Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Professional doctorate
Unnecessary article. Nothing exists here that doesn't already appear in the much more expanded Doctorate — NMChico24 
21:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: It's barely a week old, it seems to have the possibility of expanding into a decent sub-article. A bit redundant for the time being perhaps, but at least give it a chance to fix itself up. --SeizureDog 21:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- How do you feel that this article can be expanded to not say exactly the same thing that's already covered under Doctorate? — NMChico24 22:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not my field; I don't know much about the subject matter so I don't know. However, if you feel that it just repeats information from Doctorate then perhaps the information in Doctorate should be removed and not the other way around. Make it to be a split.--SeizureDog 06:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- How do you feel that this article can be expanded to not say exactly the same thing that's already covered under Doctorate? — NMChico24
- Delete and Merge to Doctorate. No need for separate subarticle. Merge as a subsection to the Doctorate article, where it belongs. If the subsection grows in time to be large and unwieldy, then we can move it back to its own page. At the moment, its an unnecessary fork/duplication. Actually, it'd be more expedient simply to slap mergeto and mergefrom tags on the pages and wait a few days to see if anyone objects, rather than take this to afd. If people object and the merge is controversial, take it to WP:PM.Bwithh 23:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, NMChico24 22:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. (delete and merge are two different things... it may not make sense to say delete and merge as a single comment.. delete OR merge may make more sense IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge to Doctorate. Seems to repeat the list on Doctorate but lack the text information. ThuranX 02:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. sharpdust 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Doctorate. There's no difference between the terms that's worth having a different article. - Richardcavell 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Doctorate--Ageo020 05:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
<Merge into DoctorateDelete--chemica 06:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- Delete outright, there really isn't any mergeable content. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no need to explain Bustter 12:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. There is nothing here that isn't in Doctorate. If it becomes significantly more than listcruft on that page, then it can be re-created. I'd be very suprised, though -- there is really nothing to this area other than a list. TedTalk/Contributions 21:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, and merge anything that can be merged into doctorate. Should this be deleted, consideration ought to be given to nominating Professional Master's degree for an AfD discussion (Professional Bachelor's degree has already been deleted per this AfD discussion). Agent 86 17:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — They can (or maybe are, I didn't look) be put into a category. That's what they are for. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:17, 9 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 withdrawn by nominator RMHED 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC). — NMChico24 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Portrayals of Mormons in popular media
This is just another non-encyclopaedic list, does it really belong in Wikipedia? keep The rewrite is excellent --RMHED 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete This could become endless.Neutral Interesting rewrite appears to be in progress — NMChico24 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- Keep these "in culture" lists deal with notable topics, namely the media on the one hand, and in this case, a religion which has a sufficient sense of "otherness" to it that it produces many varied portrayals. The list just needs work. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The work that it needs is complete removal and replacement with an actual encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do you actually believe that can be done?- in terms of deleting the article now and recreating it later (although I see that's not necessary now). After the Brian Peppers incident, there could be a crowd of people saying it's a repost, and therefore speediable. Jimbo Wales deleting the article despite its total rewrite would reinforce such an argument. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's worrying about a scenario that is vanishingly unlikely. This article is nothing like Brian Peppers, Jimbo Wales isn't going to step in here, and administrators are careful about checking to see whether new articles really are the same as the old ones that were deleted. Compare the article as it was with the article as it stands now (or even as it stood after the first rewrite edit). Do you really think that any administrator in xyr right mind would have considered that to be a re-post of deleted content? Uncle G 09:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do you actually believe that can be done?- in terms of deleting the article now and recreating it later (although I see that's not necessary now). After the Brian Peppers incident, there could be a crowd of people saying it's a repost, and therefore speediable. Jimbo Wales deleting the article despite its total rewrite would reinforce such an argument. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The work that it needs is complete removal and replacement with an actual encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — As per CanaianCaesar Betacommand 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OR. -- Koffieyahoo 02:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per OR. They may deal with notable topics, but the article lacks notability and WP:V.SynergeticMaggot 03:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete in preparation for Total Rewrite Keep after Uncle G's rewrite This list sucks as yet another idiotic compilation of one-off Simpsons gags, South Park references, sitcom throwaway lines and other dribble. This article has started off in totally the wrong direction. Let's throw the current content in the incinerator and restart it with references to only substantial works such as Napoleon Dynamite, Big Love and items from Category: Latter Day Saint films. To avoid it becoming just a list of trivia, lets start off the new stub article a historical timeline structure - so its about the change of portrayal over time. I'll help put a new stub article together Bwithh 03:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Too similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic stereotypes in American media 2 for my liking. -AED 04:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, it is a list of Mormon mentions in media. Even if rewritten, it would not be encyclopedic, just trivia. -- Kjkolb 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, list of unencyclopedic material - it's just a collection of trivia. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Should go in the main article on Mormons. John Smith's 10:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I came to the article expecting an encyclopaedia article on the potrayal of Mormons in popular media, based upon sources such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and the paper listed here. Instead, I find a grab-bag of mere quotations from The Simpons and Friends. There's an encyclopaedia article to be written on the portrayal of Mormons in popular media, given the sources, but this is nowhere near being it. It isn't even a good start. This is just a disguised Wikiquote article (q:Mormons). Delete or rewrite from scratch. Uncle G 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete - this could / should be an article, but the current content is a hodge podge of trivia, and is a poor base on which to try to write an actual article. -- Whpq 12:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Changing to Keep given the rewrite has occurred thanks to Uncle G. -- Whpq 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G, with no predjudice against recreation of an actual article at some point.Keep per complete rewrite.--Isotope23 16:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Delete per Uncle G. There could be an article on this but this isn't it and this isn't the start of one. Nothing usable here. By the way... where are The Sign of Four and Riders of the Purple Sage? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Delete per Uncle G. This is just ridiculous. Sandstein 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Keep after excellent rewrite. Sandstein 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)- Question, if so many people think there should be an article on the subject, and Uncle G can come up with all those potential sources for one, and someone's willing to write it, why does the existing thing need to be deleted? Why not just start from scratch, write the article in the space where the existing article is, and leave the edit history alone? Why remove the edit history in the process of creating a new, good, useable article there? ONUnicorn 20:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as rewritten by Uncle G. Now has the makings of a good article. Capitalistroadster 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well done, Uncle G for taking the initiative. I will help out on the article later on Bwithh 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — I missed the original, but the current version seems fine. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This current version is significantly improved and worth keeping. The previous article was beneath WIKI. Storm Rider (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep new article. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this rewritten article, I'd like to withdraw my AfD nomination--RMHED 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete nonsense - FrancisTyers · 01:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Madness evolution
Non-notable. Prod tag was removed with no explanation or improvement of article. --Natalie 01:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN freeweb page o' the day. — NMChico24 01:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity page for NN group/website [4]. So poorly written as to border on nonsense. --IslaySolomon 01:27, 7 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. Prodego talk 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Adler
I previously nominated this article for deletion but this is probably such a low-trafficked article that I will go ahead and do it again. The previous AfD failed on account of people believing that as the chief financial officer of Expedia, he is inherently notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If that were true, you'd expect the CFO's of much larger companies such as Coca Cola (Gary Fayard [6]), IBM (Mark Loughridge [7]), and General Motors, Corp. (Frederick Henderson [8]) to have their own articles as well. (I am not cherry picking here; I just looked up the CFO's of the first three giant corporations I thought of). Evidently while the CFO is a tremendously influential and important person within a company, he is generally not of individual notability outside of it unless there are special circumstances that make the person notable, which does not appear to be the case with Mr. Adler.
We do have a few other articles for the CFO's of some other companies, but as far as I'm concerned those articles should be candidates for deletion as well. I'd prefer this AfD discussion to center around why a person holding the position of CFO merits mention in an encyclopedia above and beyond a listing on the company's page.
Finally, for what it's worth, I will note that the creator of this article claims to have been assigned the task of writing the article by his employer when Mr. Adler was announced as the new incoming CFO. — GT 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I forgot to list this on the main AfD page, so the closing admin should consider the beginning time to be as of this timestamp, not the one above. — GT 01:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM then. Wikipedia is not Expedia's press agent. --DarkAudit 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.ThuranX 02:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to Expedia Dlyons493 Talk 02:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Previous AfD ended on a no-consensus, and my final vote was delete there as well. Lack of improvements nudge me a bit further in the delete direction as well. Morgan Wick 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- Delete as non-notable. There are so many CFOs, they get replaced so often and they have so little impact outside of their company that it is pointless to have an article on someone whose only claim to fame is being one. -- Kjkolb 04:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-notable figure. Very little significance outside Expedia. Add a small mention of him to the Expedia article if he's that important. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per the arguments and outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Adler. The fact that the creator of this article was encouraged to do so at the request of his employer does not sway my opinion on this. Yamaguchi先生 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with yamaguchi, the fact his company required him to have an article does not make him any less important of a person. ALKIVAR™
02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't nominate this article for deletion based on that. Please address my actual points. Thanks! — GT 04:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and disambiguate between the film and television actor (son of Warren Adler) [9] and the Expedia CFO, both of whom receive ample search traffic on Google and Lexis-Nexis. RFerreira 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain to us why a CFO is worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia above and beyond a mention in the company's own article, and without using vague and unsubstantiated claims like "ample search traffic". Thanks! — GT 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep please and disambiguate per rferreira makes the most sense Yuckfoo 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote. Can you explain your position, as this is supposed to be a discussion to reach a consensus? — GT 20:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete based on him:
- Holding his position for a relatively short time
- Not having a profound impact on the company or society
- I see this article as crystal balling and vanity more than anything else mentioned. While it is a powerful position to hold, CFOs who haven't gained significant fame/notoriety or held their positions for a spectacular amount of time don't merit articles.--Wafulz 17:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted owing to lack of notability, and continuing this AfD discussion is pointless. - Richardcavell 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The dunnie
Contested prod. WP:NOT a recipe book, especially not for the neologistic name you gave a drink made up by your drunken college buddy. No relevant Google hits: [10]. Opabinia regalis 02:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. How shall we delete this? Let me count the ways... WP:NFT, WP:NOT a cookbook or how-to guide, WP:NEO, WP:NN... should I go on? Morgan Wick 02:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete As all stated by Morgan Wick. sharpdust 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as stated above Nick Catalano contrib talk 02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty
See this week's Economist and the discussion on the talk page, including the writer of the Economist piece himself discussing his efforts to verify the organization's claims. Wikipedia must not allow itself to be a vehicle for any intelligence service's disinformation schemes. And even if it had been verified, I do not believe the organization itself is notable. Daniel Case 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. (Tentative.) Ah, but the very existence of the Economist article may make it notable. This page could serve as an article about its claims and the coverage in the Economist. Morgan Wick 04:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- Keep Even as a hoax organization/instrument of propaganda, this is encyclopedically notable, especially with the exposé Bwithh 04:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then rename the article into something like International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty controversy. As it is, a hoax organization has no place having an article, even if its status as a hoax is duly noted within the article. Would you vote to keep this if the exposé were just on the talk page? Daniel Case 05:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- But it's not just on the talk page. The exposé (which is not totally confirmed) is in the article too. It is strongly suspected that this is a hoax organization used for disinformation, but it is not absolutely confirmed. Bwithh 06:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- So it isn't verifiable, then. Without the Economist writing about it, it wouldn't just be deleted, it would be speedied. Daniel Case 06:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- But it's not just on the talk page. The exposé (which is not totally confirmed) is in the article too. It is strongly suspected that this is a hoax organization used for disinformation, but it is not absolutely confirmed. Bwithh 06:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then rename the article into something like International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty controversy. As it is, a hoax organization has no place having an article, even if its status as a hoax is duly noted within the article. Would you vote to keep this if the exposé were just on the talk page? Daniel Case 05:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Morgan Wick & Bwithh. Do not rename, just explain why the organization's bona fides are in question starting in the first paragraph. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- And I would presume, then, that if and when ICDISS is found to be neither bona nor fide there will be no argument that this article has no place on Wikipedia? We have enough trouble filtering out real NN orgs as is; is a phony organization notable just because the work of verifying the article was done in an internationally circulated magazine? Daniel Case 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, and slap a disputed tag on it. ONUnicorn 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Rename, per Daniel Case. The controversy is undoubtedly real and notable, the organisation may or may not be. JQ 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep And preserve a record of this act of gross propaganda. Sonicdeathmonkey 16:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but rename and try to find as much dirt on their propagandistic activities as possibly. *evilgrin* —Nightstallion (?) 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep articles about hoaxes that are cited in reputable news sources such as the Economist are certainly worth keeping. A renaming and partial rewrite might be useful, though. - Bootstoots 16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Would editors who supported Keep early on like to express their views on the alternative of Keep and rename?
