can also say the person was from an Indian origin as Pakistan used to be part of India, you can also say British empire origin as India was a colony, you can also say more. I'd rather stick to the present nationality and beleifs of the person. Thank you!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.14.91.146 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 05:20:44 (UTC)
- Keep. Both a category and an article would be useful in this case. Batmanand | Talk 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Jayjg and RJH. Article is very POV and inflammatory. Hate to say it, but even the term "terrorist" is POV and not worthy of a real encyclopedia. No legitimate purpose is served by listing perpetrators of violent acts by ancestral origin. How is this "useful" for research or understanding? The lists, sadly, could be endless, and we could spend endless hours debating who should be on the list and who should not, instead of doing real writing with context and history, which is what an encyclopedia should be in the business of doing. Bruxism 09:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Terrorism is an extremely important topic for an encyclopedia. Look at many articles now present on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorism--Coffeesuds 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Wikipedia is a place for a balanced perspective on terrorism. You can find articles on terrorist groups as well as on what some call "State-sponsored terrorism". This article addresses a significant subject that is being addressed by newpapers, books and formal studies. It is a very useful article.--Coffeesuds 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Extremely Strong Keep - A large, very large % of terrorists come from PakistanBakaman Bakatalk 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please review WP:LIST. A list is only justified as: (a) an information source, (b) a navigational aid, and (c) a development aid. We can safely discard (b) and (c) as purposes for this list. This leaves (a), but the list is not informative. Every one of the linked articles already mentions the ethnicity of the related individual. If there is a link between terrorism and ethnicity, that case needs to be made in a different article such as terrorism. A list is the wrong format. This is in addition to my NPOV comment above. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the article looks worthwhile. --Nearly Headless Nick 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE 90% of the people mentioned in this link are non-Pakistanis (British and American citizens by birth). Its like calling Timothy McViegh as a German terrorist (if his forefathers had emigrated from Germany). Baseless Indian propaganda to malign Pakistan once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.163.4 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - Baseless Indian propaganda? Take your racist attacks to [www.chowk.com Chowk.com]. We are building an encyclopedia not a mouthpiece for Pakistani grievances.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Personal attacks are not welcome in Wikipedia. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I do believe that there is a corration between ethnicty and terror. This article is not simmalar to "terrorist who like hotdogs" which would not make any sence. While the exact criteria of who is "pakistani origin" can be debated since newpapers do not hesitate to discribe people as such there is no reason that we should. Jon513 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: however, per WP:LIST, a list is the wrong format to document this claimed correlation. A list specifically about terrorists of Pakistani ethnicity is ipso facto biased. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MLA and others. Dev920 18:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but shouldn't the uk pak be removed until they are convicted of terrorism? Innocent until proven guilty?--D-Boy 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE: It is sad to see that even on wikipedia, people argue without facts. Some of the 'keep bullets' do not justify the invalid and weak sources of the article, but rather say that 'keep' because terrorists are from this country. This is hardly an academic argument, and I am strongly opposing existance of such articles, that would tarnish the reputation of wikipedia, as a well informed site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - A whole skew of delete votes (not the good faith ones like Chaudhuri etc.) are coming from IP addresses with little contribution history.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP: It is sad to see that even on wikipedia, fundamentalist elements and their sympathizers (sockpuppets?) are trying to revise the facts and whitewash the situation in discussion here. While the phrase 'of Pakistani descent' is questionable and may point to a certain bias, it cannot be denied that a causal connection exists between the fine folks listed in the article vis-a-vis their nation of origin.Netaji 22:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE: This is another attempt to link nationality to vocation, in this case terrorism. This seems to be specifically directed towards Pakistan. There is no basis for implying/ emphasizing terrorists of Pakistani nationals as that is a racist tendency in itself. Any such attempts to come up with categories with an illicit agenda is regrettable and this page needs to be deleted in that respect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.18.77 this is said users 4th edit. (talk • contribs)
- Delete and merge into appropriate preexisting categories, per Viriditas and Kaustuv. Anirvan 01:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Kaustuv Chaudhuri, Idleguy, Jayjg, and Bruxism. This list serves absolutely no useful purpose, and occupations such as that of Terrorists, are best served through WP:CG. Category:People by ethnic or national origin is entirely separate from Category:Nationalities by occupation and Category:Occupations by nationality. This article sets a dangerous precedent, using poorly defined and unverifiable terms such as "descent" to argue for occupational notability. This is unencyclopedic and does not conform to any current guideline or policy and only serves as a springboard for OR. —Viriditas | Talk 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Pakistan is the source of a huge percentage of all terror attacks in the world today, together with Palestine, Syria and Iran. I do not think there is anything wrong with this article. If you're Pakistani and you don't like it, I propose you start eliminating the need for pages like these from your society. --Daniel575 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Viriditas. As he said, there's already a category for Pakistani terrorists Category:Pakistani terrorists, so this is about ethnicity not nationality. Are we going to start tracking the ethnic origins of other terrorists and criminals too? Will we have a category "terrorists of Anglo-Saxon descent"? Deuterium 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is what the UK, US and others have called them. I have heard this phrase numerous times when referring to this terror incident. There is no point in deleting this. Why should it be deleted? It is true information. Shamir1 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is a racist, hate-inciting page Elizmr 02:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete OR per nom, TewfikTalk 03:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete At what point do you stop saying someone is of Pakistani descent? One Pakistani parent? One Pakistani grandparent? Two Pakistani great-grandparents? Etc. We do not have, for very good reasons, List of criminals of African origin, and we should not start going down that road by allowing this page. Clayoquot Sound 04:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Very Strong Delete I completely agree with Clayoquot. Clay4president 05:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete These articles are divisive by nature, most often rewquire original research, and are not really capable of being NPOV (both sides being represented equally) This is the type of information that, in my opinion, is better served by having a discussion in the articles of the respective people. Avi 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There appears to be truthful information in the article. I agree with MLA. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: ;Viriditas had written: "Article duplicates Category:Pakistani terrorists and is presently used by User:Robcotton for original research and crystal-ball gazing.".
1. The article does not duplicate Category:Pakistani terrorists. It is not about terrorists operating in Pakistan.
2. The article using only well known sources, articles with similar theme have been published in newspapers. The topic has also been addressed in books. It has been widely discussed that ethnic links are often used for recruiting.
3. There is no crystal-ball gazing. Only facts that are reported by publications.
Please check Google news: Google News for usage of "Pakistani origin" (573 CURRENT articles use the term) 640 CURRENT articles use the term "Pakistani descent").
--Robcotton 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)- The article duplicates Category:Pakistani terrorists, as we categorize terroists by nationality, not by ethnicity. It appears you created the article to attack Muslims and people of Pakistani descent, and this is not acceptable, nor encyclopedic. For the most part, the article consists of original research, since many of the terrorists you list cannot be accurately described as "Terrorists of Pakistani origin", either because their nationality is disputed, their ethnicity cannot be verified, or in some cases they may have dual nationalities and multiple ethnicities. You have engaged in crystal ball gazing many times, the most notable being your repeated inclusion of Naveed Afzal Haq on the list, even after it was explained to you that he is not officially classified as a "terrorist". There is absolutely no reason why this article should exist as it does not adhere to any known Wikipedia policy, and only serves your personal agenda. —Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Viriditas: You speak with authority with a we'"we categorize terroists by nationality, not by ethnicity". Terrorism is not longer contained within the borders of individual nations. We are considering aspects of international terrorism here. Pakistanis in UK often marry their relatives from Pakistan, they visit Pakistan frequently (nothing wrong with those), but these ties are exploited by recruiters. Many UK Pakistanis also interact with militants in Pakistan when they are there. Ethnic ties in criminal groups are common too, many of them are discussed in Wikipedia. --Robcotton 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are engaging in original research; please stop. See WP:NOT. —Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Original research? Please read and decide for yourself.
- Terrorism pipeline flows to Pakistan, Chicago Tribune, August 13, 2006 [54][55]
- Pakistan missing link in extremist battle, Sydney Morning Herald, August 14, 2006, [56]
- Just whose side is Pakistan really on? The Sunday Times - Britain, August 13, 2006 [57]
- Pakistan’s Help in Averting a Terror Attack Is a Double-Edged Sword, New York Times, August 12, 2006[58][59]
- Pakistan: Eye of the Storm, Owen Bennett Jones [60]
- Pakistan: Between Mosque And Military, by Husain Haqqani [61]
- "The history of Britain's Mirpur population may help to explain why some became suicide bombers", Madeleine Bunting, Guardian, July 18, 2005 [62]
- Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism by Vamik Volkan[63]
-
- Like I said, original research. Those links say very little of substance, if anything at all, mostly concerning themselves with terrorist groups and nationality, not ethnicity. Please take your discussions to the talk page, where it belongs. —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment (or more like a question) With all of these references Robcotton has cited, how is this original research? JungleCat talk/contrib 12:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Er, did you even bother to look at the links? Just because Rob adds so-called refs, doesn't mean they support his case. Why don't you look at them? Rob claims that Pakistani ethnicity is an important component of terrorism, but this pet theory is not supported by any one reference he has posted, nor can those who have emigrated to other countries be accurately described as Pakistani in all cases. Since when has Wikipedia become a platform for Rob's pet theories? There are many things that have contributed to terrorism, and ethnicity does not happen to be one of them. —Viriditas | Talk 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment (or more like a question) With all of these references Robcotton has cited, how is this original research? JungleCat talk/contrib 12:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said, original research. Those links say very little of substance, if anything at all, mostly concerning themselves with terrorist groups and nationality, not ethnicity. Please take your discussions to the talk page, where it belongs. —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Original research? Please read and decide for yourself.