- Keep (and most probably rename) per Morgan, Bwithh, and Nightstallion. Joe 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sango123 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mike Russell
Contested PROD, taken to AfD for consensus. Yanksox 02:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - give him the benefit of the doubt. He's famous in his target markets. - Richardcavell 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete
Neutral or cleanup. Current version is an advert. Morgan Wick 04:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- Keep per Richardcavell. He's notable. The article has an image. Needs a little cleanup though... --S-man 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. Bad article on a legitimate subject. Soo 10:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up per Soo. Erechtheus 10:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. There's something redeeming underneath the fluff that is all over the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up, the subject is notable within his field. Yamaguchi先生 23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. Sango123 00:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ayanna Solomon, Festival of Praise, Jesus in the City
Ayanna Solomon fails WP:BIO. ghits: [11]. Prod was deleted by page author with no further updates or an edit summary. Another user has merged Festival of Praise to this AFD and added a new nomination for Jesus in the City, as they appear to be related. My initial nomination for Festival of Praise read as follows: Non-notable Organisation. ghits: [12]. Prod was removed by author with no further updates or an edit summary. — NMChico24 05:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Additional Nominations: I am also nominating the following related pages because WP:AUTO and WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox :
-
- Festival of Praise and
- Jesus in the City
- Ohconfucius 05:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, we have a walled garden here: non-notable figure, non-notable organization, and non-notable event with an unverifiable claim. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all googling brings back homonyms and different organisations and people from all over. notability is obviously absent --Svartalf 16:17, 7 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 close as another contributor has merged this entry into the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayanna Solomon discussion — NMChico24 06:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Festival of Praise
Non-notable Organisation. ghits: [13]. Prod was removed by author with no further updates or an edit summary. — NMChico24 05:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rod Allen Drinking Game
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Unverifiable and no original research. This article has no encyclopedic value, and the origin of the game can be traced to one blogger who admits to creating the game three days ago. [14] --dtony 05:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. You don't have to be in school for it to be made up in school .... Daniel Case 05:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-encyclopedic rubbish. - Richardcavell 05:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - extremely non-notable, unverifiable, and very stupid. --S-man 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedic Value? Are you kidding me?! Search drinking games as a general subject on Wikipedia and tell me how many hundreds of entries there are! I assume that those, however, ARE of "encyclopedic value." This was very clever and I vote that it stays. I had it forwarded to me, and I have since forwarded it on to several family members and friends. With the Tigers gaining so much television and media exposure, and all with Rod Allen and Mario Impemba as the faces of these great Tigers, I would say that it falls into the category of current event relevance. As far as it being "verifiable," I verified it at Buffalo Wild Wings on Saturday night with a group of friends - what a great and fun game.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.57.149 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per Nomiator. Couldn't say it better myself. Also, I believe this is something to remember: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. --Bschott 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Submitter is a life-long Tigers fan and has nothing but respect for both Rod Allen and Mario Impemba (worthy successors to George and Al!). As easy as it is to get swept up in the current Tiger fever, drinking game articles are more suitable to blogs or personal websites than an encyclopedia, especially games that are specific to a small group of friends. --dtony 17:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is user's sole edit. Daniel Case 13:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since you raised the issue, I went and checked Category:Drinking games. Yes, it's well-populated ... but looking at a random selection of articles there, I was astounded at how many are utterly unsourced. And the one Google I did, on Thunderdome (drinking game) turned up one hit independent of Wikipedia or its mirrors, at barmeister.com, which I do not have the time to check for reliability.
I think it's time to go through and winnow this category down some ... it's far too vulnerable to WP:NFT-type stuff. Daniel Case 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- I'm going to have to agree that the category needs to be whittled down a bit. Wikipedia shouldn't become a drinking game repository. For reference, barmeister.com is of the "Submit a drinking game" variety, so its reliability is questionable; it's best as a backup source. --Wafulz 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Buffalo Wild Wings not being a reliable source. --Wafulz 12:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is a game that is fun for the whole family and just as notable as any of the other drinking games. --X96lee15 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Fun for the whole family"? A drinking game? Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- well, that part was sarcasm, but the other part about being as relevent as any other of the drinking games on wikipedia stands. If you delete this article, you have to delete every other article. --X96lee15 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, just the ones that fail to show any existence independent of the Wikipedia article or its mirrors. I went through the drinking games category and found about four that are now on AFD. Thanks for the heads-up ... we appreciate it! Daniel Case 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- you obviously didn't look hard enough, because I was able to find independent existence of this game. Just because a thing is new, does not preclude it from a Wikipedia entry. Rod Allen has just recently become the Tigers' announcer and only this year has hit excitement level rising enough to warrant his own game. If the consensus is to delete this article, then I will save the wiki-source for this page and will re-submit the article at a later time when I'm sure it's deemed "worthy" --X96lee15 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The so-called "independent existence" is the blog post linked to up top. As you'll note, it is three days old.
As a rule you'll notice there are no TV-based drinking games in the drinking games category, because not only are they quintessential fancruft, they never really catch on and I doubt anyone actually plays them (Besides, they're not really games, just observations about the show's clichés made in the form of a drinking game. And "X drinks when Y happens" gets old fast). Daniel Case 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The so-called "independent existence" is the blog post linked to up top. As you'll note, it is three days old.
- you obviously didn't look hard enough, because I was able to find independent existence of this game. Just because a thing is new, does not preclude it from a Wikipedia entry. Rod Allen has just recently become the Tigers' announcer and only this year has hit excitement level rising enough to warrant his own game. If the consensus is to delete this article, then I will save the wiki-source for this page and will re-submit the article at a later time when I'm sure it's deemed "worthy" --X96lee15 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you post what you found please? Also, if the page is deleted, resubmitting it will just get it deleted and protected. --Wafulz 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- [15] shows 10 non-Wikipedia references. Granted, it's not a lot, but the activity in question is only a few days old. And concerning a re-submit, I will wait until it is more notable. Like I said previously, things being new do not preclude them from wikipedia. I'd call myself an anti-deletist. --X96lee15 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately, pretty much every link mentioning it is a blog, which do not count as reliable sources. And unless the Rod Allen Drinking Game becomes an enormous sweeping phenomenon, or outrageously popular, it won't merit an article. It is still not notable, not verifiable, an inside joke, and is basically something made up at school one day. The fact that it's barely half a week old is only one of the many, many reasons it should be deleted. I could just as easily create a Mike Lange drinking game with drinks based on every time he says something outrageous, and it would just as easily be worth deleting. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor should it become a catalyst for insignificant fads. --Wafulz 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- who the heck is Mike Lange and why would you want a drinking game for him?!?!? That's preposterous. Like it ot not, Rod Allen is an excellent sportscaster and this article is without-a-doubt-relevant. And maybe one of the 10 links returned from google was a blog, the others were not; they were message boards. There is a very big difference between the two. --X96lee15 03:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- This pretty clearly illustrates my point. Mike Lange is significant to the Pittsburgh Penguins and to NHL fans and has his own drinking games. There's no difference between his significance and that of Rod Allen. About message boards: If you'd like I could make a post on hfboards (hockey fan boards) to spread the Mike Lange drinking game to prove message boards are also unreliable sources. --Wafulz 12:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- While I don't care about Mike Lange, you have the right to create a Wikipedia article on him and/or his drinking game, if it's significant enough. If there is significant message board chatter, then I'm all for it. --X96lee15 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, quite the opposite is true. I do not have the right to create an article on a Mike Lange Drinking Game if there is significant message board chatter; message boards are not reliable sources. It would be very easy to create a message board fad- this is why articles like Happycat are constantly being deleted. Wikipedia is not for fads or something made up at school one day (WP:NFT). --Wafulz 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. My only beef with this whole deletion is that there are other less-relevant (IMO) "Drinking Games" already on Wikipedia. That's why I'm opposed to this deletion. X96lee15 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately, pretty much every link mentioning it is a blog, which do not count as reliable sources. And unless the Rod Allen Drinking Game becomes an enormous sweeping phenomenon, or outrageously popular, it won't merit an article. It is still not notable, not verifiable, an inside joke, and is basically something made up at school one day. The fact that it's barely half a week old is only one of the many, many reasons it should be deleted. I could just as easily create a Mike Lange drinking game with drinks based on every time he says something outrageous, and it would just as easily be worth deleting. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor should it become a catalyst for insignificant fads. --Wafulz 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- [15] shows 10 non-Wikipedia references. Granted, it's not a lot, but the activity in question is only a few days old. And concerning a re-submit, I will wait until it is more notable. Like I said previously, things being new do not preclude them from wikipedia. I'd call myself an anti-deletist. --X96lee15 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, just the ones that fail to show any existence independent of the Wikipedia article or its mirrors. I went through the drinking games category and found about four that are now on AFD. Thanks for the heads-up ... we appreciate it! Daniel Case 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- well, that part was sarcasm, but the other part about being as relevent as any other of the drinking games on wikipedia stands. If you delete this article, you have to delete every other article. --X96lee15 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Fun for the whole family"? A drinking game? Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep What are you people, Sox fans??!? --Beal99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.33.95 (talk • contribs)
— Possible single purpose account: 24.148.33.95 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
-
- Volunteer online open-content encyclopedia editors who uphold standards that were established long before most of us began editing. Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is hilarious --Tony Eveready—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.235.195 (talk • contribs)
- Yes, but not in the way that you think. Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep This keeps younger (21 years+) kids watching Tiger's games—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.235.195 (talk • contribs)- Note Hilarity and appeal to younger viewers are not arguments for notability or encyclopedic value, and both of those "keep" votes were entered by the same IP address. --dtony 08:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, 69.241.235.195, but I struck your last keep because you have already had your say. Also, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. (what was per the WP:AFD page) --Bschott 17:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--referenced today in Detroit Free Press--71.13.216.11 21:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Mike C. Tiger's Fan
- Keep Mentioned in the Detroit Free Press. Is it notable yet? [16] --ThatsHowIRoll 22:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- More accurately, the fact that it was in Wikipedia got mentioned. This strikes me as hilariously irresponsible journalism considering the piece was written today but the article was marked for deletion before then. The Rod Allen Game, featuring the Tigers' television analyst on FSN, has made it into on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia.com. --Wafulz 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I wasn't using the newspaper as a source for the game; just saying the fact that a journalist and his editors thought the game was notable enough to mention it in a major Detroit newspaper adds some validity to it. There is only one line about Wikipedia in the article; the rest of it is about the game, First, it was Big League Chew. Now, another Tigers-based fad is sweeping the state. Like Wafulz said above unless the Rod Allen Drinking Game becomes an enormous sweeping phenomenon, or outrageously popular, it won't merit an article. The Detroit Free Press said it was sweeping the state, does that mean you change your stance on the issue? --ThatsHowIRoll 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The game was three days old when it was posted, and the article mentions Wikipedia as its only source. Everything outside of the first paragraph is quoted from Wikipedia. It celebrates the fact that a drinking game based around Rod Allen made it onto Wikipedia. Basically, the only reason the game got a trivial mention in the online ticker was because it had a Wikipedia article, which is exactly why we don't want articles like this on the site. My stance remains. --Wafulz 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete — WP:OR and all the others above. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I first saw the term Rod Allen Drinking game on a Myspace comment that dates back to 7/6/2006. So the game wasn't invented 3 days ago, just posted on a blog a few days ago. I understand that Wikipedia does not feel like Myspace and blogs are good sources. But no matter how the game got notable, the fact is now the game is notable. People play the game. It was mentioned in the Free Press. If you search Rod Allen on Yahoo, the first "Also try" is "Rod Allen drinking game" [17] If you don't watch the games or know who Rod Allen is, I don't feel like you should decide if the game is notable or not. I dont expect people in California to find it notable, but in Detroit it is. Just because a thing is new, does not preclude it from a Wikipedia entry. --ThatsHowIRoll 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The fact remains that it was a completely trivial mention based off of notability implied in that it had a Wikipedia article. The newspiece asserted notability through Wikipedia having an article- you argue the Wikipedia article asserts notability through the newspiece. Do you see the same problem I see? Also, the Yahoo! thing is irrelevant. See Google bomb. --Wafulz 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- We have different opinions on the news piece. You seem to think it is about how the game got an article on Wikipedia. I feel like the article is about telling more people about the game, hence the another Tigers-based fad is sweeping the state line. Followed by the rules and an example of the game quoted from the Wikipedia article. Its not a nation thing, it a Michigan thing. I'm sure most people don't know the importance of Big League Chew to the Tigers, but in Detroit, everyone knows. The problem is that the Wikipedia article has become the sole source of the game. That doesn't mean the game doesn't exist. --ThatsHowIRoll 03:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The "sweeping the state" line gains a lot of support based on the fact that it has a Wikipedia article. Big League Chew has also been around for about 25 years and is significant to more than just Tigers fans- the fact that it's important to them has a brief mention in the "Trivia" section. You're making it sound like the Big League Chew article exists solely because of its significance to the Tigers. --Wafulz 12:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Detroit Free Press mention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Jeff, The DFP mention was only in relation to the Wiki Article. The newspiece asserted notability through Wikipedia having an article but you saying Keep as if the Wikipedia article asserts notability through the newspiece. The newspiece came out 3 day after the AFD was put into place. The only mention of this 'game' was on a users blog, they admit to making up. Before making a snap decision, I recommend looking over the history of this debate. --Bschott 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I know. I also know that the game was widespread enough for someone to have thought about a news article about it, check wikipedia about it, and then note that Wikipedia has an entry on it. The game is obviously notable if you need notability to make a decision, and the game is now verifiable. My position stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Jeff, The DFP mention was only in relation to the Wiki Article. The newspiece asserted notability through Wikipedia having an article but you saying Keep as if the Wikipedia article asserts notability through the newspiece. The newspiece came out 3 day after the AFD was put into place. The only mention of this 'game' was on a users blog, they admit to making up. Before making a snap decision, I recommend looking over the history of this debate. --Bschott 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I also want to remind people, one newspaper article does not make anything 'notable'. Notability standards usually require citing more than one major news source. Please look at a few of the Wiki guidelines. Wiki is not a Publisher of Original Thought - Specifically - Original inventions: If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move (or drinking game), it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day! Since the newspaper article was written after the Wiki page, and refers specifically to the wiki page, the article is in violation of this rule. Sources cite on an article must be Reliable - Specifically - Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference. The newspaper article references the wiki article as a source, hence the wiki article would be self-referencing by using the newspaper article as a source to verify this game. The fact of the matter is, this article fails two of the Wiki policies on Article Standards. No Original Research, and Verifiability, and the majority of anons in this discussion are not basing their statements on the Wiki Standards but on their personal feelings for a sports team. As it is jeff, I personally feel your stand holds no merit when applied to the Wiki Article Standards. --Bschott 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- So are you trying to say that the article would be okay if the Detroit Free Press had written the article and I created it today? The point is simple: this article does not run afoul of any sourcing as the subject has been reported about in a third party publication. We are not citing the article as a source, the Detroit Free Press is the source. Whether they relied on Wikipedia for part of the article isn't relevant. My stand is entirely within policy and guideline here. Just because the article was created two days earlier than you may have preferred doesn't mean it's a bad article now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff, the article most likely would not have been written if the wiki article was not here. But beyond that, one mention in one newspaper does not make this notable. Notability, as a guideline, usually requires three or more major news sources for verification. There is only one local newspaper mentioning this 'game' in only one small article. That, by most standards, is not enough for notability...especially as the article was written after the wiki article, and the 'game' has been shown to have few ghits. --Bschott 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speculation as to whether the article would exist without the wiki article coming into play is idle speculation at best. Notability, as a statement of fact, has no official policy. The article, as it stands, is verifiable by a reliable source, so it should stay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you will throw out the few ghits and the WP:OR citations as not worth paying attention to in this discussion. Because one Local newspaper gave a small article to this game, it should have an article? Well, I have been mentioned in the Fargo/Moorhead Forum numerous times, so I should have a large article as well, right? It's Verifiable by a Reliable source right? No, we have to look at the trinity of the Standards and the wiki article must meet all three..Neutral POV, Verifiable, AND No Original Research. Since the only source for this game (before the newspaper article) was a blog where the author admitted to making up the game, and there are no media mentions before the wiki article (or this DFP article) was made, this falls into OR. The DFP article only refers to Wiki as a source, which makes citing the DFP article in the wiki article self-referencing. There is no mention of the blog on this DFP article. We may also want to look at the fact that the DFP newspaper may fall into a 'trivial' newsource. It is not a national paper (it's local only) and is not nationally known. No other newspapers or media have picked up on this 'game'. The game itself is only a locally known thing, and only because of the wiki article and this newspaper article. Nationally or world wide, it is just unknown. If you dismiss all that, the wiki article does fail OR, and if an article fails any of the three main Standards so harshly, then I believe there really isn't any reason for the article to exist.--Bschott 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, we're just running around in circles at this point. The article is verifiable by the Detroit Free Press (highly non-trivial and nationally known), it's NPOV, and no longer/doesn't fail original research. I'm failing to see the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article is trivial in both length and content, it sources Wikipedia, and the Detroit Free Press is "nationally known" on the basis that it has "Detroit" in its name. It is still a local newspaper- it just happens to be in a large city. The original research still stands- where did the material come from? Blogs and message boards. What did the news article add to the wikipedia entry? Nothing. It apparently can't be stressed enough that this article is self-referencing. --Wafulz 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- So it's a stub in reality. No problems there. As for the Detroit Free Press, it's the 12th largest paper by circulation in the US, that stands for something. Whether the material came from blogs is irrelevant, truly - the information was important enough to be used in a newspaper article. The news article itself may not add anything new to the article proper, but it does infer notability and verifability that may not have existed before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, we are running around in circles, but I am not willing to concede to your point, jeff, that it somehow magically passes OR. Looking at the history
through untinted glasses[Edit: I don't know if you are a Tiger's fan or not]] shows that this was OR when the AFD was created. The DFP article (trivial or not) still has the article falling short of multiple third-party sources. Since the article references Wiki as the source of this game, I can't, in good faith, accept the DFP article as a mention of notability or Verfibiliy. If the article had mentioned the blog AND there were other newspapers that had picked up on the story before the AFD, I would concede this had merit. As it stands, there isn't an article that references the blog (only verifiable source of this game outside of wiki), and so...it fails OR. --Bschott 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)- Well, this Red sox fan disagrees. It doesn't "magically pass" OR. It passes WP:OR easily, note the key phrase that applies here: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Detroit Free Press, even if it notes the Wikipedia entry for this article, meets this. The part you're attempting to cite here is at WP:RS: "Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference." Wikipedia is not citing itself in the article in question. The DFP article uses Wikipedia as a source, but that does not run afoul of policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then you run into issues with verifiability. Who do we have to verify this by? A few blogs and message boards, which are not reliable sources. What does the local newspiece say? That Wikipedia mentioned the game, so therefore the game must be notable because it is on Wikipedia. This is very circular logic. Please also take into account the length, relevance, and content of the article and not just the fact that it mentions the game. If the circumstances were the same, but the subject in question were a dog winning a local dog show, would you consider it notable? --Wafulz 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The newspiece cites Wikipedia as an example of how widespread the game's popularity has gotten. That doesn't mean they're treating Wikipedia as a source, nor would that disqualify it. If the circumstances were the same, but the subject in question were a local, unknown dog, maybe it'd be different. This isn't about a dog or a little-known event, though. People who don't watch dog shows typically don't know the names of the dogs. The Detroit Tigers aren't a dog show. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The newspiece is citing Wiki as an example of how 'widespread' the game's popularity is...but a google search does not back up that claim nor is Wiki an example of popularity as anyone can make an article here. Just look at all these AFDs around this one. Are they automatically 'popular' because they are on wiki? And the DT's are not a dogshow...Yes, you are correct in that, HOWEVER we are not talking about the DT's nor are we talking about the merits of the game's link to the DTs. We are talking about if this Game had any notability beyond the blog that stated they created the game and it merits a page based on such criteria as only having one questionable source....a personal Blog. That stinks of OR. --Bschott 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, now we're getting somewhere. A Google search is a poor factor of notability, it's why we don't use Google as a verification tool when it comes to verifying notability. So we have to figure out what would be a proper notability situation. As it is a drinking game, it doesn't fit into the basic notability guidelines we have available, so let's look at another aspect: is it verifiable? The answer is yes. Is it original research? If it was before, it isn't now that it has the DFP mention. To quote the nonbinding notability essay (since you're insisting on notability here): "while all "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important." The article is verifiable, it doesn't run afoul of any major policies, so what's the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Either you wish not to comprehend or you are arguing to argue. Either way, the points have been laid out...we will let an Admin decide. --Bschott 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well then. It's actually your unlisted third: I want to comprehend, but I'm not understanding your protests given the policies you're citing. Sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Either you wish not to comprehend or you are arguing to argue. Either way, the points have been laid out...we will let an Admin decide. --Bschott 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, now we're getting somewhere. A Google search is a poor factor of notability, it's why we don't use Google as a verification tool when it comes to verifying notability. So we have to figure out what would be a proper notability situation. As it is a drinking game, it doesn't fit into the basic notability guidelines we have available, so let's look at another aspect: is it verifiable? The answer is yes. Is it original research? If it was before, it isn't now that it has the DFP mention. To quote the nonbinding notability essay (since you're insisting on notability here): "while all "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important." The article is verifiable, it doesn't run afoul of any major policies, so what's the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The newspiece is citing Wiki as an example of how 'widespread' the game's popularity is...but a google search does not back up that claim nor is Wiki an example of popularity as anyone can make an article here. Just look at all these AFDs around this one. Are they automatically 'popular' because they are on wiki? And the DT's are not a dogshow...Yes, you are correct in that, HOWEVER we are not talking about the DT's nor are we talking about the merits of the game's link to the DTs. We are talking about if this Game had any notability beyond the blog that stated they created the game and it merits a page based on such criteria as only having one questionable source....a personal Blog. That stinks of OR. --Bschott 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The newspiece cites Wikipedia as an example of how widespread the game's popularity has gotten. That doesn't mean they're treating Wikipedia as a source, nor would that disqualify it. If the circumstances were the same, but the subject in question were a local, unknown dog, maybe it'd be different. This isn't about a dog or a little-known event, though. People who don't watch dog shows typically don't know the names of the dogs. The Detroit Tigers aren't a dog show. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you will throw out the few ghits and the WP:OR citations as not worth paying attention to in this discussion. Because one Local newspaper gave a small article to this game, it should have an article? Well, I have been mentioned in the Fargo/Moorhead Forum numerous times, so I should have a large article as well, right? It's Verifiable by a Reliable source right? No, we have to look at the trinity of the Standards and the wiki article must meet all three..Neutral POV, Verifiable, AND No Original Research. Since the only source for this game (before the newspaper article) was a blog where the author admitted to making up the game, and there are no media mentions before the wiki article (or this DFP article) was made, this falls into OR. The DFP article only refers to Wiki as a source, which makes citing the DFP article in the wiki article self-referencing. There is no mention of the blog on this DFP article. We may also want to look at the fact that the DFP newspaper may fall into a 'trivial' newsource. It is not a national paper (it's local only) and is not nationally known. No other newspapers or media have picked up on this 'game'. The game itself is only a locally known thing, and only because of the wiki article and this newspaper article. Nationally or world wide, it is just unknown. If you dismiss all that, the wiki article does fail OR, and if an article fails any of the three main Standards so harshly, then I believe there really isn't any reason for the article to exist.--Bschott 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speculation as to whether the article would exist without the wiki article coming into play is idle speculation at best. Notability, as a statement of fact, has no official policy. The article, as it stands, is verifiable by a reliable source, so it should stay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff, the article most likely would not have been written if the wiki article was not here. But beyond that, one mention in one newspaper does not make this notable. Notability, as a guideline, usually requires three or more major news sources for verification. There is only one local newspaper mentioning this 'game' in only one small article. That, by most standards, is not enough for notability...especially as the article was written after the wiki article, and the 'game' has been shown to have few ghits. --Bschott 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- So are you trying to say that the article would be okay if the Detroit Free Press had written the article and I created it today? The point is simple: this article does not run afoul of any sourcing as the subject has been reported about in a third party publication. We are not citing the article as a source, the Detroit Free Press is the source. Whether they relied on Wikipedia for part of the article isn't relevant. My stand is entirely within policy and guideline here. Just because the article was created two days earlier than you may have preferred doesn't mean it's a bad article now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I emailed the author of the Article yesterday and (he sounds like a really nice guy) here is his reply to my email. I commented that the Game's wiki article was up for deletion and if it was deleted, his article may need a footnote mentioning this.
| “ | From: Jahnke, James <jjahnke@freepress.com>
To: Brian Schott <****@gmail.com> Date: Aug 9, 2006 5:48 PM Subject: RE: THE TICKER: Tigers fans wet whistle listening to Rod Brian, Thanks for the info. I know the game is pretty short-lived on Wikipedia, but The Ticker is designed to be tongue-in-cheek. I hope people realize that it's mostly a joke. Thanks for reading, JRJ |
” |
Just incase anyone wanted to know. --Bschott 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd hope people didn't take drinking games seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Must not have been to too many frat parties. ;) --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken, haha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Must not have been to too many frat parties. ;) --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Here's a link that mentions the Rod Allen Drinking Game back in 2004: [18] I think this adds a new twist to the situation. The article is now definitely not original research and it has been around longer than 3 days ago. These were the two points mentioned as to why the article was up for deletion. I do not see how anyone with a clear conscience can delete this article with this new information X96lee15 14:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's still an Internet forum which is not a reliable source, not verifiable, and personal, which qualifies as original research. I could just as easily go and write about a drinking game "Drink when x does y." Please, just stop grasping at straws here- you're bringing up nonsense for the sake of trying to justify what is basically a joke. --Wafulz 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do not appreciate my comments on the subject being called "nonsense"; that is not very professional. And the subject of the article in question is not a joke. It has been around for over 2 years and it mentioned in many different places, including the Detroit Free Press. For the reasons given for deletion, this article should NOT be deleted. X96lee15 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's still an Internet forum which is not a reliable source, not verifiable, and personal, which qualifies as original research. I could just as easily go and write about a drinking game "Drink when x does y." Please, just stop grasping at straws here- you're bringing up nonsense for the sake of trying to justify what is basically a joke. --Wafulz 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Sigh" While you are doing a good job researching this, you are mis-reading the Original Research standard here at wiki, or you haven't read it all together. Wiki needs independent, reliable, third-party mentions to make something verifiable and notable. All we have is a few Blogs (which are not acceptable by wiki standards as Reliable
-
- Primary sources- present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
- Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.
- Where are the primary sources?
-
- In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.
- I can't see that this is easily verifiable by and reasonable adult with specialist knowledge.
-
- In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.
- And...
- ..That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article...
- I can't see how this was published by a reputable third-party publication before the wiki article was created. The Blogs and forums do not count as they are self-published.