- You are engaging in original research; please stop. See WP:NOT. —Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Viriditas: You speak with authority with a we'"we categorize terroists by nationality, not by ethnicity". Terrorism is not longer contained within the borders of individual nations. We are considering aspects of international terrorism here. Pakistanis in UK often marry their relatives from Pakistan, they visit Pakistan frequently (nothing wrong with those), but these ties are exploited by recruiters. Many UK Pakistanis also interact with militants in Pakistan when they are there. Ethnic ties in criminal groups are common too, many of them are discussed in Wikipedia. --Robcotton 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article duplicates Category:Pakistani terrorists, as we categorize terroists by nationality, not by ethnicity. It appears you created the article to attack Muslims and people of Pakistani descent, and this is not acceptable, nor encyclopedic. For the most part, the article consists of original research, since many of the terrorists you list cannot be accurately described as "Terrorists of Pakistani origin", either because their nationality is disputed, their ethnicity cannot be verified, or in some cases they may have dual nationalities and multiple ethnicities. You have engaged in crystal ball gazing many times, the most notable being your repeated inclusion of Naveed Afzal Haq on the list, even after it was explained to you that he is not officially classified as a "terrorist". There is absolutely no reason why this article should exist as it does not adhere to any known Wikipedia policy, and only serves your personal agenda. —Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, agree with others.--Spasage 07:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP. I think enough reasons are cited above to keep the article. I can help if more reasons are required and somebody finds them not enough.nids 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about giving one good reason? —Viriditas | Talk 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Are you not satisfied with the above comments. do you want more?nids 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Viriditas, I think this user meant the ones “cited above”. If this user would have said “Keep” with noting else, I might understand your wanting the discussion of why keep this article. Badgering these users who want to keep is not going to help your cause to get the article deleted. Remember, this is not a vote. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- So, asking a relevant, topical question is now considered badgering? That's very interesting. Call it whatever you like. Nids explicitly offered more reasons for keeping this artice. I'm taking him up on his offer. Question for nids: Why should we keep articles composed of unverified original research related to racial "descent"? The page lists Hamid Hayat as a terrorist, although he's never been one. The page lists the Heathrow ammonium nitrate case, although this is a case of suspected terrorism, not actual, with the suspects coming from Muslim family originally from Pakistan. Ramzi Yousef says he was born in Kuwait, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed says he spent time in Kuwait as well, so why are they listed as Pakistani terrorists and not Kuwaiti? Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh was born in the UK, and details about his racial "descent" are not mentioned. How is an article composed of original research and unverified information useful to an encyclopedia? —Viriditas | Talk 20:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Viriditas, I think this user meant the ones “cited above”. If this user would have said “Keep” with noting else, I might understand your wanting the discussion of why keep this article. Badgering these users who want to keep is not going to help your cause to get the article deleted. Remember, this is not a vote. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- viriditas, you are right in saying that unverified claims should not enter the articles. But are you also rejecting the verified claims. And what about the books mentioned above. Are you saying that all are racially motivated. I feel that reasons cited above are enough. If you can be particular that why are you against this page, that shall be helpful. Even i will support you if you say that no original research shall be there. but what about documented claims, and the books noted above.nids 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- How 'bout I answer one of these myself: Hamid Hayat, of Lodi, Calif., was convicted in April of providing material support to terrorists after training with militants in Pakistan [64] Viriditas, you are not even checking the references yourself. This is very disturbing. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Viriditas, here is another reference for Hamid Hayat [65] and yet he never was a terrorist? I found this with a google search. Are you POV pushing??? JungleCat talk/contrib 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where does it say that Hamid Hayat was a terrorist? I don't see that. Perhaps you should read it again. In any case, this merely demonstrates the subjectivity of Category:Terrorists and the fluidity of the definition you are using. In other words, this is not objective by any stretch of the imagination. —Viriditas | Talk 02:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Viriditas, you write "Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh was born in the UK, and details about his racial "descent" are not mentioned". The linked Wikipedia article Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh mentions "is a British-born terrorist of Pakistani descent" right in the beginning. The BBC profile [66] states "His father, Saeed Ahmed, was a Pakistani clothes merchant from Wanstead" in the second paragraph. In both cases his descent is prominently mentioned. Check association of "Omar Saeed Sheikh" and "Pakistani" on Google [67] and see how many hits are there (I got about 27,200). --Robcotton 21:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- What is the nature of Sheikh's "descent" and how is it applicable? You are arguing that ethnicity is an important part of Terrorism, so surely you should be able to provide details, such as the name of his particular ethnic group and a citation showing a clear correlation. You can't and you haven't, except for posting a link to a book that mentions the word "Pakistan" once, and a link to an article in The Guardian about the relationship between ethnic groups and religion. You're very good at original research; perhaps you should publish your own article outside of Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Viriditas, here is another reference for Hamid Hayat [65] and yet he never was a terrorist? I found this with a google search. Are you POV pushing??? JungleCat talk/contrib 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- How 'bout I answer one of these myself: Hamid Hayat, of Lodi, Calif., was convicted in April of providing material support to terrorists after training with militants in Pakistan [64] Viriditas, you are not even checking the references yourself. This is very disturbing. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Are you not satisfied with the above comments. do you want more?nids 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about giving one good reason? —Viriditas | Talk 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This article is arguably an attack page. NPOV and fact-research problems in an article are not usually grounds for deletion. You have grounds for deletion when these problems are intrinsic to the nature of the article. News reports on individual terrorists certainly do discuss their ethnic origins. However, have any reliable sources actually conducted an analysis of the relationship between Pakistani origin (as opposed to nationality or social affiliation) and terrorism? If not, this entire article is original research because it is the first to conclude that there is such a relationship. If there is a non-original argument for a relationship between descent and terrorism, counter-arguments should be presented as well under a neutral title. E.g. Ethnicity and terrorism, analogous to Race and crime (the latter is currently no NPOV-prizewinner, but it does have hope of becoming one). Clayoquot Sound 06:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article has several references and you can find many more. The attributes origin and social affiliation are not disjoint.--Robcotton 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Robcotton has a plethora of sources to back this statement up.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The definition "operating outside of Pakistan" is essentially unverifiable. I also see votestacking on this one [68]. -- Steve Hart 16:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The header for this AfD starts off with If you came here because somebody asked you to... I believe if someone "spammed" to get additional discussion on this issue, I would assume good faith on the reason why. That user might not have known. Besides, isn't it better to get the community involved to resolve these issues? JungleCat talk/contrib 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Steve Hart writes: The definition "operating outside of Pakistan" is essentially unverifiable. I am not aware of any disagreement about the World Trade Center or the London Underground being outside of Pakistan. --Robcotton 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I have to say that Viriditas is skilled in arguing and sophistry. Let us look at what Viriditas has been trying to do.
- Right at the beginning (near the top of this page,) he argued: "definition of who is or isn't Pakistani is subjective and open to interpretation" . cleverly conflating individual of "Pakistani origin" and those of "Pakistani citizenship" by using the term "Pakistani". Then he goes on to argue whether some of individuals can be called "Pakistani" because of their being born in UK etc. Note that the article is clearly named Terrorists of Pakistani Origin, it is not Pakistani Terrorists; and I had clearly referred to that right before his note.
- Also note that he made a suggestion about the article which is incompatible with his objections. A classic technique Catch-22 (logic). He wants the article to be merged with the category "Category:Pakistani terrorists" ( see article with the tag he placed) and however then then goes on to argue that the people listed are not "Pakistani".
- Note that I have added a couple more refereces. For those who have access to today's Wall Street Journal, read the detailed article "Terror plot exposes flaws in how UK tackles extremism", Aug. 18, 2006. It also includes a map of London area showing Walthamstow (see [69]).--Robcotton 20:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Tell us then, how you determine someone is of Pakistani origin and why it is an important part of terrorism? Take a look at Ethnic groups in Pakistan, too. The category mentioned above covers Pakistani terrorists, and guidelines specifically mention how to categorize people. Occupations such as "terrorist" are not categorized by ethnicity, but by nationality. You are trying to make the case that ethnicity is a notable part of terrorism, when in fact, there is no evidence that it is. You are doing this because you read the words "of Pakistani descent" in an article about a terrorist, not because there is any relationship between the two: that's where your original research comes in. If you want to make the case that there are Pakistani terrorist organizations, you can add them to List of terrorist organisations, or you can describe the roots of the problem in Terrorism in Pakistan and related articles. You cannot, however, create an article based on ethnicity and then claim there is a notable relationship. You have not posted one single, credible source that directly makes this claim about people of Pakistani origin. You have, however, added citations that describe the relationship between ethnicity and religion. Your thesis has nothing to do with people of Pakistani descent, and everything to do with Pakistani Muslims. Perhaps you should create an article entitled Pakistani Muslims as an offshoot of Islam in Pakistan, or add referenced information to Islam in the United Kingdom. There is no need for this article, but categories such as Category:British Muslims could be expanded. If you know the particular Pakistani ethnic group that the person you are writing about belongs to, I don't see any reason why you can't add them to a subcat within Category:Ethnic groups in Pakistan. As it stands, the term "Terrorist of Pakistani origin" is meaningless and uninformative. You need to quantify exactly what you mean by the term, and categorize accordingly. If you feel a list is needed or required by the list guidelines, then there is nothing stopping you from adding notable people of those particular ethnic groups to ethnic group lists if the category doesn't already suffice for your purpose. —Viriditas | Talk 21:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment: I have to say that Viriditas is skilled in arguing and sophistry. Let us look at what Viriditas has been trying to do.