- See " What counts as a reputable publication?" and " Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable.
- Reading those will show that blogs and the discussion forms do not count as Reputable publications nor Reliable Sources.
- Even the article made the the DFP was quoted by the author to be just a tongue-in-cheek joke.
- HERE IS THE KICKER
-
- The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it.We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.
- I think this may end the debate if this is worth an article or not --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NFT, and Wikipedia is Not an Instruction Manual on how to play a game. The cardinal sin here, though, is that this article is inherently Unverifiable. Assuming this is even notable (which I do not concede), how does one verify any of what's claimed here? Scorpiondollprincess 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - it's still unverifiable. -- Whpq 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment: I'm afraid I still don't see it as verifiable. If, for example, someone questions the legitimacy of one of the "3 Drinks" rules, what is the verifiable, reliable, third party source to authoritatively consult? There's nothing but a passing mention in one newspaper article cited. That only verifies that the game exists (and has a wikipedia article). What's to prevent someone from adding, modifying, or making up new rules and listing them here? The rules themselves are not verifiable and smell strongly of WP:OR and WP:NFT. Scorpiondollprincess 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete, unencyclopedic. Gazpacho 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I imagine that there are plenty of subjects that have slipped by the new page patrol that are speedyable; the fact that a newspaper noticed one doesn't automatically make it notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment my vote above still applies. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with the 4 or 5 delete votes above. Recury 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. A short summary of this game belongs in the Rod Allen article. The game does not conatin enough independent notability to carry an article on its own. The news article is the only thing saving it from an outright delete, as it appears to be a fair, independent confirmation of the subject. Cdcon 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This game was only mentioned in a news source because it has an article on the Wikipedia. This game originated on a blog, and the game remains very regional. This game at best should be mentioned in Rod Allens article (which it already does). --Porqin 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V, WP:NOR. Is this a joke? The only source referenced in the article cites this very Wikipedia article as a source! Even if this game actually exists (i.e. is played by more than two people worldwide), it's still so silly as not to warrant mention in an encyclopedia unless it has some sort of actual notability. Sandstein 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep IRONY ALERT - to all the blowhards that want it gone - do you realize that pages of heated debate are they very thing that make it relevant? If this was complete garbage that went unnoticed, it would disappear without a trace. What this has turned in to is NOT a debate of the worthiness of the article [the debate validates the worthiness], but rather a matter of pompous, holier-than-thou informationistas [Daniel Case] who are offended that a fun, creative individual with a sense of the moment has DARED to tread on their sacred bastion of intelligencia, and they are trying to eliminate it. This would kill the essence of what Wiki was supposed to be.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.145.11 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for the compliment. It'll make a great epigraph to the deletion section on my user page. Daniel Case 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- This would kill the essence of what Wiki was supposed to be. — This is Wikipedia, not Wiki, and the essence of what Wikipedia is supposed to be is a verifiable encyclopaedia containing no original research and written from the neutral point of view. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment per my comments above -- if you read the Freep article, it only mentions that the game has been mentioned on wikipedia. It does not say that it originated on wikipedia. Therefore, any arguments saying that the newpaper article was only written because of the wikipedia entiry are invalid, IMO. X96lee15 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't address the charge that the article is unverifiable. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Scorpiondollprincess has hit the nail on the head. The only way that has been put forward by ThatsHowIRoll, Badlydrawnjeff, and others, to verify any of the content of this article is to use a news article that used this very Wikipedia article as its source for the information in the first place. Clearly, that isn't a source. (It's also a gross misunderstanding of our long-standing Wikipedia is not a soapbox official policy, which exists precisely because people attempt to mis-use Wikipedia to make the sort of shortcuts around the process of publication, fact checking, peer review, and absorbtion into the corpus of human knowledge outside of Wikipedia, that Badlydrawnjeff is asserting are acceptable.) The only other source, independent of Wikipedia, put forward that describes this game in any detail is a post on a web log, made a scant few days ago, and that provides no evidence that (despite what the post claims) this game and its rules are not the creation of a single person and that they have actually become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. I cannot find any further sources at all. This article is original research and unverifiable. The way for this game to get into Wikipedia is for it to be properly documented by multiple reliable sources outside of Wikipedia first. Shortcuts are not allowed. Delete. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- ^ The newspaper article does NOT use wikipedia as its information! It merely mentions that it has been published there. X96lee15 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The newspaper article text looks lifted straight from Wikipedia, and it cites no other source. No way it can be considered an independent source. Fan-1967 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not to mention the editor himself said it was tongue-in-cheek and a joke, as noted above. Also I hope my delete is still being counted from the original AfD.--Wafulz 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
- "The newspaper article does NOT use wikipedia as its information! It merely mentions that it has been published there"
That one goes in the hairsplitting Hall of Fame. Kinda reminds of the early Soviet government getting rid of the death penalty yet continuing to shoot people; they were just no longer being sentenced to be executed, merely shot. Daniel Case 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)- This is not anywhere near hairsplitting at all and is actually a completely valid point that hits at the crux of the argument that the article from the Detroit Free Press is commenting on how relevant and popular the game has become, that there is now a wikipedia article about it. I'd also ask that you refrain from comparing innocent civilians dying due to oppressive governments to whether a newspaper article was using a wikipedia article as a source or not. For that wildly inappropriate and childish comment, I'll ask that all of your comments be stripped from the argument as they are an amalgamation of how you've been nothing but condescending, presumptuous, and pompous through out the whole debate rendering your side and those on it ineffective and exposing your arguments under the supercilious and pedantic light that you and those on your side inexplicably shine proudly from. 134.215.210.125 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- ^ The newspaper article does NOT use wikipedia as its information! It merely mentions that it has been published there. X96lee15 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. An article on a drinking game? Are you people serious? JIP | Talk 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- We have dozens of others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think he meant an entirely minor, new, unverifiable drinking game. --Wafulz 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- If he was, it wasn't clear, as this certainly isn't all that new or unverifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your repeated claim that this is verifiable has yet to answer the question posed to you by Scorpiondollprincess above as to how readers and editors are to verify the content of this article. 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- If he was, it wasn't clear, as this certainly isn't all that new or unverifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think he meant an entirely minor, new, unverifiable drinking game. --Wafulz 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- We have dozens of others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per UncleG and Scorpiondollprincess. --Kinu t/c 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. There are local variants of this for every broadcaster who has a catch phrase: You can put it on the board... YES!. -- Fan-1967 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - If the only reason you can think of to keep it is because there are other drinking games on here that need to be deleted, you need to read up on the Wikipedia policies some more. --PresN 20:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Uncle G; misses WP:V by a long way and WP:NFT applies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep there are a number of other drinking games listed on Wikipedia, and although while this is a new game it has been played by many in Michigan following the 2006 Tigers MidnightSwinga 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Again, we run into the problem of it being local, original research, a how-to and essentially unverifiable. The fact that other drinking games exist on Wikipedia has no bearing on the merit of this article. --Wafulz 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with this article that it is unverifiable. Your only argument against that is to cite sources that can be used to verify its contents. Any other argument, such as personal testimony that the game has been played, is irrelevant. Please cite sources. Uncle G 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep For reasons I listed under Daniel Case's unfortunate, disrespectful, immature, and ill-conceived comment about oppressive governments killing innocent civilians, as the drinking game is so relevant that the Detroit Free Press wrote an article about how popular it has become that there is now a wikipedia article for it.134.215.210.125 22:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- comment I don't know how many times people have to say this, but the DFP article was meant as a joke. I emailed the author, and posted his response to me above. The DFP article cited only wikiapedia as it's source. In any case, there is nothing reputable that can be cited here as a SOURCE. Just one news article (ironically three days after the AFD was in discussion) does not make something wikiapedia worthy. --Brian (How am I doing?) 02:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article may have been tongue-in-cheek, but the fact remains that the Rod Allen Drinking Game is a real thing that has gotten quite a bit of attention (based on the newspaper article, message board posts from 2004 and the lengthy discussion here). The article was pointing out that the ALREADY EXISTING Rod Allen game phenomenon has gotten so big that it even has a wikipedia entry. It's sad that so many people want to have this article deleted. Also, it does not matter that the author of the article said it was a joke; from WP:V:
| “ | A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry. | ” |
-
- Because of this, I do not think we can include the Free Press article author's email in this discussion. X96lee15 04:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- comment Since Blogs, Personal Websites, and message board posts are not concidered Reliable or Reputable sources, can you cite sources that do pass the verifiable, Reliable, and Reputable sources test. The news paper does not count as a primary source as it 1) is published after the wikipedia article was made and 2) does not cite the source of this game. If this game is so big and widely known, where are the other articles or news stories on it? Where is the primary source of information for this? --Brian (How am I doing?) 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to André Manuel. Petros471 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Krang (band)
Was prodded, but removed due to mention at http://experts.about.com/e/m/mu/Music_of_the_Netherlands.htm which is a mirror to an old version of Music of the Netherlands where it is not longer mentioned. No notability mentioned but I didn't go for a CSD A7 argument due to André Manuel who may be notable but I'm listing him for deletion as well. As the proposal originally mentioned, googling Krang with Manuel shows very little. Krang on its own is difficult due the character. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Re-direct to André Manuel. Please refer to my comments on the André Manuel AfD. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established and apparently nil. {{prod}} removal inappropriate. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep From the Dutch Wikipedia - Winner of the Zilvern Harp in 2000 [20] for best new artist presented by Dutch music industry association Conamus [21], [22] Catchpole 09:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- *
Delete per WP:NOTE. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 00:44, 7 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom LactoseTI 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The discussion regarding André Manuel has resulted in it being kept, so there may be notability in relation to him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. well-noted practice; article simply needs more citations and references. --Madchester 07:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Homosexuality in ancient Greece
|
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, Page contains bias and unsupported claims 66.233.19.170 06:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, The page contains no credible evidence to support the claims made. The article makes controversial and disputed statements as if they are fact. --Cretanpride 06:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)cretanpride
- This is a brand-new user whose first edits were to the article's talk page and this discussion. Gazpacho 08:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, While the article needs citation and NPOV, it does cover a subject which would be of great use to the encyclopedia. --chemica 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I was rather disturbed by this page, I find it hard to believe ancient Greeks were well known pedophiles --Cloveious 06:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete,I agree, I was disturbed by this page and as a Greek, I find the article offensive. I have studied Greek literature and Greek history and I have lived in Greece and I find that what this article claims cannot be true.--Cretanpride 07:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- Please don't bold your opinion more than once, it doesn't count twice. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article includes references to back up the statements. Moreover, there is ample confirmation of most of the points in the article through the images on classical Greek pottery. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the Sappho issue alone is one discussed in university classrooms and is encyclopedic. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and add citations. Many sources, such as those listed in the militaries article, show the existence and awareness of homosexuality in ancient Greece. If you think sources do not exist or the article misrepresents sources, you can edit it. Gazpacho 08:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, reeks of a bad faith or biased nomination. Sources are cited. More are needed, but this doesn't outright fail WP:V enough to be deleted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep - sources are cited (although some claims may warrant footnotes, but that's hardly a hanging offence). What little I know on the topic tallies with what's there, although I'm hardly an expert on Ancient Greece or homosexuality in history. If anything, this should be tagged for expansion. I don't want to say "bad faith nom", but I'm seriously tempted to. BigHaz 08:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, appears to be a bad faith nom. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 09:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete,while the article cites sources, they are not credible. One of the sources is a book review. Article also does not show the other side of the argument. There have been books published that argue against the contents of this article yet this article seems to have strictly one point of view.--66.53.98.122 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- On a point of order/Comment - the book review is of a work by a man with academic credentials in the area, which implies at the very least that what's contained in the work under review is credible. The lack of "the other side of the argument" is not a reason to delete so much as it is a reason to expand the article with sources and information from the books which have been published arguing this other side. BigHaz 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- There was an edit on this page arguing the other side which repeatedly got omitted because the link was considered an uncredible source. The uncredible source was a book review of the book entitled "Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece", It was also written by a man with academic credentials and showed what was in the book but was deleted. It seems as if, even if someone wanted, could not edit this article to argue the other side.--Cretanpride 09:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd contend that the reason that particular citation was removed was due to its placement, more than its content. Further, Adonis Georgiades doesn't exactly leap out as a man with academic credentials beyond those perhaps in the teaching of language. William Percy, on the other hand (the man whose book review we're talking about) is a Senior Professor of History with a wide range of academic publications. Not necessarily a case that "my professor trumps your professor", but it might come close. BigHaz 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- It was more likely removed because the book is vanity-published and the review is right-wing partisan bullshit. Gazpacho 17:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- That may also be the case. I was giving the author of the book the benefit of the doubt (not to mention giving my historiographical radar the night off). That said, certainly the most recent removal of the link doesn't say anything about either reason. BigHaz 22:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand/add citations. SatyrTN 09:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per SatyrTN Nick Catalano contrib talk 09:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, a documented feature of classical Greek culture. Weregerbil 09:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, needs improvement but the article itself is useful and relevant. Blowski 10:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a serious encyclopediac topic. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep/Merge - a good article, could probably have Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece merged into it. --Brianyoumans 10:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, this is a well-established academic topic, not even debatable except for details. Haiduc 10:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - I thought everybody was taught this in high school, as I was in NYC, mid-sixties. (no not a 'hands-on course') Bustter 12:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Inarguably encyclopedic. Bad-faith nom. Daniel Case 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Well-documented aspect of ancient Greek civ. I did Classics in uni; I'll help clean it up. -- Merope 14:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per above. Ancient ideas about sexuality differed from ours, and I'm not sure the category of "homosexual" as an identity in the current sense meant a great deal in ancient Greece, but ancient Greeks did not uniformly disapprove of same-sex acts. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but needs a serious rewrite, The article is full of BS, POV, and erroneous cruft, or worse, OR erroneous POV cruf... Sappho was scandalous, and love between adult men was regarded with little more favor than in modern Iran or Saudi Arabia... The subject is worth keeping, the article as it currently stands is not. --Svartalf 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite. The article is clearly of encyclopedic value. It does need a rewrite, but the topic is discussed at length in universities and high schools around the world, not to mention countless History Channel specials, museums, books, and so on. Srose (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, although the article does need to be sourced, and criticisms or disagreements are certainly apt where notable (I seem to remember Voltaire making a comment to the effect that, even if he were provided proof that the Greeks engaged in pederasty he still wouldn't believe it). As for use of the word 'homosexual' it is fairly common historian shorthand for "otherwise uncategorized same-sex eros", so I see no especial reason to change it. -Smahoney 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per all above. Well written article. Valoem talk 18:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- — Keep per Valoem —Mets501 (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Dark Shikari, Daniel Case, Valoem, and others. Good article, so this appears that this is a bad-faith nomination. --Bigtop 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The subject looks like it covers an important part of ancient Greek culture. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Whatever work this article needs to bring it up to the standard of, say, Spartan pederasty, should be done. This should be a vote about facts, not opinions. --Richhoncho 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the article appears to be drivel (someone read Love, Sex, and Tragedy: Why the Classics Matters and put up the info, or I will when I finish it) but that is no reason to delete it. "Greek love" is constantly invoked in discussion on homosexuality and in the 90s the Colorado state legislature heard lengthy evidence from experts on Plato to try to dicover whether homosexuality was "natural" or not. This article is important. Dev920 23:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and fixup per Dev920. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious keep This is the standard academic view on this topic (note: that does not necessarily mean that it isn't drivel) and, offended Greeks notwithstanding, the article should be kept. See a similar discussion at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Roman Sexuality. JChap T/E 00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. -- Samuel Wantman 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder why I really need to come here and say Speedy Keep for the love of God. Above and beyond all the discussion listed here so far. What we would call homosexual practices were for the Ancient Greeks not only existent, but crucial to the culture of the era. The offended Greeks should try and crack open a book, perhaps Halpern's book or, dare I say it, anything written by Plato. I'm tired of seeing Wikipedia being thrown to unacademic, anti-elitist dogs. The fact that an article on homosexual practices in Ancient Greece can even come up for deletion shows serious problems with the editorial system here. CaveatLectorTalk 04:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well said. -Smahoney 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Well put. Perhaps in cases like this there should be a way to designate a page as a "protected keep", To be designated as a "protected keep" a page must garner an overwhelming consensus for being a keep, and would get a tag on the talk page that said "This page recieved an overwhelming consensus of opinion that it should not be deleted at this discusion at AFD. Please don't waste everyone's time nominating it again."