-
-
-
- Nothing in Viriditas's comment looks like a personal attack to me. He is critical of the logic behind the creation of the page, which is what an AfD debate is for. Could you be more specific about what part(s) of the comment you consider a personal attack rather than a criticism? Clayoquot Sound 05:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- What do you call this? Is this specific enough? JungleCat talk/contrib 05:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I call it a reasoned criticism. It's exactly the same diff you referred to before I asked whether you could point out something more specific. Clayoquot Sound 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand the phrase It's exactly the same diff... Doesn't sound right. JungleCat talk/contrib 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was using the term "diff" in the sense of "a link to a page that shows the difference between versions of an article." In your earlier comment your referred to: [71]. In your later comment you referred to: this?. These links are identical. Clayoquot Sound 06:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, just this edit here. JungleCat talk/contrib 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Serves me right for having a slow connection. It is the ONE EDIT BY THAT USER. Understand? JungleCat talk/contrib 07:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I hope I am on the same page as you now. Are you looking at the difference between edits? This is the reference! JungleCat talk/contrib 07:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, for the love of Jimbo, what are you talking about? Please stop making spurious accusations which distract us away from the discussion at hand. If you have any interest in this topic, you will move your alleged allegation to the talk page. For the record, no personal attack has been made, nor will you find any administrator who agrees with you. —Viriditas | Talk 08:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, just this edit here. JungleCat talk/contrib 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was using the term "diff" in the sense of "a link to a page that shows the difference between versions of an article." In your earlier comment your referred to: [71]. In your later comment you referred to: this?. These links are identical. Clayoquot Sound 06:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand the phrase It's exactly the same diff... Doesn't sound right. JungleCat talk/contrib 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I call it a reasoned criticism. It's exactly the same diff you referred to before I asked whether you could point out something more specific. Clayoquot Sound 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- What do you call this? Is this specific enough? JungleCat talk/contrib 05:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing in Viriditas's comment looks like a personal attack to me. He is critical of the logic behind the creation of the page, which is what an AfD debate is for. Could you be more specific about what part(s) of the comment you consider a personal attack rather than a criticism? Clayoquot Sound 05:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete per WP:BLP, potentially defamatory, potentially prejudicial for those before the courts. Also per OR, NPOV, NOT and V. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:52, 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 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Salutation (greeting informal)
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary usage or jargon guide: 'We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep' PeterGrecian 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a dicdef - optionally offer it to wiktionary if they'll have it. Made me smile tho. MLA 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete but the idea of the article seems interestingDoctor Bruno 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Incoherent list of greetings, not all of which are informal, and not all of which are salutations. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. AlexTiefling 15:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
We could have a lot of fun with this indiscriminate collection. Let's see... :"Yo, Dude!", "Oi!", G'day, Bruce! (Aussie), "All right, Jimmy" (Scottish), "Hey Blockhead" (Lucy to Charllie Brown); "Sunshine", "Son", and then there are all the female ones. No, on second thoughts, stop it! delete per nom. Ohconfucius 12:26, 16 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. It'd be happy to userfy this on request. Petros471 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Odhiambo Siangla
Delete The subject of this biography may not be sufficiently notable for WP. The listed awards appear to be only scholarships and student awards. I could find no WP notability criteria for artists, but presumably they would include major shows reviewed by prominent art critics. Although "Odhiambo Siangla" produces a moderate number of google hits, most of these seem to be self-created or WP mirror sites. Possibly the page should not be deleted but instead converted to a user page. Nesbit 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The relevant criteria seem to be these from WP:BIO
-
- Published authors... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work
- Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field
-
- The talk page of the article tells us that Siangla presented his work alongside other artists at a museum show in 1996. The show was summarized in a book by other authors published in that year. I found the book, which is now apparently out-of-print, on Amazon. The article tell us that Siangla later authored and published a book Conquering Space which I have been unable to locate by web and database searches. As mentioned, the awards are student scholarships, which, though meritorious, are not really notable. Unless verified evidence is presented, it seems clear to me that the body of work has not received 'multiple independent reviews' nor is it 'widely recognized.' Nesbit 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I suspect that he may not be notable enough either as an artist alone or as an academic alone; we do have guidelines for academic figures, and he doesn't seem to meet them. However, although he does seem to have a user account, and uploaded the image using it, the article was in fact created by someone else, or at least using another account. Not sure that making a user page is appropriate. This also suggests non-trivial interest by people other than the subject himself, and tips the scales in favour. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I see no references here, and as such none of the information in the article can be taken at face value. While there are a few awards attributed to him, there is no verification of those. I'd also submit that just because another account created the article, it wouldn't be the first time we've had sockpuppetry or a friend/relative create a vanity article about someone here.--Crossmr 17:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- weak delete (userfy acceptable) AGF would suggest that I assume Jamarenyo & Siangla are different people until proven otherwise, but it does require willful suspension of disbelief. As for notability claims, it seems appropriate to judge on the WP:PROF scale, and I don't see him passing that bar. Pete.Hurd 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- its not that I'm assuming bad faith, I'm just saying I don't see that as a valid reason for keeping this article. You can assume good faith while being realistic.--Crossmr 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- agreed, my comment was not intended to be read as a criticism of your position. Pete.Hurd 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- its not that I'm assuming bad faith, I'm just saying I don't see that as a valid reason for keeping this article. You can assume good faith while being realistic.--Crossmr 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless verified. Dlyons493 Talk 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the article needs to be cleaned up and strengthed. I dislike how an article goes staright to a nomination for deletion. This should have been put on a remedial track. --South Philly 00:36, 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 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pdrnk
Bad article name NCurse 
work 17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if all-capitalized it's an extremely uncommon usage. Google finds only a handful of hits, most not relevant to Korea. Fan-1967 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as an empty article. I've added tag as such. Akradecki 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Apparently the nominator accidentally blanked the article when adding the AFD tag. I've restored the content and removed the db-empty notice. Fan-1967 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Ok, so why is this AfD? Looks like it should be a redirect page. Akradecki 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's a soft redirect, not an actual one, which makes it AFD, not RFD. I think. Fan-1967 14:12, 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 Redirect to British Isles. User:Angr 13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anglo-Celtic Isles
This page falls foul of WP:NEO - it is a neologism with an article. Its content is almost entirely duplicated in British Isles, which covers this term, with sources, in just one sentence. There is little potential for expansion (unlike, say Islands of the North Atlantic, which discusses the political context of the name). I see no justification for having this article --Robdurbar 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to British Isles or Islands of the North Atlantic - Only 70 Google Hits, and the content all seems to stem from what's on http://www.Anglo-Celtic.or.uk. According to WP:NEO this should be avoided. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA/vote for me) 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to British Isles. I originally started this article, and made it a redirect there from the beginning. It was only later that the article was fleshed out. Given the very thorough terminology section in British Isles as well as the controversy note at the top, I can't see what use a separate Anglo-Celtic Isles article has, though having a redirect is important for those who may learn the term as it comes into more common use. Redirect. Isoxyl 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Isoxyl, the term is being used by some in academia, that's a certainty. Where is the avid WP learner supposed to enquire about the term when WP hides it? MelForbes 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to British Isles. A redirect vote means holding on to the article history is that correct? We do have some published references using the phrase/name so a redirect seems appropriate.EricR 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- No suprises here! MelForbes 23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Leave as separate entry. As a standalone term in use, this does warrant it's own distinct encyclopedic entry. I agree on the desire to avoid duplication, but this article can have redirects within it to articles such as 'History of Ireland', 'History of Britain', etc... and thus would not create duplicate articles. The term's very existance is as a politically-neutral alternative to 'British Isles', so a redirect would be an insult to users of the term (such as myself). Pconlon 15:03, 12 August 2006
- I don't believe any insult is intended, Pconlon! Redirects are a courtesy of Wikipedia in order to facilitate searching/finding pages and to avoid duplication of effort which requires updating of multiple articles with the same information. Perhaps a way to alleviate your concerns would be to address the British Isles article directly, more strongly emphasizing your concerns in the label at the top, or by discussion on the Talk:British Isles talk page. I remain by my Redirect vote, however, but certainly with no insult intended or implied. After all, I created Anglo-Celtic Isles and believe it is a legitimate term, which is mentioned in the other article along with several other alternatives names for the Isles. Isoxyl 14:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Isoxyl, I appreciate that an insult wasn't intended, I just wanted to highlight that a 'redirect' would nonetheless be insulting (if unintentionally so)! My firm belief is that every term should have its own entry; when it is an alternative for another, more commonly used term, links within it to the lengthy text in the other article (to avoid unnecessary duplication) are reasonable enough. A 'redirect' effectively says: 'No, you're wrong to use this term - you should use this one instead'. Given the length and breadth of the discussion so far on the 'British Isles' naming controversy, you can see why this proposed redirect will only get some people's backs up. Could you reconsider your support of the redirect proposition? Respectfully, Pconlon 16:27, 12 August 2006
-
-
- I guess I don't look at redirects as telling anyone to use any particular term that they like, only that several terms are in use for the same thing. After all, no one seems to be arguing the Anglo-Celtic Isles are actually a different PLACE than the British Isles. It seems that if we redirect to one article of whatever name, and make note of all alternative nomenclature, and then explain what the Isles ARE, we are giving a good encyclopedia entry for the Islands themselves. I believe that British Isles is the most commonly used term, and therefore is a likely candidate for where the article should reside to serve the greatest number of people. But that does not mean that I don't agree that the term is vehemently opposed by some (including some in this debate). I still think that a well-written warning at the top of the article might satisfy those are insulted by this circumstance. Perhaps even list some of the alternative nomenclature right at the top? "British Isles, also known as the Islands of the North Atlantic, etc.etc."? I don't want to silence anyone... I think if the British Isles article contains the relevant FACTS about the Islands as well as an explanation for alternative terminology (it does, although perhaps these could be fleshed out), and there is a redirect from alternative nomenclature, then the encyclopedia works, and allows everyone's terminology to be useful. However, I do believe that IF there is enough in Anglo-Celtic Isles to warrant its OWN article then it should be left as such. At the moment, that doesn't appear to be the case... It appears to be an academic alternative term for BI, one in concurrent use with BII and IONA. Actually, IONA is a good example of what I mean, because it is an article which seems to justify its own existence by having extra information about its use which is not needed on BI. ACI doesn't appear to be that way, its use is documented within the BI article. Despite this, I am willing to consider other alternatives, perhaps:
- Redirect to British Isles (terminology)?