- That would be nice. However, there are actually legit reasons for renomination sometimes. Maybe it should become standard to put a tag on the talk page saying "this page was nominated for deletion on this day. Unless there have been substantial changes, etc., etc., please do not renominate until this other day." -Smahoney 06:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think there are serious problems with society if this material is taught in universities. Not everyone believes that it's true. Plato's work is not evidence and even if it was, that is one man, not an entire culture. I read that out of all the vases found, which is in the hundreds of thousands, only 30 have a homosexual theme. That is not enough evidence to support what this article is saying. If it is kept it needs a serious rewrite and possibly a different title and has to include a section about how this is debated.--66.233.19.170 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Problems with society how? That people don't outright reject possible evidence of things simply because some (mainly religious) people might be offended by it? And what would be a more appropriate title for an article about "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" than exactly that? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I beleive a better title would be "Sexuality in Ancient Greece" Even if the content of the material is true, it is not homosexuality in it's present day meaning.--66.233.19.170 08:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete I have read Plato's work and other Greek literature such as the Illiad and there is nothing that implies homosexuality. There is no evidence to suggest Achilles and Patroclus were gay. There is no evidence to suggest Alexander the Great was bisexual. It is common sense biology that if you are born heterosexual you will not want to participate in sexual acts with someone of the same sex. A thousand years from now what are people going to say about our culture? Are football and soccer players homosexuals for taking showers together naked and saying gay slang terms to each other? No they are not. I was never taught Ancient Greeks participated in acts like this growing up in Australia and I hope noone else was taught this disturbing material. Homosexuality in Ancient Greece seems a fabricated myth by historians who have their own agenda.--66.233.24.105 07:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's a generational thing - I was certainly taught it at school in Australia. Regardless of its status as a fabrication, the fact remains that it's a generally-accepted academic view. If there are scholars who dispute this, the solution is rather to add their work to this article, rather than delete the article itself. BigHaz 07:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you were taught this in Australia then there must have been people who objected since there is a large Greek minority there. Furthermore throughout this discussion and throughout the article noone has even come close to proving the material is true. I beleive, and many others for that matter, that the material is false. Evidence points that way. There is no mention of homosexuality in Greek literature. And if there is a vase or picture found depicting something homosexual, it does not mean the entire culture was. They have pictures depicting warriors fighting three headed monsters. Does that mean Ancient Greece was filled with monsters. They have pictures depicting a half-man half bull. Does that mean they existed in Ancient Greece? The material is false and false material does not belong in an encyclopedia.--66.233.24.105 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps it's a generational thing - I was certainly taught it at school in Australia. Regardless of its status as a fabrication, the fact remains that it's a generally-accepted academic view. If there are scholars who dispute this, the solution is rather to add their work to this article, rather than delete the article itself. BigHaz 07:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I was in fact taught it by a Greek-Australian, but that's rather beside the point. The discussion here (as I explain in response to the large number of quotations) is not the place to "prove" that something is true or false. It's the place to talk about whether or not the article should be here. Given that the academic orthodoxy is that the information contained in the article is true, it belongs here. As for the contention that "false material does not belong in an encyclopedia", I would contend that it in fact does under two conditions. Firstly, it must be marked as being false (so an encyclopedia can talk about the idea that the sun revolves around the earth as long as it indicates that nobody in their right mind believes this now). Secondly, this marking of something much be done based on evidence. If there is evidence and scholarly opinion that Greek culture was not as this article says it was, then put it into the article. Don't post it here, because that's the wrong place. Don't try to get the article deleted, either. Write the information into the article. BigHaz 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Of course, by labelling it as disturbing and going on about "common sense biology", you're obviously making it clear that you have no agenda of your own. Insert eye rolling smiley here. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- These were posted on the talk page on the article by an anonymous user but noone responded to them=
-
-
-
-
-
Plato, Euthydemus 282b there is no disgrace, Cleinias, or reprobation in making this a reason for serving and being a slave to either one's lover or any man, and being ready to perform any service that is honorable in one's eagerness to become wise.
Platos Symposium,
it is our rule that, just as in the case of the lovers it was counted no flattery or scandal for them to be willingly and utterly enslaved to their favorites, so there is left one sort of voluntary thraldom which is not scandalous; I mean, in the cause of virtue. It is our settled tradition that when a man freely devotes his service to another in the belief that his friend will make him better in point of wisdom, it may be, or in any of the other parts of virtue, this willing bondage also is no sort of baseness or flattery. Let us compare the two rules 184b
Xenophon Symposium 8.8 [8]Now, I have always felt an admiration for your character, but at the present time I feel a much keener one, for I see that you are in love with a person who is not marked by dainty elegance nor wanton effeminacy, but shows to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety. Setting one's heart on such traits gives an insight into the lover's character.
If we continue: Xenophon Symposium [26] Furthermore, the favourite who realizes that he who lavishes physical charms will be the lover's sovereign will in all likelihood be loose in his general conduct; but the one who feels that he cannot keep his lover faithful without nobility of character will more probably give heed to virtue. [27] But the greatest blessing that befalls the man who yearns to render his favourite a good friend is the necessity of himself making virtue his habitual practice. For one cannot produce goodness in his companion while his own conduct is evil, nor can he himself exhibit shamelessness and incontinence and at the same time render his beloved self-controlled and reverent"
Plato's Republic 403b "may not come nigh, nor may lover and beloved who rightly love and are loved have anything to do with it? No, by heaven, Socrates, he said, it must not come nigh them. Thus, then, as it seems, you will lay down the law in the city that we are founding, that the lover may kiss1 and pass the time with and touch the beloved as a father would a son, for honorable ends, if he persuade him."
All of these texts give a meaning of obtaining knowledge and virtue, none of them refer to anything sexual as you can see.--66.233.19.170 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. "I". That was said by Martin Luther King Jr., and doesn't refer to racial tolerance as you can see. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
All fine and dandy (although bear in mind that we're talking about translations here, rather than the original Greek of Plato, Xenophon et al. Nonetheless, AfD is emphatically not a place to carry on a discussion about the "other side of a debate" in relation to an article which currently exists. The object here is to talk about whether or not the article itself should continue to exist - and a failure to encompass the "no" case in this situation isn't a reason to delete so much as a reason to add such a case to the article. If the article is indeed kept, these quotations, any analysis performed on them by scholars and any conclusions they reach will be handy talking points for expansion of the article. Putting them here merely gums up the works. BigHaz 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Even if I do add a section on the article it will likely be deleted. --66.233.19.170 08:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- You may have slightly misinterpreted what I was saying. The idea is to find academic sources (historians, linguists, classicists, younameitists) who interpret the passages you've quoted in the way that you just did. Just sticking those quotes in as "proof" isn't going to get you very far and almost certainly will get the section deleted. The reason that this is the "academic consensus" about Ancient Greece is that a bunch of academics subscribe to it are are indicated as doing as much in the article. If you can find one who says otherwise, I'm sure we're all ears (or eyes, in this case). BigHaz 09:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Those quotes are proof. They come from the primary source. How would you interpret them? I feel that they have absolutely no homosexual meaning.--66.233.19.170 09:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- And therein lies the problem. Firstly, the quotes may well come from the primary source, but we're dealing in translations here. I don't speak a word of Ancient Greek, although you may well and simply not have revealed it, so we're actually hostage to what the scholars who do speak it tell us. As far as "how I would interpret them" (or indeed how you would interpret them), that's not actually the point. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original analysis, but rather a synthesis of a series of analyses, which is what makes it an encyclopedia. The article currently has sources indicating that 4 learned scholars interpret things in a particular way, so that's what we're saying is the case. If you can find a learned scholar who interprets it a different way, then insert his interpretation. I'd also point out that the quotes you've posted are only the absolute tip of the iceberg where the writings of the Ancient Greeks were concerned, so it's not a great idea to base an opinion on that much evidence. BigHaz 09:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Those quotes are proof. They come from the primary source. How would you interpret them? I feel that they have absolutely no homosexual meaning.--66.233.19.170 09:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- You may have slightly misinterpreted what I was saying. The idea is to find academic sources (historians, linguists, classicists, younameitists) who interpret the passages you've quoted in the way that you just did. Just sticking those quotes in as "proof" isn't going to get you very far and almost certainly will get the section deleted. The reason that this is the "academic consensus" about Ancient Greece is that a bunch of academics subscribe to it are are indicated as doing as much in the article. If you can find one who says otherwise, I'm sure we're all ears (or eyes, in this case). BigHaz 09:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even if I do add a section on the article it will likely be deleted. --66.233.19.170 08:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Based on past experience you probably wont, but if you want to understand why your plan wont work, check out WP:NOR, Wikipedia:Common knowledge, Wikipedia:Cite your sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -Smahoney 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "There is no mention of homosexuality in Greek literature." WHAT?! Have you not read Lucian's story of the moon people? Or read ANYTHING about the Spartans? Sacred band of Thebes, Plato's records of Socrates being into young boys, and the whole Zeus and Ganymede thing, how could you possibly say that? Go here, and learn. ΡΑΘΟΣ ΜΑΘΟΣ. Dev920 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [23]
-
-
- Your source also says that the ancient Greeks did not have a term for homosexuality so how could Plato have been quoted to say that. Everything is misinterpreted to support the theory. Its quite sad how history has been defaced.--66.53.98.122 19:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- KEEP - Valid academic subject. Article just needs cleaning. - Davodd 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Offensive and disturbing topic which makes uncredible claims and statements.--66.53.108.59 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment first and only edit, same clear bias and argument style as the previous anonymous users. IP address, as with the others, also belongs to Clearwire, LLC. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Heh, there was an edit conflict, but I was about to point out how weird it is that so many delete votes are coming from IP addresses that start with 66 (also, how many similar edits were made to the article by IP addresses that start with 66). -Smahoney 01:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment for the win. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete Factual evidence of article is disputed and does not cite sources. I google searched the topic and have found no credible sources on the internet. After reading the article, I feel that it is not of significant value to the encyclopedia. --Stan State 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, new account created at 01:47, August 9, 2006. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - invalid reason for deletion, this can be rectified by appropriately editing the article. No evidence of it violating any WP policy or guideline in a way that cannot be fixed. Most users calling to delete the article seem to do so for ideological rather than formal reasons - and this process is strictly formal. Bravada, talk - 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Add more academic citations to improve the article. Zeusnoos 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this has to be the strangest debate I've seen, but I'll say delete because I find it difficult to beleive the Ancient Greeks, or any civilization for that matter, had homosexuality in their every day life every where they go and in every peice of writing they had.--Sac222 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, probably the same user. Again. New user, edits tend to center around Greece, and one edit to the World War II article was complete nonsense that caused a link to break. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the World War II edit-I edited that because the content below was regarding to the Yugoslav, Greek, and Cretan campaigns. It did not say Greek on the subject line and I hadn't noticed the link broke. My edits tend to focus around Greece because that is what I am interested in and that is how I found this page. I guess I should be sorry for expessing my opinion.--Sac222 07:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, the battle is called the Battle of Cretan or whatever. Adding Greece in there was, as I said, nonsensical. The point on your fascination with the country was just to point out that you're likely the same person as all the other "Delete" users here, all of which share that trait with you. I'm not deriding you for having a fascination with the country. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the edit was nonsense. My Grandfather sacrificed a lot in the war and I figured his story should be remembered even if it is just the subject line. As for me being the same user, I'm sure the others are, but I am not. I made the account today and I started my first edits. I came across this page and voiced my opinion. I was never taught this in school or in anything I have read and natually find it hard to beleive. Making one mistake on an edit which breaks up a link, is not enought to insult my intelligence.--Sac222 07:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- When did I insult your intelligence? Anyways, it's nonsense because it's not called The Battle of Crete The Battle of Greece. I also incredibly doubt your story. Your account was made after I pointed out that all of the IPs come from the same ISP. If it was made before that IP did anything, then maybe it's plausible. Your argument (it is very disturbing and I can't believe it) is also almost exactly what they say as well. Add to all this that you keep using colons instead of asterisks (like the others), and that you actually know what an AfD is and how to sign pages (unlike most users who are less than a day old), and we have ourself a possible sockpuppet. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the edit was nonsense. My Grandfather sacrificed a lot in the war and I figured his story should be remembered even if it is just the subject line. As for me being the same user, I'm sure the others are, but I am not. I made the account today and I started my first edits. I came across this page and voiced my opinion. I was never taught this in school or in anything I have read and natually find it hard to beleive. Making one mistake on an edit which breaks up a link, is not enought to insult my intelligence.--Sac222 07:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, the battle is called the Battle of Cretan or whatever. Adding Greece in there was, as I said, nonsensical. The point on your fascination with the country was just to point out that you're likely the same person as all the other "Delete" users here, all of which share that trait with you. I'm not deriding you for having a fascination with the country. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the World War II edit-I edited that because the content below was regarding to the Yugoslav, Greek, and Cretan campaigns. It did not say Greek on the subject line and I hadn't noticed the link broke. My edits tend to focus around Greece because that is what I am interested in and that is how I found this page. I guess I should be sorry for expessing my opinion.--Sac222 07:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, probably the same user. Again. New user, edits tend to center around Greece, and one edit to the World War II article was complete nonsense that caused a link to break. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. This is a topic with a large amount of academic work that is also well known to the general public and frequently referenced in popular culture and literature, making it a very likely topic of interest. Any balance issues can be addressed by citing notable dissenting voices. --Celithemis 06:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. While the article may need some work and citation this seems a worthwhile topic for this encyclopedia. -- Nigel (Talk) 07:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to clarify So basically, this article was nominated by someone who thinks that Teh gay did not exist in Ancient Greece, even though the entire academic world thinks it did, and has written numerous books, monographs, and lectures on the subject, and the only delete votes, bar one because Cloveious seems his own man, have come from the nominator's ISP with virtually identical addesses.