- Redirect to IONA?
- Wait and allow a period of time for the Anglo-Celtic Isles to be improved with information that justifies its independent existence from British Isles?
- I do believe regardless that the article about the Islands geography, etc., should remain at British Isles. These other articles discuss the terminology, not the islands themselves.
- I guess I don't look at redirects as telling anyone to use any particular term that they like, only that several terms are in use for the same thing. After all, no one seems to be arguing the Anglo-Celtic Isles are actually a different PLACE than the British Isles. It seems that if we redirect to one article of whatever name, and make note of all alternative nomenclature, and then explain what the Isles ARE, we are giving a good encyclopedia entry for the Islands themselves. I believe that British Isles is the most commonly used term, and therefore is a likely candidate for where the article should reside to serve the greatest number of people. But that does not mean that I don't agree that the term is vehemently opposed by some (including some in this debate). I still think that a well-written warning at the top of the article might satisfy those are insulted by this circumstance. Perhaps even list some of the alternative nomenclature right at the top? "British Isles, also known as the Islands of the North Atlantic, etc.etc."? I don't want to silence anyone... I think if the British Isles article contains the relevant FACTS about the Islands as well as an explanation for alternative terminology (it does, although perhaps these could be fleshed out), and there is a redirect from alternative nomenclature, then the encyclopedia works, and allows everyone's terminology to be useful. However, I do believe that IF there is enough in Anglo-Celtic Isles to warrant its OWN article then it should be left as such. At the moment, that doesn't appear to be the case... It appears to be an academic alternative term for BI, one in concurrent use with BII and IONA. Actually, IONA is a good example of what I mean, because it is an article which seems to justify its own existence by having extra information about its use which is not needed on BI. ACI doesn't appear to be that way, its use is documented within the BI article. Despite this, I am willing to consider other alternatives, perhaps:
-
Thoughts on my longwinded response? Please note that I have no emotional attachment to either side. My own ancestors number among them both Celts and Britons. Though if my mother had anything to say about it, she would remind me that her own contribution outweighs all that Irish and British DNA anyway! Isoxyl 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- My prime reaction is Delete unless the author can add some citations of its actual use. The British Isles is a well accepted term. This seems to me to be a 'political correctness' neologism. If the author can show that the term has significant use, a short article would be justified, but this should consist merely of an explanation of the term, and a series of internal cross-references (without the sub-category). The largest island is 'Great Britain', not merely 'Britain', which in turn implies that there must be other islands. Furthermore, the earliest record of the name is (I think) in the work of the geographer Ptolomy, who recorded a tribe called the 'Pritanni', who were (I think) in Irleand.
- Strong keep. Is Wikipedia and Encyclopedia, or is it just a POV-Pushing instrument where the strongest gang wins. Now suppose a reader wants to inquire as to what Anglo-Celtic Isles means, then where is he to find out, if not on WP. I thought WP was supposed to be aiming at a world-class quality in it's coverage. Well this sort of editing will just damage WP, that is if WP intends to be credible MelForbes 21:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep The term clearly exists. There is no reason why an article explaining that this term exists should not exist, once it is adequately sourced. Once it doesn't simply duplicate the main article (i.e., becomes another British Isles article under another name — one of them is bad enough!) I fail to see why there should not be an article on a clearly existing term, a term BTW I have heard used by a Scottish academic not to long ago. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 04:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC) - Delete - it may be in use, but it is close to undocumented: twelve Google hits after removing the Wikipedia mirrors simply isn't good enough. Vashti 07:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't be foolgeled by google, almost all of the academic writings about the subject are under copyright protection, you just won't get them on Google for some years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MelForbes (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, which is why I also did a Google Scholar search (academic papers and books, 1 hit) and a Google Books search (books in print; 3 hits, 2 of which are from the same work). I would very much like to see the sources demonstrating that this is a term in use. Vashti 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is no reason you can't quote, cite, or paraphrase copyright protected works. You don't need to provide the full text of a document, just a pointer so other editors and readers can find it, and it does not need to be available online. If you've got a relevant source, please add it to the article.EricR 17:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep The term "British Isles" is a product of British nationalism, dating no earlier than 1621. The term is one of their nationalist myths used to contextualise Ireland within the framework of their nascent British state, and thus make it easier to legitimise the conquest of Ireland. It is no more and no less than this. The very fact that British posters are so passionate about imposing this name, and Irish posters are so animated about resisting it, testifies to the inherent political nature of the phrase. Consequently, the attempt by British posters to tone down their irredentist nationalism by feebly claiming it is a "geographic" term is persistently insulting. There is no rational reason why the terminological creations to support that state's political claims to Ireland should subsume every other name for "this archipelago" (and as Mel Forbes has shown numerous times, there are many such alternative names). There are many more views of the world, including the minor matter of what the natives in Ireland think. Ireland is not a British Isle, and the Irish people do not perceive themselves to be British. Trying to eliminate the existence of Anglo-Celtic Isles and place it under British Isles is entirely about what Edward Said observed was the coloniser's central impulse to control the representation of the native. El Gringo 12:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The closing admin should note the recruitment [95] [96] [97] [98] of editors, and one's response [99] [100] [101].EricR 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Given some of the above responses and replies on linked diffs, I thought I'd give a few lines of policy which led me to propose this for deletion:
-
- ([[from WP:NEO) "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities [so I think it IS a neologism] ...Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate...The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles"
- (from WP:WINAD) "Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WINAD), and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong...
- That's just from a couple of pages. I note that those who have opposed have often accused me, and those voting keep, of pushing a POV, rather than dealing with policy concerns. The legitimacy of the terms British Isles, Anglo-Celtic Isles (or anything else) is an irrelevance in this case--Robdurbar 16:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- CommentThe term is being used, why would anyone want to get rid of it. It does not matter if the term is not the most widespread term for this group of islands. This page's creation just bewilders me. My defination of POV-pushing is; anything that hides truth, or anything that bends the truth. And the truth is that the term is being used. And that is my belief, sorry if you don't like it. MelForbes 20:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Rob, are you still arguing for a delete, or for a redirect? I'm not exactly sure how WP:V, WP:NEO, and WP:NOT apply to redirects, but it seems to me that current sources using the term/phrase should be enough. Also i see no need to get rid of the article history and talk page which may be of use some day.EricR 17:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well I don't think that arguing for a delete or redirect are necessairily differing views; after all, 'redirects are cheap'. I took my quotes and examples from areas discussing what to include as articles, not in articles. I agree that A-C Isles is used enough to warrent a mention in British Isles (indeed, I have helped add it), but not its own article (issues of duplication aside). --Robdurbar 05:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- And Mel - the relevance of whether this term is used is irrelevant. As stated in the definition of 'neologism', 'Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities'. I do not want the term to be excluded from Wikipedia - it has its place, as a paragraph in British Isles. For me, it is baffaling that the page Anglo-Celtic Isles exists. --Robdurbar 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Strrong redirect to British Isles. Not only does this article describe a term that already exists (British Isles), but its also very POV. The phrase is barely used, other than by a minority of paranoid people of a certain political persuasion, and does not describe the ethnic makeup of these islands very well at all - it makes assumptions based on popular myth.
- Here's an example of the aforementioned paranoia, coupled with ignorance: "The term "British Isles" is a product of British nationalism". The term British Isles can actually be dated back to around 300 BC - much, much earlier than the start of the consolidation of the kingdoms.
- The very fact that some Irish editors are so passionate about imposing this name new invention testifies to the severe political brainwashing some people have been subjected to since the 18th century. The correct phrase (British Isles) is merely disliked (or detested) by some small-minded bigots who seethe and froth at any notion of a connection with 'Britishness' that they become too blind to see the term in its correct context. They confuse it with the modern national description, or citizenship.
- There are indeed other terms which people use to describe these islands collectively, and any that have notable usage should also be noted in the article itself. I don't see the point in creating individual articles for each alternative phrase that is, or has been, created, when an article exists which has the title, not only of the original milleniums-old description, but the most widely known description.
- I take exception to El Gringo's inaccurate generalisations when he says such things as "Irish people do not perceive themselves to be British." As an Irish person I not only perceive myself to be British, I also embrace it.. and furthermore I am British by virtue of the fact that I am a citizen of the UK. Do not presume, El Gringo, to speak for me thank you very much.
- Keep your politics for elections and discussions, and keep the facts for an encyclopedia. --Mal 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- El Gringo on this issue reflects the views of the vast majority of Irish people who not merely do not regard themselves as British but take offence at anyone presuming they are. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, just as French monarchists are demand a return of a king, and American anglophiles are entitled to regard themselves as British. But do not act as though you are anything more than a very small minority, not even a large minority, much less a majority. And calls from you that El Gringo "keep to facts" is ironic given your tendency to launch rascist abuse and snide attacks against Irish people, and your POV-pushing elsewhere. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- El Gringo on this issue reflects the views of the vast majority of Irish people who not merely do not regard themselves as British but take offence at anyone presuming they are. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, just as French monarchists are demand a return of a king, and American anglophiles are entitled to regard themselves as British. But do not act as though you are anything more than a very small minority, not even a large minority, much less a majority. And calls from you that El Gringo "keep to facts" is ironic given your tendency to launch rascist abuse and snide attacks against Irish people, and your POV-pushing elsewhere. FearÉIREANN
-
-
- I wouldn't say it was anywhere near a "vast majority" of Irish people that particularly share El Gringo's views on the matter. For a start, of a population of some 5.7 million, roughly 1 million could be considered at least nominally unionist. That's more than a sixth of the Irish population. Unionists are unlikely to take offence at the term. There are also, I would suggest, a large number of people who do not take any offence at the term simply because they really couldn't care less.
-
-
-
- Regarding the term itself, I was not offering an opinion - I was stating fact.
-
-
-
- As for myself being a minority, a small minority, a large minority or a majority.. I believe I am in the majority of those people who instantly recognise the term British Isles to be descriptive of the two main islands and surrounding smaller islands that make up that geographical area.
-
-
-
- As for your last comment: "And calls from you that El Gringo "keep to facts" is ironic given your tendency to launch rascist abuse and snide attacks against Irish people, and your POV-pushing elsewhere." - I would remind you of Wikipedia's policy on attacking other editors in such a manner.
-
-
-
- Please refrain from making up lies about me on any discussion page in Wikipedia.
-
- I have never "launched racist abuse" of any kind on this web site.
- Considering I am Irish myself, I'm hardly likely to make "snide attacks against Irish people".
- I do not push any particular Point Of View.
-
-
- I respectfully request an apology from you. --Mal 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Taunts ridiculing the opinions of the vast majority of a nation as supposed evidence "to the severe political brainwashing some people have been subjected to since the 18th century" are blatently rascist. You neither warrant an apology nor will receive one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Taunts ridiculing the opinions of the vast majority of a nation as supposed evidence "to the severe political brainwashing some people have been subjected to since the 18th century" are blatently rascist. You neither warrant an apology nor will receive one. FearÉIREANN
-
-
-
-
- Firstly, I again question this "vast majority" claim you make. Secondly, while I may have generalised about a particular extremist group in our society, you have made a personal attack and told blatant lies about me. Thirdly, to be racist surely the topic must be about a race.
-
-
-
- I await your apology in good faith. --Mal 23:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Given the nature of your comments you can wait all you want. You do not deserve one. You will not be receiving one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Given the nature of your comments you can wait all you want. You do not deserve one. You will not be receiving one. FearÉIREANN
-
-
-
-
- Then this only serves to show that you are an ignorant and untrustworthy editor. Let's hope you don't make a habit of personal attacks and of adding blatant lies about other editors to discussion pages. --Mal 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
Delete as neologism or, failing that, redirect to British Isles. Bastun 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Robdurbar, you still argue that you don’t understand why this article exists at all…well, if someone comes across the term ‘Anglo-Celtic Isles’, wants to find out what it means and types it into Wikipedia, they should expect to be taken to a page that explains it. Having a redirect will not do – the viewer would just be taken to the ‘British Isles’ page and will probably scratch their heads in bemusement. Reference to ACI in the BI article is deeply buried and they surely wouldn’t find it easily. If you want a redirect, you should have ACI clearly stated in the Introduction…as it once was. You wanted it removed from the Introduction and I relucantly accepted this modification (in the interests of consensus achievement and conciseness). With a redirct I believe would come the requirement to have ACI referenced explicitly in the BI article introduction. Is that really what you want?
Also, just a correction for Mal who still, incredibly, believes that people who reject the term ‘British Isles’ and use ‘Anglo-Celtic isles’ instead are a ‘minority of paranoid people of a certain political persuasion’! Fact is that the clear majority of Irish people (inhabitants of the island of Ireland) reject usage of the term; I am not paranoid nor of a ‘certain political persuasion’ if that implies any sort of extremism. Argue against the scale of rejection of the BI term until you’re blue in the face and you won’t alter it. Being Northern Irish, you should welcome anything that removes the political divisions standing between you and your neighbours – ‘Anglo-Celtic Isles’ is wonderfully disconnected from political implication…and you can still have a UK passport if you want too! Reading your views is as depressing as listening to an Ian Paisley speech in the hope of hearing something reasonable, balanced, sensitively worded and free of hatred. Pconlon 18:20, 14 August 2006
- You say that a "clear majority of Irish people [...] reject usage of the term". However, being an Irish person who has lived on Ireland all my life, I can tell you that I am not at all convinced that this is necessarily the case. And even if it were, that is still not a valid reason to create two basically identical articles which merely have different titles.
- As for being Northern Irish, and regarding what I should or shouldn't think about my beighbours (either on the neghbouring island - Great Britain, or the neighbouring country - the Republic of Ireland) - that is a private matter which isn't relevant to this discussion. Thanks for allowing me to have a "UK passport" by the way!
- Regarding your reference to Ian Paisley.. I could just as easily reply to you that reading your views is as depressing as listening to the doublespeak of Gerry Adams & Co. But I shant! --Mal 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- As I stated above in my recent reply, I think your comment, Pconlon, is a potential compromise: redirect to BI, but have ACI referenced explicitly in the BI article introduction. This may be the beginnings of compromise. However, since that requires changing the BI article, this will undoubtedly raise greate ire on the part of partisans in THAT article, who may not be aware of this AfD. And so, the wheel turns again.... Isoxyl 18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Though I generally agree with your comment on the Irish view of Brtisih Isles, I don't see why Anglo-Celtic Isles should be treated any differently to, say, 'Northern European Isles', 'These Isles' or 'Britain and Ireland'. To list all these in the intro would be clumsy and would violate WP:LEAD(although having some sort of graphic lisiting them all may work in some way... I'll have a think on that and get back at Talk:British Isles). Though I agree that some users would be confused to come to a differently titled article - this does happen already with other redirects from sub-issues to main articles. Put simply, Anglo-Celtic Isles is the same thing as British Isles. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so only has articles about a word or phrase in itself if it is notable in a wider context. As Anglo-Celtic Isles is barely notable (a dozen or so google results, no web of knowledge results etc.), it certainly does not deserve its own entry. As great as our two countries our, I don't think their location deserves two articles. --Robdurbar 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- There is a difference Rob. Britain and Ireland, etc is a generic term. Anglo-Celtic Isles is a formal title that is used. It exists as a term. I don't see the problem with an article on a term once it is not a duplication of British Isles, merely saying 'this term begun here, is used there, etc.' FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is a difference Rob. Britain and Ireland, etc is a generic term. Anglo-Celtic Isles is a formal title that is used. It exists as a term. I don't see the problem with an article on a term once it is not a duplication of British Isles, merely saying 'this term begun here, is used there, etc.' FearÉIREANN
-
-
- but more than anything else - more than my belief that having an article entitled Anglo-Celtic Isles simply breaks policy, all political assertions aside - I simply don't see how an article on Anglo-Celtic Isles could ever expand beyond 2 paragraphs maximum, and that's with describing every single use of it. I do not deny that it exists as a term - and I did mention other terms such as 'Northern European Isles' or 'that part of the World that calls fries chips' - but it is in such minor use. As a university student I benefit from access to a number of journal databases, such as Web of Science and EBESCO, and making a number of searches with different combinations (w.g. isles or islands, with/without hyphen) I have failed to find more than half a dozen uses outside of Wikipedia and http://www.anglo-celtic.org.uk/ (whiich uses it just to mean the islands of the United Kingdom anyway). As a result, I think it can only ever exist as a page that replicates the content of British Isles and includes one further paragraph, which could easily and justifiably be included in the British Isles page. --Robdurbar 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment: 'Not only does this article describe a term that already exists (British Isles), but its also very POV.'- Oh for the love of God will you give that pompous nonsense a rest? Please. You're- the lot of you- merciless. I cannot think of a more politically POV term than 'British Isles'. Apparently there is a very long history of the British looking down on the Irish as intellectually inferior- going right into very recent times, especially in the financial institutions. How apt that the same people who are pushing their British colonial nomenclature on top of us are also insulting our intelligence by claiming the entire thing is not representative of British rightwing/unionist prejudices. In this you are, collectively, pathetic. Britain has persistently produced the biggest tribal drumbeaters in all of Europe in the past 400 years. And trying to shove this "British Isles" non sequitur on top of Irish communal identity is more of it. El Gringo 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment: Seeing that this has digressed....Mal: you are as much an Irishman as a Pied-noir was an Algerian. I wish it were different, but it isn't. Like the self-declared French in Algeria, your identity is nothing unless you can define yourself by being everything the Irish are not. If you, or people of your mentality, ever became Irish like the rest of us your entire self-definition as part of a "superior race" would be over. Without privilege in all its forms, your communal identity has lost its foundation stone. It is for that reason that you all bellow about how "British" you are: you need to separate yourselves from the rest of Ireland's people. In that separation is your privilege, and in your privilege is now, and always has been, the glacial heart of British unionist identity. You are no Stephen Rea, alas. El Gringo 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Excuse me?!? I am "as much an Irishman as a Pied-noir was an Algerian."?!? You do not know the first thing about me, yet here you are making some incorrect statement about what I am or what I am not! How the hell would you know if I were Irish, African, German, Dutch or Japanese?