What are we wasting time on this person for? Dev920 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Strong Keep per all of the above. The nomination is clearly bad faith: one of the nominator's earliest edits is to nominate a long-standing article for deletion after making numerous dubious attempts to change the article to his liking and being reverted by editors there. Why are we feeding this troll? Carlossuarez46 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Keep, and Keep again per Carlos. —Khoikhoi 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- 'comment the article is not from a neutral point of view. That violates rules. Also noone has argued against the arguments in favor of deletion, rather they have attacked those who have voted for deletion.Cretanpride 07:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Correction No one has taken the arguments in favor of deletion seriously because they are complete bollocks. JChap T/E 07:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The whole article is disputed. If you go to Greece and you tell people this they will be violently upset. There is no evidence to suggest the article is true. Everything used for evidence from literature has ambiguous meanings. In other word nothing in the article is proven. None of you are open minded or skepticalCretanpride 07:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep. noted practice in ancient Greek city-states. --Madchester 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sango123 00:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alatrism
belongs in Wiki dictionary, is a neologism Somerset219 06:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I get 23 Google hits for alatrism, most of which are Wikipedia or the New Scientist. How about just deleting it altogether? --Brianyoumans 07:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete same Somerset219 07:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It fails the requirements for a TransWiki to Wikitionary. - Thorne N. Melcher 11:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — 11 Google hits for me. Non-notable neologism, doesn't even belong in Wiktionary —Mets501 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable. --Leinad ¬
»saudações! 00:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - Delete. Dead-end article.Hezzy 18:35, 9 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.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TALK XBOX
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
|
Contested prod. Site seems to fail WP:WEB as just another fan forum. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB InvictaHOG 22:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted as it was removed by an IP user[24]
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Andeh 09:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:WEB fail, also - Threads: 9,635 | Posts: 118,524. Fancruft[25]. Alexa rank - 319,804. --Andeh 09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Harmless article for a very notable gaming site. ~~~~ Serenity Now
- So notable that it has an Alexa rank of 319,804? Delete as quite non-notable. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Alexa is exceedingly inaccurate. So inaccurate that if 10 staff members used a Google toolbar (or whatever they use now to track their statistics), a said website would rocket 50,000 spots up in one week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.89.167 (talk • contribs)
- See WP:GOOG. Yes, we're aware of there being some flaws with judging a site's popularity through Alexa, but they don't apply here. Delete. Daniel Case 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even going by the number of users and posts on the website, and the number of google hits, this forum is still not notable enough. It either has to be extremely popular or have media coverage, both of which usually go hand in hand. For example, the EVE Online forums (I always use this example in AfD) have over 370,000 threads and probably a millions or tens of millions of posts, over a hundred thousand active users, and an Alexa rank of 5000 or so, yet still doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Striked out as IP is user whom already voted keep, see history.
Keep This is hardly about Talk Xbox's forum, rather its main site, which has had frequent and relevant content surrounding the Xbox/Xbox 360 for the past 4 years. If sites such as Xbox Evolved can have a Wikipedia entry, I really don't see why Talk Xbox, which is 10x better known, can't. However, if it must be deleted, so be it. 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Serenity Now
- Then perhaps you should AfD Xbox Evolved as non-notable? I doubt it would be kept ;) — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Striked out vote, as user already voted above.--Andeh 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
My bad. Serenity Now 21:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete notability? LactoseTI 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. nn-team. --Madchester 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ariba Ariba
|
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
- Delete Non-notable football club see here, also I trust Admins will take into consideration the people saying keep played for the team SenorKristobbal 09:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No articles in main namespace link to it. Team does not compete in the English football league system and no other indication of notability of any sort. Qwghlm 10:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NN. I doubt that this will reach "a lot of people" with your team's current status. It's just the way things are, sorry. - Thorne N. Melcher 11:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (and per hoards of socks) — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does not appear to be a club playing at, or having played at, a sufficient level for which notability could be claimed or verified. -- Alias Flood 18:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete, non-notable amateur sports team. Closing admin should discount sockpuppet votes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 18:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per WP:NN JungleCat talk/contrib 19:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per above. – Elisson • Talk 19:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Not a free web-hosting service, etc. BoojiBoy 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Qwghlm and just about everyone else. - fchd 22:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - far below Level 10, our newly agreed notability level and no separate notability claim. BlueValour 22:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- YES DELETE per above.--Andeh 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Alias Flood, Coredsat and BlueValour. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete absolutelly not notable. Mariano(t/c) 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Club doesn't pass the notability test of being in or above level 10 of English football. Also see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. aLii 10:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, university intramural team. NawlinWiki 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - minor team of no note. -- Whpq 18:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep
Note Sockpuppets - the fact they were good friends and did a lot of University things doesn't make them notable. I'm sure you'll survive if this gets deleted I'm prepared to eat my words if you genuinely "lose all hope". SenorKristobbal 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Another note The article itself says "There a very few known Ariba Ariba supporters...". Sorry, this stuff belongs on a blog or something, not here in Wikipedia. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Now thousands of fans? This is an interesting edit JungleCat talk/contrib 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- NO DELETE- as manager of this team, it imperative that this page stays. Ariba proved to be my livelihood whilst at uni and the money, time, effort and love i plugged into this team is next to none. just because we aren't affliated in any "English League System" does not mean that we cannot have a page. We have just as much passion and commitment as any other football club in the world. 8th Aug 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnlop (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Dunnlop (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep please dont delete this page. As a member of this team, i feel strongly in keeping this article alive as it would effect a lot of people.dont delete this please. Ariba ariba is about friendship and going agains tthe odds. read the dmf 3-2 match report. the belief, friendship and genereal love for one another is enough to carry the team on and hopefully this page. Ariba ariba means progress progress. how is deleting us progress? come on, trake a chance and let it be. Ariba will never die. Keep the faith - The ariba skipper - European —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.126.76 (talk • contribs) 11:02, August 7, 2006 (UTC).— Possible single purpose account: 86.12.126.76 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- NO DELETE Ariba Ariba may only be a small team but it brings hope to many. It is star on the horizon of up and coming football glory. Keep Ariba! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.151.193 (talk • contribs) 13:31, August 7, 2006 (UTC).— Possible single purpose account: 86.128.151.193 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- NO DELETEKEEP! I have Ariba blood in my veins, its something that I believe in and its something I stand for. Some people say Ariba is just a great football club, when really Ariba Ariba is an institution. Bring hopes and dreams for the fans who have travelled in support of the club. It's a religion, it's peoples lives, its the passion, its the friendship, its the high's, its the low's, its the glory...it's Ariba Ariba Football Club. Long live Ariba Ariba. - "The Enforcer" DL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.31.213.216 (talk • contribs) 13:50, August 7, 2006 (UTC).— Possible single purpose account: 82.31.213.216 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- NO DELETE Keep ariba ariba, they have been an ispiration to me and my son and to delete them would be like deleting all hope in his little heart!! Keep Ariba Ariba!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.110.123.197 (talk • contribs) 14:19, August 7, 2006 (UTC).— Possible single purpose account: 81.110.123.197 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- NO DELETE This page shows a team that were very well respected in the Northampton community. They are responsible for a number of charitable functions, and have been generous, great ambassador's for the University Of Northampton. I believe they deserve recognition, and to delete this page would be a travesty.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.78.111.22 (talk • contribs)
- It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what the notability guidelines say. Please explain your case for keeping this article in terms of the appropriate guidelines. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- NO DELETE I saw Ariba Ariba on a number of occasions whilst working at the University of Northampton and i believe that the team hade a great impact on the surrounding community and University.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.112.210 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 88.108.112.210 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- NO DELETE I knew many of the ariba ariba team whilst at the university of northampton and can say that the team was more than just that, they were a team of friends out for good and worked for improvement of the university by getting involved in elections and working for the imrovement of it. Please let this page stay as a reminder of ariba ariba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.147.214 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 82.34.147.214 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
NO DELETE - Surely having a page devoted to a team of youn individuals who had an impact on a great university should be reconsidered to stay on this site. guidelines are fair enough, but this coul d be the first of many pages that can give encouragement to teams and universities to work closely together. REad the page and you will understand that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.126.76 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 86.12.126.76 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- NO DELETE
i was friends with a few of the ariba ariba boys and i believe that there legacy should live on through these pages - there spirit and attitude has compelled me to form my own team in the northampton inter uni league next season and if we play we the same passion and verve that ariba ariba did then the good times will surely roll! viva ariba ariba! J Trundle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.102.75 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 194.81.102.75 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- 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 delete. Wickethewok 15:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bobby booth
I wasn't sure about this article, it seems fairly pointless, has terrible grammar + spelling (I picked it up during an AWB WP:RETF run) and, if accurate, is unreferenced and has POV issues. I was about to speedy it but I wasn't too sure so I just afd'd it and found it in my contribs under FF. If an admin feels it can be speedied, go ahead and delete it. --Draicone (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity -- Whpq 10:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - If this person is notable, then so am I, and so is, well, everyone in the world! --Brianyoumans 11:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity, nonnotable, POV, WP:BIO, POV... might even qualify as WP:PN and be speedied... --Svartalf 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as patent nonsense or for no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 18:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is what they made WP:PROD for. Morgan Wick 23:41, 7 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. There is nearly unanimous agreement, excluding SPAs and newbies, that this gentleman fails WP:BIO, and the current article sorely lacks WP:V. Xoloz 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bob Dobbs
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Fixed template / bad nom for deletion. Listed by Modemac - nomination below: --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 11:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete for two reasons: Non-notable and violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. First of all, the name of the person in question here is Bob Dean, not Bob Dobbs -- though I doubt he'll actually admit to it here. He's been hanging around the fringes of the Church of the SubGenius since the late 1980s, trying to pass himself off as the "real Bob Dobbs" (note he just calls himself "Bob Dobbs" and not the true "J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs"). Over the past 20 years or so, he did run a talk show on Canadian radio and he did produce a music CD called "Bob's Media Ecology" -- but this is hardly enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. As for the rest of his claims, please note the following:
- The "Def Con" video included in the article shows a guy who may be 40 to 50 years old -- certainly not someone born in 1922 as the article claims.