-
-
-
-
-
- Let me inform you of a few things: My family history has been traced back for hundreds of years. If you are under some illusion that I am some 'colonist' who arrived here in Ireland during the Plantation of Ulster, then I'm afraid you're way off the mark kid. My ancestors are all from Ireland with the exception of my great-great-grandfather, for as far back as can be traced.
-
-
-
-
-
- And even if I weren't, who are YOU to define for ME what is and what is not Irish? How ironic it is that you snidely accuse ME of some notion of "superior race" with such a sanctimonious attitude.
-
-
-
-
-
- And to think: I was accused of being "racist" on this very page! I am truly disgusted.
-
-
-
-
-
- For the second time on this discussion page, I request an apology. --Mal 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Comment Mal, you seem to be always making religious type edits, hope you are not an an orange bigot. I see you are trying to ruin Irish American page with your religious pov. I'm from mixed background and 'kick with all fours', but I don't make povish religious edits. Please give up the anal edits!! MelForbes 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hello..? Read the accusations and racial slurs made against me above your comment Mel! Nothing to say about that..?
-
-
-
- FYI I am not religious. I do not make "religious type edits". I'm certainly neither "orange" nor a bigot.. as can be evidenced by my contributions. Nor am I trrying to "ruin" any article (such as the Irish American article in your suggestion).
-
-
-
- As for "anal edits".. my intention is only to improve articles and to balance out POV as best I can. There are editors here who are much more anal than I am when it comes to red tape etc.
-
-
-
- Now that we've addressed my attitudes, have you anything to say about the insulting comments made to me by the previous editor? --Mal 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I was just wondering why you are so obsessed with this Catholic-Protestant 'thing', that's all. As for me, I don't give a dam. MelForbes 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I am not very concerned about Roman Catholics or Protestants really. Perhaps it appears that way because I am concerned with subjects relating to Northern Ireland and, as we are all aware, religion is very much a part of the sociology, history and politics of the region. --Mal 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Mal, all I can think of are the lines of the John Lennon song, "Imagine". But he left out some vital lines Imagine there are no Protestants, or Catholics if you try, no-one to shoot or drum for, it's easy if you try. MelForbes 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Mel, all I can think of is that you suffer from some kind of disability which reduces your ability to read replies to your queries. I'll repeat: I'm am not very concerned about Roman Catholics or Protestants really. I am not religious, and I am very suspicious of ALL religious institutions to be frank.
-
-
-
- Besides, I much prefer the B-side to Imagine: Working Class Hero... and Lennon already covered religion in the song Imagine.
-
-
-
- Now, having established that I don't care about religion, in spite of your insistance that I somehow care about it, what say you of the ethnic slur I have been subject to by the editor above our conversation? Still nothing to say about that? --Mal 21:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- But Mal, I thought you said that you aren't ethnic! So how can you be ethnically slurred? MelForbes 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Eh? Where did I say I wasn't ethnic..? I suggest we have this discussion privately, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Feel free to drop a note on my userpage any time.
- I would still like an apology from El Gringo for his very insulting remarks and insinuations. --Mal 21:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- El Gringo - whatever some British/Irish users may say, on both 'sides' there are people/people/people whose sole aim is make Wikiepdia a decent and proper encyclopedia. This means leaving aside the politics of Britsh Isles/Anglo-Celtic Isles and approaching it objectively. As commeneted below, attacks - even on people who make statements that you most wholeheartedly disagree with - are no way forward here. I simply ask that you look at this from a neutral point of view, ask yourself how often the term Anglo-Celtic Isles is used, and see that the connotations or political meanings of terms such as British Isles (which, incidentally, I agree has far too much baggae to be used and should have more of an issue made of it - which I wouldn't have said before exposing myself to the international environment of Wikipedia) are irrelevant in this debate. --Robdurbar 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment. All readers: please cease ad hominem attacks and return to the matter at hand. I don't care whether men, women, or purple sheep are debating this AfD, nor whether they English or Irish purple sheep. It seems the only thing that this request for discussion has really generated is attacks from one side or the other. Can we try to look at this from both sides, and come to an agreeable middle ground? I would humbly ask all participants to come back to the discussion without venom or rancor. Let's lay out what is acceptable and not acceptable to both "sides". Although it is distressing that our encyclopedia has to have sides at all... Isoxyl 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Agree with User:Isoxyl. There are some silly attacks being made, and some outrageous assertions. The "vast majority" of people on the island of Ireland are well capable of recognising a geographical term as being just that and the term is very much in common usage in Ireland. No problem with the neologism 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' being mentioned in the main article with a redirect, but including it as an article in it's own right? Ridiculous! Bastun 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to British Isles: little-known academic neologism, covered in the British Isles article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MAG1 01:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Further reasons to Keep Article. I'm all for focussing on the matter in hand. I have finally inserted into the article a nice (verified) reference I've had for a while. This is not a duplication of anything in the BI article. There are more (non-duplicate) additions to come. Isoxyl, I'm glad you agree with my point that, if a redirect route were followed, it should come with a clear reference to ACI in the BI article Introduction...something like: 'Alternative terms exist in limited use, such as 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' and 'British & Irish Isles'. The trouble is that several users (most probably contributing to this page too!) strongly opposed this. They argued either that the term didn't really exist (clearly not so!) or that usage was so limited that they didn't think it deserved the prominance of an Introduction reference. As long as this ACI article exists, and as long as someone wanting to read about it can type the term into Wikipedia and be taken to THIS article, then I'm able to reluctantly accept keeping the BI article intro as it is. The additional, non-duplicate information in this ACI article shows that this is not just a dictionary-type entry. By the way Bastun, your view about the BI term being purely geographical and 'very much in common usage in Ireland' is far from correct - this is ground we've covered/fought over long ago!! Kind regards, Pconlon 11:45, 15 August 2006
- We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Pconlon - I'm pretty sure if I went out on to the street now (in Dublin) and did a vox pop asking "What do you call the big set of islands west of France?" it'd be pretty much 50-50 between "The British Isles" and "Ireland and Britain" (in whatever order). It's simply a geographical term, like the Irish Sea (not the Anglo-Celtic Sea...) or the English Channel (not the Franco/Anglo Channel). It's also the term in my daughter's (Irish) school atlas... Bastun 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- In addition, having actually read through "Foster's The Global Etiquette Guide to Europe, Everything You Need to Know for Business and Travel Success, Part One: Western Europe" (I presume this is the new reference you're referring to), it doesn't actually mention the 'Anglo-Celtic Isles', but rather "Be especially careful in the terms you use to refer to your colleagues from these Anglo-Celtic isles." From the context, it is clearly not intended as a replacement term for 'British Isles' and it is disingenuous to suggest that it is. I would have serious problems, in any case, using this as a verifiable source, as even a cursory read of the article shows many historical and cultural inaccuracies - the Celts only arriving in the islands circa 300BC, the Normans arriving before the Saxons, (Unionist) Northern Irishmen who would describe themselves as 'Britons' (rather than 'British') and 'casual Friday' not having reached these islands to name just a few. Bastun 11:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Back on topic here, despite the outrageous and insulting personal attacks on me on this page from two other editors, I happen to agree with Baston and Robdurbar in general. I still think this article, which describes the exact same region as British Isles, should me merged and redirected.
-
- However, I'm tempted to wait until PConlon has finished adding to the article. --Mal 12:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The main question here is the extent to which there should be separate articles for the names of things, people, places, events rather than the things themselves. Encyclopaedias deal with things &tc; dictionaries with words. The growth of articles around words and names has to be restricted as much as possible otherwise the encyclopaedia will become unusable with multiple articles about the same things. You don't have to look very far to see the amount of energy that some people will put into naming disputes to appreciate the problems that will arise if articles are allowed to blossom whenever there is more than one name for a single thing &tc (see Río de la Plata/River Plate, aluminium/aluminum, soccer/football and almost anything else concerning any sort of football, Derry/Londonderry &tc &tc &tc). "Anglo-Celtic Isles"'s only purpose is to be a synonym for "British Isles", it has no life or history of its own independent of this, and the same material in the British Isles article could be exactly duplicated there. It is a terrible precedent. MAG1 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Suggestion. This discussion is so cluttered and convoluted as to be very difficult to follow at this point. (This may be against policy on an AfD page, but....) Here is my suggestion based on reading the work so far: Allow a little more time to improve the article by those interested in doing so. Is there some way to put a timer on this? If the article does not improve to where it justifies its own existence (ala IONA, then we can merge/redirect to British Isles at some arbitrary later point? Agreed that we don't need a million articles documenting different names, but as long as it links to BI and provides good points for its unique existence, I'm willing to tolerate it. Thoughts on the suggestion? Please include below, with ":" to indent each opinion, please, because the mess above is maddening! Isoxyl 00:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article contains much that is unverified or plainly inaccurate, e.g., "The Anglo-Celtic Isles is a term increasingly used..." - it's lack of use has been demonstrated in this debate. The "controversial term 'British Isles', due to the latter's unacceptability in Ireland and among some Scottish and Welsh nationalists.[1]" What Scottish and Welsh nationalists, exactly? We have one source for this... The only other 'source' for verification in the article - "The populations inhabiting the archipelago have been referred to collectively as 'Anglo-Celtic cultures' in mainstream literature.[2]" has been debunked both on the article's talk page and in this AFD. Lastly, "The term is used in particular in academia and has begun to be used, alongside, or as an alternative to, British Isles in many library referencing systems. Its usage however is relatively small to date." is self-contradictory and unverified - what library referencing systems? Remove all of the unsourced/inaccurate material and you're left with nothing to base an article on. Still in favour of a delete or redirect - but if the above concerns can be addressed then the article can always be re-created later, following existing Wiki protocols. Bastun 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment:The bottom line is this. If a term is being used by a section of people and scholars, then why should a reference to that term be blocked by WP. All material is of value, including the great and the small. Tell you something for nothing, there are a lot of regimes around the planet that would only be too delighted to block, block, block.....MelForbes 09:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Reply If a term is being used by a section of people and scholars, then why should a reference to that term be blocked by WP. Why? Because its against WP policies - WP:NEO and WP:V. "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Please actually go read those two policies. As to your last point - what? How is that relevant at all? This is an encyclopedia, not somewhere to push a PoV... Bastun 09:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment "This is an encyclopedia, not somewhere to push a PoV". That is exactly what I am talking about. WP:NEO and WP:V are not there to be interpreted as an vehicle to push pov either. The reasoning is that if a term is being used for cultural purposes, which Anglo-Celtic Isles is, if follows that it is a worthy entry. What are you afraid of. You don't need to be Albert Einstein to understand the simplicity of the old-logic. MelForbes 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm in agreement too of course on the encyclopedic (rather than POV-pushing) nature of Wikipedia. I accept some of the comments on wording inaccuracies in the article (e.g. 'many' vs. 'limited use to date') and will look at these in a moment. A thorough search for the best references to back up unverified points will take time and I'm alas only able to dedicate pieces of time to this (I'm not retired like some here are I imagine). Bastun, I assure you that there wouldn't be a 50/50 split between 'British Isles' and 'Britain & Ireland' in a straw pool on the streets of Dublin. The points made about the 'Irish Sea' and other areas of water are interesting, but overlook the long, long period political/military turmoil that has affected life on British and Irish soil - which baggage the stretch of water between the two islands thankfully lacks.
- The people presently working on this article are well aware of the existance of the 'British Isles' article and of the need to avoid duplication. I certainly have no plans for an alternative history of the archipelago or anything of that sort. Can we please now remove this deletion/redirect tag and leave the article be?, so those of us who use the term and want it properly and fairly (I stress this) represented can get on with improving it. Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge and should be an unrushed, even enjoyable, pursuit. We should somehow keep this discussion though - where would it be best placed in this case? I'm of course happy to wait until everyone has had a chance to read and comment on this. Pconlon 15:27, 16 August 2006
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think we should let this run and have the wider community have its say - I'm glad its attracted a few new faces to the issue. As I've said before, as a student, and a geography one at that, I have access to a number of academic databases and I have failed to find any more references than are already provided at British Isles for the term. Thus to claims that this is widely use, I'm afraid I just don't believe that it is. On that basis, and on my understanding of WP:NEO, WP:NAME and WP:WINAD, I stand by my opinion that the article's content should be deleted and the page exist as a redirect to Brtish Isles. That said, if this debate comes out as 'no consensus' - as I suspect it might - then I'll be happy to leave the issue. --Robdurbar 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Having looked further at the article following updates, I'm still very much unconvinced of the merits of it existing as an article in it's own right and even coming to the conclusion that it doesn't deserve a redirect. I've since removed some of the hyperbole and added back in the 'unverified' tag, but the only checkable reference to the use of the term leads to a website which quotes a ballad apparently written in 1914. Now, pretty much any song will be found in several places on the net, but that's the only place where that particular one can be found. The "used by many library/bookstore reference systems" turned out to be one homemade <a href="http://pbwiki.com/">wiki</a> listing bookshops. Bastun 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
On the issue of this article's existance, can we now finally agree that there is no consensus and lay this romp to rest? Let's leave the article be. All users are of course welcome to keep an eye on it to ensure that no inappropriate verifications are used - I would ask that contentious opinions regarding additions/removals be placed in discussion for a few days before actual article changes are made. I also thank Robdurbar for his fairness and open mindedness. Kind regards, Pconlon 15:10, 18 August 2006
- Why not follow standard AfD process? At the moment it's looking like an 8 to 4 majority in favour of redirect/delete, as opposed to keep. A 2 to 1 majority is consensus (for AfD purposes, anyway - I've seen articles/templates deleted with far slimmer majorities) and the closing admin will also presumably take into account the arguments on WP:NEO, WP:WINAD and WP:V. Bastun 14:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Agree that if the closing admin does decide to keep, then additions/removals should be discussed in Talk prior to inclusion/removal. That seems to work well on other pages. Bastun 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Actually 66% is borderline. Most admins who close debates would judge a debate like this no consensus because of the strength of feeling and the narrowness of the numbers. Tighter numbers may result in deletions if the debate is pretty consensual and if a lot of the votes on one side are of the 'I'm not pushed either way but . ." tone. This debate here is too passionate for a decision in the 60s. It really would need to be in the 70s. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually 66% is borderline. Most admins who close debates would judge a debate like this no consensus because of the strength of feeling and the narrowness of the numbers. Tighter numbers may result in deletions if the debate is pretty consensual and if a lot of the votes on one side are of the 'I'm not pushed either way but . ." tone. This debate here is too passionate for a decision in the 60s. It really would need to be in the 70s. FearÉIREANN
- Redirect to British Isles and expand the Alternative terms section. Apologies for the late vote, it can be discounted if prefered. It's taken a while to get my head round this whole discussion. On a side note, I find some of the accusations and assumptions made against Mal in this discussion quite inappropriate. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to British Isles. Have a subheading in the Alternative terms section of that page for each alternative name. I thing this is a clear example of a neologism, with tiny usage. It means the same as British Isles: I think it is very clear that there should be one article for the archipelago, not twenty covering each term: the debate should be on what that article is called and what is in it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Stonemad GB 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
People, this is not an exercise in 'getting the vote out'!! It will be petty indeed if each side went about calling in 'numbers' to support its position...which is where this is going. No one is saying that this term is in widespread use, however it is verified and is used by some, myself included. This debate is about a term that is not just concidentally used in place of another - rather it is used intentionally as an alternative term on an extremely sensitive subject. A redirect would be an insult to those of us who so use it. A suitably worded reference to it specifically should I believe be placed in the British Isles article introduction...it would be essential in the case of a redirect in my view. Pconlon 23:52, 20 August 2006
- Nobody is denying that this term is used on occasion. I have yet to hear a convincing case that this means it should have its own entry. It is an alternative term for the archipelago, but there are many others - "these Islands", "IONA", "UK and Ireland", "northwest European archipelago", "West European Isles", "Britain and Ireland", "Western Lands", "British Isles and Ireland", even "England" to some dumb tourists. Should each of these have an entry? Or should there be one entry for the archipelago that discusses all the alternative names in a section within it? That is the question to be answered. If we go down the one entry route, as I and WP:WINAD suggest, I would question the practicality of including each of these alternative names, and an explanation of their origin and use, in the intro--Stonemad GB 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC).