- His real name (Bob Dean) is revealed in the news article listed in the links below ("Things get ugly in the world of underground art").
- After being tricked into contributing to his "Bob's Media Ecology" CD, Negativland then disowned the song: http://www.negativland.com/negdisco.html -- scroll down to the entry "Tribal Mandate."
- The Narduwar radio show link consists of him spending an hour talking about himself and his grand accomplishments. In addition to claiming to have "inspired" the Church of the SubGenius, on the same show he also claimed to have met Hitler, had inside knowledge of the JFK assassination, and predicted that a wonderful technological breakthrough involving magnetic energy and "healing" would be revealed to the world by 2001 or 2002. So much for verifiability.
- In an interview with "Gray Areas" magazine, Rev. Ivan Stang tells his side of the story: that Dean showed up in 1987 claiming to be "Bob Dobbs." ( http://www.grayarea.com/subgenius.htm - search for the word "Dean" in the article and you'll find it.) There is a plethora of evidence to show that the Church has used "Bob's" image and name since 1980. Dean has never shown any evidence proving that he "inspired" the Church of the SubGenius.
- And finally, the links listed include a video of Dean talking about himself, a radio show interview where he talks about himself, a Web site where he talks about himself, a couple of zine article about him, and a Web-based message board consisting of postings about himself. All this shows that this article on "Bob Dobbs" is nothing more than an ego page. --Modemac 11:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to all the evidence Modemac provides that Dean/Dobbs' claims to notability are false, I note that he claims to have been "active in key international intelligence agencies after World War II". Intelligence work is always a popular claim to fame among hoaxers; the question of sourcing is not disposed of by claiming that intelligence agencies wouldn't let any such information appear in verifiable sources, but that is cheerfully skipped over by the hoaxers. I also note that Dean's father was a member of the Priory of Sion. Too bad the Priory of Sion was a hoax created in 1956. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO once you remove the wild, unsubstantiated claims. In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that one of the only userboxes on my page is a Sub-Genius one.--Isotope23 16:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I am Douglass St. Clair Smith, pen name Rev. Ivan Stang, main author of The Book of the SubGenius (1983), subsequent SubGenius books, the SubGenius RPG, the movie ARISE!, The Hour of Slack syndicated show and the earliest SubGenius materials from 1980 and even before. I would swear in a court of law or anywhere else that the character of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs is not in any way based on this fellow calling himself Bob Dobbs. His story that he met Dr. Philo Drummond and myself in the 1970s is simply not true. There is no evidence that the person I know as Bob Dean started calling himself Bob Dobbs before 1987 or so. In 1988 he and his wife visited me in Dallas, and he announced to me that, because of various supernatural powers which he claimed to have, he was therefore the embodiment of the "Bob" character and would henceforth play "Bob" Dobbs on his Toronto radio show. I considered him a kook and politely asked that he not go around saying he was "Bob" Dobbs. He did not take my advice. Evidently it angered him to learn that rather than being fellow believers, the Church of the SubGenius was actually composed of skeptics and mockers, because since then, in his every interaction with "SubGeniuses" he has behaved like an angry spurned fan. It is distressing to me to think that this person has used the popularity of our work to convince gullible unfortunates that he is the "Bob" referred to in our books. But, were this guy the real "Bob," wouldn't we who write the SubGenius books and produce the radio shows RESPECT him? In fact, he is has been a long-time laughing-stock to the SubGenius fans at large. To me he seems at best a depressing casualty and at worst a deliberate con man. --revstang 13:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete because:
- The man named Bob Dobbs, that is now featured on the new Bob_Dobbs page has a verifiable body of public and academic work bearing this name, including a regular radio show on CKLN radio in Toronto during the 1980s.
- A section was added to this page describing the claim to the name. This page is called "Bob Dobbs". We include a link to J.R. "Bob" Dobbs to eliminate ambiguity.
- The fact you seem to think that the Bob Dobbs in the video and interview merely talks about himself, is besides the point and not within the scope of whether this man should have claim to this page.
- The School of McLuhan Studies at University of Toronto seems to vouch for Bob Dobbs' identity. See [31]. There are also several FCC and CRTC-licensed radio and TV stations that have aired this man as "Bob Dobbs". If you need any other points resolved, let me know and I'll dig them up, otherwise, don't waste my time with these false allegations of non-verifiability and non-notability.
- Just because the Church of the Subgenius holds a position about this man's identity does not mean it should be rammed down the throats of non-followers. Again, you have your J.R. "Bob" Dobbs page where you can post your own definition of Bob. Stang has referred to his icon as J.R. "Bob" Dobbs predominantly over the years. He has no right to appropriate every variation of that name. Fair is fair. Octavian1 18:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Octavian1 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- Delete, fails WP:BIO unless claims can be verified with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 18:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I think this can be made into a more neutral article if given more time and effort. --Monsquaz 18:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Delete! The Bob Dobbs page represents a neutral point of view (POV) by offering information on both sides of this longstanding tiff between the Subgenii (followers of a cartoon Bob) and the followers of the real person named Bob Dobbs. It is not necessary to prove "who" came first. Why should Wiki get involved in this dispute? It's only necessary to keep both of these posts alive. Secondly, Time Magazine's Top 100 Phonies of the Century (in 2000), in which Bob Dobbs appeared as #1, was a list of real people, not cartoons. Nowhere on this list are they speaking of a cartoon drawing. This is where Wiki's rule of patent nonsense enters and the Subgenii are the guilty ones there. Wiki must stay neutral on this by its own rule. - Tina-Bob Tina-Bob (talk · contribs) has exactly two edits, one to Talk:Bob Dobbs and one to this AfD.
-
-
- Comment In fact, here is the exact quote from TIME Magazine two weeks after the Jan 1 issue: "A few weeks ago, we published the results of our online poll in which folks submitted their two cents' worth on the movers and shakers, frauds and bloopers of the 20th Century in "Readers Speak: Down with Geraldo" (NOTEBOOK, Jan. 1). Under the category "Phoney or fraud of the 20th Century," we listed as first-place winner J.R. ("Bob") Dobbs, who earned 20.46% of the vote (Geraldo Rivera was second, and OJ Simpson third.) Just who is J.R. Dobbs?, some of you wanted to know. Unfortunately, an explanatory footnote failed to make it into print. Here's what it said: "J.R. is so phony that he doesn't exist." Dobbs is a very imaginary modern evangelical Protestant created online by an irreverent band that set up a website in his honor. You can find out about him at subgenius.com" ((End TIME quote.) This article in TIME was accompanied by our trademark picture of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs.--RevStang 19:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment Doug, if it's J.R. Dobbs you're looking for, this is not the right article. This article was meant with all seriousness. I have been tracking and archiving Bob Dobbs material since I first heard Bob's Media Ecology in 1995. I thought that with all I have learned about him over the last 11 years, and the fact he is being asked to appear in the media more and more lately, it was time to create a Wikipedia page about him. To do this, I needed to create an account. I will be contributing more about other subjects in the future, but, for now, this is one I am most interested in. It was not an ego job as suggested above. There is actually a man with the name Bob Dobbs who is not the cartoon character you chose to represent your organization. Doug, do not abuse the deletion function of Wikipedia, unless you want to help degrade Wikipedia's integrity. Rather than deleting the page, let's work together to describe the whole situation rather than just choosing one side. I thought Monsquaz already did an excellent job of pointing out the differences. Is there just a particular fact you are disputing? Octavian1 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Modemac's use of the phrase "minor in scope" is highly subjective. Besides, is it a matter of scope or scale? Google test: There are many Google results for "Bob Dobbs" in relation to the man featured on this page. Verifiability (Some say): you will see verifiability in evidence on the pages linked to from the wiki page, as well as the Google results. I think this is turning into an issue of politics and ego from the Church of Subgenius group, rather than adhering to the principles of information integrity that Wikipedia stands for. Many of the statements in favour of deletion are examples of value judgements and subjectivity rather than scholarly objectivity. This is an act of Wiki page deletion abuse by the Subgenius straw men. Octavian1 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There's little more that can be said, after pointing out that in in this edit, Monsquaz points out, "There is no substantial evidence for these claims." --Modemac 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Octavian1, read WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL. This AfD discussion is not the place for unsubstaniated accusations. The Google test is an "alternate test" for WP:BIO; i.e. not one that is generally accepted by the community. The basic problem here is that there is no evidence that Bob Dobbs meets any of the accepted, non-alternate, guidelines for an article about a living person, and there is nothing subjective about that.--Isotope23 01:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
No-no-no! Do Not Delete
Time Magazine’s list of phonies and frauds (2000) was talking about the real Bob Dobbs because the other Bob Dobbs is the cartoon “religious leader” of the Church of the Subgenius. As you will see on their website, (http://www.time.com/time/time100/phonies/index.html) Time excluded religious leaders from the countdown:
Over the past 100 years, in the midst of all the wonders of progress, there grew a thing called hype. Hype swirls and obfuscates, both hiding the truth and creating the lie. It can be as harmless as the latest pop star saturation, and as insidious as a two-faced government official. In recognition of this phenomenon, TIME.com has built a list, based on nominations from its web users, of individuals who are candidates for the title of the century's worst scammer, con artist, media manipulator, grifter, liar or charlatan. This list originally included a number of religious leaders. But we are convinced by protests from offended supporters that their inclusion, no matter how well justified in some cases by their behavior, might well stimulate an attitude of contempt for others' religious beliefs. - Tina-Bob
- And then Time magazine made a further comment on J.R. "Bob" Dobbs himself in their February 7, 2000 issue: "A few weeks ago, we published the results of our online poll in which folks submitted their two cents' worth on the movers and shakers, frauds and bloopers of the 20th century in "Readers Speak: Down with Geraldo" [NOTEBOOK, Jan. 1]. Under the category "Phony or Fraud of the 20th Century," we listed as first-place winner J.R. ("Bob") Dobbs, who earned 20.46% of the vote (Geraldo Rivera was second, and O.J. Simpson third). Just who is J.R. Dobbs?, some of you wanted to know. Unfortunately, an explanatory footnote failed to make it into print. Here's what it said: "J.R. is so phony that he doesn't exist." Dobbs is a very imaginary modern evangelical Protestant created online by an irreverant band that set up a website in his honor. You can find out about him at subgenius.com." [32] --Modemac 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete For the reasons so eloquently put forth by Stang and Modemac. It is clear that Bob Dean is attempting to co-opt the identity of (the fictional) Bob Dobbs.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Bob_Dobbs"
Do Not Delete: The Church of the Subgenius has no grounds to assert copyright infringement on a name. Bob Dobbs is a popular media ecologist, radio personality, author and philosopher who has absolutely nothing to do with the Church of the Subgenius in any way. Any similarity between them is name only. There can be many Bob Dobbses just as there are many John Smiths. Indeed, Wikipedia attempts to list many John Smiths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_smith.
Perhaps if Wikipedia heard from more people named Bob Dobbs, this dispute could be settled amicably. But the problem now seems to be that there are ONLY two of them!
Since others have begun to repeat themselves, I will repeat Wikipedia has no grounds to get involved in a legal dispute between two characters who share the same name. Wikipedia must remain neutral, and this means having a page devoted to both Bob Dobbses. - Tina-Bob
Let me correct that. These characters don't even share the same name. One is J. R. "Bob" Dobbs and the other is Bob Dobbs. (Notice the initials preceding and the name in quotes. This comes directly from the Subgenius website.) Wikipedia cannot take sides in this dispute any more than it could take sides in a dispute brought by a John Smith who claimed R.J. "John" Smith stole his identity. Wikipedia must look at the accomplishments, alone and unfettered, of the one who goes by Bob Dobbs. Wikipedia can ask for the page to be edited, but there's no logical basis here for deletion of the page. - Tina-Bob
- And let me correct this by noting that this deletion in process has nothing to do with copyright infringement. It has everything to do with WP:BIO and WP:V, which has not been improved or verified by anything said here. --Modemac 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Delete! Apparently most people understand this argument to be about identity theft so perhaps it's not as "eloquent" as it could be: (i.e. "Delete For the reasons so eloquently put forth by Stang and Modemac. It is clear that Bob Dean is attempting to co-opt the identity of (the fictional) Bob Dobbs.") I would think that if you wanted to distance your Dobbs from the embarrassing minor Bob Dobbs, you would welcome a Wikipedia page so as to minimize the confusion between them. But that's not what you want so your motives are highly suspect. - Tina-Bob
KEEP. As a member of the Church who knows Mr. Dean for the fraud he is, I do not wish his falsification of character and inspiritation to be hidden anywhere. His claim, and the valid disputation of it, should be publically documented. If the standards of WP:BIO and WP:V are important and often flaunted in the page, subscribe to it's changes list, and make sure they are correctly enforced. --temujin9
Comment Rev Exile chimes in... At issue here is Protocol and methods in which people make themselfs appear to the public... (see previous attempts) as well at hand is wiki's bio policy that only FAMOUS people get entries...