(This is rather long and bitty, so I've used separators. I beg your indulgence.)
- Um. Verified? According to the discussion that's been going on the talk page, it's not verified at all. Despite the extravagant claims of academic use, library use, and so on, none of these references have materialised. There is one ballad on a webpage, with no corresponding printed reference (and bear in mind that all of the searches I list below would return hits for this ballad, were there any to find); there is an academic text that uses the phrase "Anglo-Celtic isles" (small i); there is a tourist's guidebook that uses the phrases "Anglo-Celtic cultures" several times and "Anglo-Celtic isles" once (again, small i). Use of the adjective Anglo-Celtic cannot be considered substantiation of the proper noun "Anglo-Celtic Isles", even if the noun attached to the adjective happens to be "isles".
- Here's a summary of the research I've done to try and substantiate this term. Please note that my Cardiff Libraries subscription does not entitle me to view holdings of any Irish newspapers; perhaps one of the Irish editors could do a corresponding search?
- All newspaper searches are from 1996 up to yesterday, except for the Times and Sunday Times which are from 1985 onwards.
- I've searched the following resources with no hits whatsoever:
-
- Google Scholar.
- The Encyclopaedia Britannica (although it has 17 or so hits for the term "Anglo-Celtic", mostly in relation to Australia).
- A ProQuest journal search.
- Oxford Reference Online.
- The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- The Oxford English Dictionary.
- The Daily Mail. (4 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Daily Telegraph. (6 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Economist. (0 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Economist (US edition). (7 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Evening Standard. (0 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Daily Express. (0 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Sunday Express. (0 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Financial Times. (5 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Guardian. (15 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Independent on Sunday. (7 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The "Independent Sunday" (possibly the same as the above, but anyway, no hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Mail on Sunday. (0 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Daily Mirror. (1 hit for "anglo-celtic")
- The New York Times. (3 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The New York Times Book Review. (0 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The New York Times Magazine. (0 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Observer. (6 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Scotsman. (6 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The South Wales Echo. (1 hit for "anglo-celtic")
- The Sun. (1 hit for "anglo-celtic")
- The Sunday Mirror. (1 hit for "anglo-celtic")
- The Sunday Telegraph. (0 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Sunday Times. (1985 onwards; 11 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Times. (1985 onwards; 17 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Times of India. (0 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- Wales on Sunday. (1 hit for "anglo-celtic")
- The Washington Times. (2 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The Western Mail. (5 hits for "anglo-celtic")
- The following resources turned up hits using the phrase "Anglo-Celtic isles", small i:
-
- The Times Digital Archive, 1785-1985 (1574 hits for the term "Anglo-Celtic"):
- One hit, a letter from Julian Amery MP and others: "We would welcome any arrangement based on reciprocity which moved towards the reunion of the British or, if it be preferred, Anglo-Celtic isles." (Amery, Julian; John Biggs-Davison; Ivor Stanbrook. "Letters: Quid pro quo in an Irish setting", The Times, 1985-11-12, pp. 15.)
-
- One hit of three, which is the "Celtic Geographies" text already cited at Anglo-Celtic Isles.
- The following resources turned up hits using the contested phrase "Anglo-Celtic Isles":
-
- The Independent (10 hits for "anglo-celtic"):
- One hit, apparently a reader's letter: "WHAT should we call "These Islands"? asks Triona Carey (letter, 14 April). Would "the Anglo-Celtic Isles" be neutral enough? It is certainly a more accurate description than "the British Isles"." (Buttle, Paul. "Letter: Name these islands", The Independent, 1998-04-16, pp. 20.)
-
- Two hits of three, both of which are from the same work, "Proceedings: Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society" (no ISSN or ISBN). Text visible on search is "Early Norwegian legal principles in the Anglo-Celtic Isles, including G ..." and "...the constitutional crises which were to rack Europe and the Anglo-Celtic Isles during the next quarter of a century."
- I don't think I'm going to be able to do the EBSCO search - would someone more au fait with it like to have a go? Vashti 02:04, 21 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, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising a site, nor is it a place to host a 'guide for all of those new members that join the site'. Simply existing isn't a good enough reason to have an article about the website. - Bobet 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hydro's Battle Net
|
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}} |
NN web forum. Prod removed by author. -- Merope 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. No revelant Google hits besides the site itself. --Gray Porpoise 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with Gray Porpoise. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it's just not appropriate for this project. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA/vote for me) 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep-The Page recieves hundreds of hits a day, Although it may not be top of the list on google the site is still recognised amongst the community with 69 registered members.The site has been around for around 1 and a half years and its still going strong. Wikipedia should offer information on recognised sites and not simply dismiss then because a search engine cant pick it up. --Ford206
-
- 69 registered members? Delete per Ford206. (and per WP:V ) --Xyzzyplugh 23:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Hydro's Battle Net is small but not little. As Ford206 said this site is still going strong after more than an year, and it deserves to have a chance to get even better. It's not right to just delete something because it seems pointless with no results on Google. Chances are, the best option is to keep this page up for people to actually recognize HBN. - Blaze-kun
- Comment two images at the bottom keep getting tagged as "non-commercial use only". Wikipedia cannot accept non-commercial use only images; such images will be deleted unless their license is changed. theProject 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Like the two above me have said. I believe this page deserves a chance. It may not be on the top of Google's search list but it is a wonderful reference for those who wish to see it and know more of what it's about. A guide if you will for all of those new members that join the site. It gives a good description of the story line the characters that play an important role and build the site up. Besides. Who said Google and Yahoo were God? (Though no one mentioned Yahoo I at least use it) If that's all things are rated on of relevence then Jesus help us all. The site is going strong and is a place for people to gather in the world of RP. Wikipedia shouldn't dismiss this page because it gives Hydros Battle Net a chance to be recognized by the mass of the internet. - Rae-chan
-
- Comment. Sadly this site does not meet WP:WEB's criteria, which isn't just about search engine hits. It's also about material written by others about the site (of which the site has none), web awards and recognition (of which the site has none), or content being distributed by third party sources (of which the site has none). Google and Yahoo (which uses Google's search technology) are not "gods", but are decent guidelines when combined with other things when determining whether an article on a website satisfies notability guidelines. Wikipedia isn't a free webhosting service and the information would probably be better off on the Hydro Battle Net site. You also admit that you want people to recognize the site, which means the article is advertising, whether or not it's for profit (advertising is not solely done for profit - non-profit organizations can also advertise). On top of all this, none of the material can be verified by reliable sources - this means by third parties. ColourBurst 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. None of the information is verifiable through reliable sources, and on top of this it fails WP:WEB. ColourBurst 22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- "keep this page up for people to actually recognize" gives it away. Wikipedia is a website that recognizes subjects worth recognition, not one that subjects use to gain recognition. theProject 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The Article is not to "Advertise" The site as HBN is already an established site know by various members of the MegaMan Community. The Articles main objective was to give others information about the website itself no different from the articles of websites such as RuneScape or Neopets. Although obviously HBN is not in the same league as the two examples it still bears the same principles. The objective of the article is to inform rather than advertise--Ford206 22:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Asking for recognition is indeed advertisement (see Rae-chan's comment). You have not addressed the fact that the article doesn't meet, and can't meet, Wikipedia's notability or verifiability guidelines. ColourBurst 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB, no WP:RS indicating that this website is notable, possible advertising violation. --Kinu t/c 00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I fail to see personally how this fails to meet Wikipedia criteria. The information in the page is verifiable, as the link to the site is providied. The characters are all fan-made and are owned privately by the members of Hydro's Battle Net, who have agreed to let me make this page. Copyright is not an issue, even for the images, which have all been drawn by a HBN member, and used with permission. While Google my fail to see this site in a simple search, it DOES exist and the information provided about the site IS correct. Raston00 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- You might want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. To be verifiable, the information in a wikipedia article must be based on reliable sources, things like books, magazines, newspapers, etc. If Hydro's Battle Net has been covered in any such reliable sources, please list them here. --Xyzzyplugh 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep-Come on. The site itself may not be well known, but the article itself meets criteria. It's not really advertising or anything, just information on a certain site. There's not harm in keeping this page up anyhow, and everyone knows that wikipedia is the voice of the people-Diaxiann
-
- Comment Can you state the criteria it meets and provide proof of such? There are no secondary sources (ie written by people not affiliated with HBN). "There is no harm" is one of the common arguments bandied about - for that, see WP:ILIKEIT, because it's wrong. On top of this, Wikipedia specifically is not a voice of the people (aka soapbox). ColourBurst 07:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Don't take into account the people who have just come from the site to vote keep as this has less than 100 members and is ridiculously small. J.J.Sagnella 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ooh, Look what I found. A link telling people to vote on the main site. J.J.Sagnella 08:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- CommentHey, monkey mojo pants. It that topic doesn't specifically ask people to vote for it. Most of the them reckon that it'd be deleted anyway. Ah buuuuuh.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.83.125 (talk • contribs)
- "Monkey Mojo Pants"? Well that's new. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? J.J.Sagnella 11:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - only 69 registered members makes it non-notable, surely. Peterkingiron 16:18, 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.