What I have and would like to raise a comment could this if allowed to must be used as a case forcing the current owner Stang out of the very Church he help setup because its influence is noted by Bob Dobbs and the Real "Bob". Or very much the confusion that he attempts to bring to the Church of the Subgenius... sure it might sell more membership packets if this gets into the news... but will I get arrested when I view my option to Kill "Bob", because this false prophet things he can step up and claim such... I value freedom of speech and all more so with the agrugement 'ck em if they cant take a joke. But damn serious? problem I have with the claims that he is the real "Bob" or not should be clear he never once uses quotes around his name as such "Bob". There many be many look alikes and false prophets... there is only one "Bob" That pipe smoking brother of Jesus. THE LIVING SLACK MASTER OF SALES, a guy so fake hes real... this "Bob" isnt That Bob, his follwers come to love, this is nothing more then to attempt to discredit a very respectable bizzaro weird sex ufo cult. NOt that we dont like a challenge. Heck reading up on this issue has really open my ears and eyes so much taht I must roll up my sleves and cast out false prophets
"It is not necessary to prove "who" came first. Why should Wiki get involved in this dispute? It's only necessary to keep both of these posts alive."
Well most would consider when a topic goes for deletion that its border line flamewar, which judging how quickly my previous comment was snipped shows how quickly things are edited. Its an old issue that seems to be revisited because someone felt up to putting it up... sie, thus we look at why wiki gets involved and snip this in the butt... this is a referance book of referance books yes? what myspace does for the social realm, wiki does for the scholar world. Failure to make a stand at this level could corrupt future chances.
"stations that have aired this man as "Bob Dobbs". If you need any other points resolved, let me know and I'll dig them up, otherwise, don't waste my time with these false allegations of non-verifiability and non-notability."
Except when thats the subgenius's guru old "Bob" Dobbs... Here we have a Bobbie (I dont use the term as a insult tho its meaning often implies such) attempting to create the "Bob" before his eyes... while you cant copyright names, you can shape the symbolism that its used from. Anyone can toss money around on two records and a book that is out of print to discredit the real "Bob". You can call yourself whatever you want but anyone claim such and use terms of the church to a means of your own end...
JESUS said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt. 7:15) ---- — Possible single purpose account: rev_exile (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete is at present time both my vote and my personal preference, the chief reason being that Wikipedia should avoid where possible adding to the leverage of a scammer. I have had (very limited) dealings with Stang, and someone who would pirate this gentleman's good yet undercompensated work deserves no free ride anywhere. Tina-Bob's certainty is QUITE a bit more suspect and specious than Stang's character could ever be in my estimation, especially since Tina-Bob's contributions are entirely limited to this discussion. Sock Puppet much? Similar observations can be made about two other keep voters (temujin, Octavian), which greatly adds to the weight for the case that this is a matter of vanity and self-promotion. For this reason, I suggest that the Wiki is best off without this Bob Dobbs, no matter the tests he might marginally 'pass.' If the article is kept, it is certain to be written by these SP's. Not a good situation for the Wiki. adendum These parties with no posting history are also the ones pitting the "human" pseudo-Bob against a "cartoon" Bob, a theme which none of the regular users here has taken up. This attempt to devalue the genuine labor and dedication Stang has given to his work (a "joke" religion that has spread the gospel of skepticism and critical thinking in spiritual matters for decades) does not wash. The symbol of the SubGenii may be a "cartoon," but the Church is driven by a flesh-and-blood engine. Few of us have had the task of shepherding the survival of an "against-the-grain" movement like Stang's, and we only need look at the casualty rates to know what a task it must be. None disagree that Stang has been injured by so-called "Dobbs." What desperate cause motivates the parties above to add insult? "The School of McLuhan Studies at University of Toronto seems to vouch for Bob Dobbs' identity?" I hope none were too lazy to examine the link; they permitted "Dobbs" to give a 15-minute talk eight years ago. I should hope that all of us have had greater days of glory than that. Bustter 09:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to J. R. "Bob" Dobbs, which is probably what most people typing "Bob Dobbs" into the search bar are looking for. Andrew Levine 09:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew: surely you are not suggesting that the patently false content of this page be merged to J. R. "Bob" Dobbs? I think you mean DELETE and Redirect. Eusebeus 10:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- This Bob Dean guy seems to have been kicking up a lot of dust claiming to be the inspiration for J.R. for quite some time now. Even notable impostors and frauds are worth mentioning (though I do not think he is notable enough to merit a separate article; a sentence or two in the proper article should be enough. Andrew Levine 12:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Delete!
1. There is currently rampant confusion about the two Bob Dobbses. People generally believe they are the same identity.
2. There is an assumption being made here that when someone enters the name Bob Dobbs into a search engine they’re looking for information on the cartoon Dobbs church guy. This is an unprovable assertion. What many people may actually be looking for is clarification between the two personages or indeed they may have heard Bob on the radio. The Church of the Subgenius may even be taking advantage of this enormous misunderstanding. Perhaps the Church wants to continue the obfuscation of the two Bob Dobbses because the defunct Church is actually riding on the coattails of the real Bob, who is a more active radio/media person, and the old defunct cartoon Bob has seen better days (i.e. isn’t funny anymore).
3. Is Wikipedia about “famous people” or is it about “information”? If it’s about famous people, both Bob Dobbses should be excluded, because one’s not “famous” outside Toronto (do we have a definition of “famous”?) and the other is a cartoon illustration. But if Wikipedia is about information and if its task is to be the largest encyclopedia in the world, its mission should be clarification of the two Bob Dobbses so that people understand clearly that there are two of them.
4. Time Magazine excluded religious leaders from the Top Phonies of the Century countdown, but in their confusion about who Bob Dobbs is (yes, even they are confused!), they merged the identities of both the real and the cartoon. But in omitting religious leaders from the list, we are to understand that the cartoon Bob was shown the door.
As stated in #1, the Bob Dobbs confusion is pernicious and the goal of Wikipedia should be democratic clarification of the issue, not fascist obfuscation at the primary directive of the owner of one of the names! Oi-vei! 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Tina-Bob
- Comment. I don't know enough about this Dobbs to make an informed vote, however if this article is kept, then a DAB statement needs to be added linking to the J.R. "Bob" Dobbs article. If deleted, then redirect to same. If I were pressed to cast a vote, it would be to merge this with the JR Bob Dobbs article ... but only if verified, etc. 23skidoo 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE, or Edit and Link. Delete the article - or keep the article, and make it available from the 'J.R. "Bob" Dobbs' page, with at least the following changes, which I have edited into the existing text based on my years of experience with and research in this topic:
[edit] Claim to name
Many people in the Church of the SubGenius are direct witnesses to the falsehood of his claim that he is the "real" Bob Dobbs. The 'controversy' stemmed from Dean's claim that he was the inspiration for the Church after its founders, Ivan Stang and friend Philo Drummond, first met him in Dallas in 1978, and his routine, unapproved use of the Church trademark and terms in his radio show on CKLN. Stang has denied this Dallas meeting[1], noting that he is a scam artist whose real name is Bob Dean.
Dean claimed in a 1998 phone interview[2] with Nardwuar the Human Serviette that there is no Bob Dean, and the name first came about when CKLN-FM journalist Bob Marshall, whom Dean associated with when working on his CKLN show with Myke Dyer, was seen in the company of Dean's wife Connie in Toronto, who supposedly took on the nom de plume of Dr. Carolyn Dean (after Garrett Deane, a personal friend of Bob and Connie from Nova Scotia). It was then assumed that Marshall was Connie/Carolyn's husband, and that "Marshall" was simply a pseudonym. Furthermore, Dean claimed that Stang's public denouncement is merely a behind-the-scenes cover for a "John the Baptist" type operation to provide ground for his work. Unfortunately for his cover story, which he designed in order to co-opt the "Connie Dobbs" character found throughout Church publications, Dean's 'Connie' - in addition to being his wife - was actually a registered M.D. in Toronto, registered under her actual name, Carolyn Dean. After being defrocked for various irregularities, she moved her practice to the US and has become involved in 'naturopathic' medicine - interestingly, on both her site and the 'Rebirth of Bob Dobbs' article referenced below, her 2005 radio show "Building Organic Bodies" was mentioned - once as hers and once as his, respectively.
In the meantime, in addition to his apparent regular fraudulent use of the Church of the SubGenius' trademark during his radio years, Bob Dean has occasionally pursued a low-level netstalking career centered around Ivan Stang and the Church, posting under the handle 'purple' on the Church Usenet group alt.slack, as seen here, perpetuating his virtual identity theft for effect. (Note: the original replacement of this wikipedia subject was another part of this ongoing effort, and its encouragement as such by Dean can be found at Dean's forum, here. He has also granted interviews under the fictitious name Bob Dobbs, and encourages the intended confusion with 'J. R. "Bob" Dobbs' by deliberately allowing those who write about him to portray him as associated with the Church - occasionally resulting in other fraudulent publications, as seen in the 'Rebirth of Bob Dobbs' article here. His 'SubGenius' act also temporarily fooled famed collage musicians Negativland into producing a spot for a Bob's Media Ecology record. Their statement disavowing this work as the result of "gross misrepresentation" can be found in their discography here (scroll down to 'Tribal Mandate').
- He's posted to a newsgroup (alt.slack), he made a music CD, and he called a radio talk show eight years ago. Once again, none of this meets the requirements of WP:BIO. --Modemac 09:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
regarding verifiablility
the McLuhan Program at the University of Toronto did indeed host this fellow 'for fifteen minutes' in 1998, as linked: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/mcluhan-studies/v1_iss3/program.htm , billing him as 'Bob Dobbs'. I wasn't aware of this. Not mentioned is the fact that the McLuhan Program hosted him for a solo lecture on November 24, 2003, which ran for over three hours. I don't know exactly how to verify this fact, but it's on video and that mural would be hard to forge.
Donald Theall, in his recent book 'The Virtual McLuhan' (his second on the subject, with another on James Joyce), acknowledges first that the idea for the book 'arose out of a number of serendipitous meetings with Robert Dobbs'.
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0773531548/102-3331598-4620145?v=glance&n=283155)
In fall 2004 Toronto hosted the first 'McLuhan Festival of the Future', for which Bob Dobbs (billed as such) was given a solo event at the Drake Hotel (one of the official (that is, not in any way marginal) venues of the festival), which was advertised in the official program for the festival as a lecture on 'McLuhan and the future of ESP' (that is, not advertised as performance art by a satirist or marginal jokester, but "former McLuhan archivist and broadcaster Bob Dobbs"). Coverage of this event, including the name 'Bob Dobbs', appeared in Toronto's NOW magazine: (http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2004-10-21/news_story5.php), Eye Weekly: (http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_10.14.04/op/wanderingeye.php), as well as in the Toronto Star, which article is transcribed at: (http://www.flyingdogshow.com/bobdobbs/index.html), though I don't know about a link to the paper itself. The Walrus reviewed the festival; Mark Federman, Chief Strategist of the McLuhan Program wrote a response titled "too bad [the reviewer] completely missed the festival!" emphasizing Bob's event as a particularly "fabulous session": (http://www.walrusmagazine.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/13/1659225)
His lengthy essay on McLuhan was also published recently in an anthology which I don't have the link for. Author: 'Bob Dobbs'.
Perhaps this is the result of a successfully spreading fraud, but I couldn't help but not notice a single reference to the Church of the SubGenius nor its mythology in any of those contexts. Bob's audience is wider than it is usually made to seem on alt.slack, his shpiel is distinctive, and he has introduced new concepts and frameworks to his field of McLuhan studies which many in that field find valuable and in the spirit of McLuhan himself.
I don't know if the above reputable verifiability of a name-recognition meets Wikipedia's standards for a notable person, however.
But it's weird that you linked to my post on the forum
any reason?
Ad Absurdum 05:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. See messages 7 and 8 in the thread.
Meanwhile, every single instance in which Dean uses the name Bob Dobbs is a specific reference to the Church of the SubGenius and its mythology. There is NO instance where he uses it before encountering the Church. Thus, each of the mentions you present are merely aditional instances of his fraudulent attempt to gain unearned reputation by referring to the Church. Pennames are fine, but I doubt that going around the vanity press presenting my spiel using the name "Astroboy" would be an acceptable reason for my fans to hijack Astroboy's wikipedia entry.
"the vanity press"??
I didn't even claim anything other than 'these links are verifiable'.
Pardon me for being annoyed that the SubGenii would rather believe he "isn't even a proper mcluhanatic, he's JUST a rip-off" who lectured to a "canadian holiday inn meeting room" (both quotes: Rev. Ivan Stang on alt.slack) than a sometimes highly respected McLuhanatic who lectured to the one and only McLuhan Program at U of T, and the one and only McLuhan Festival.
18:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment From what you say, it appears that he has been allowed to speak at those two venues once each, in years past. He has evidently not been invited back to either since. There are reports online from witnesses of his Feb. 2005 McLuhan Festival appearance that most of the audience walked out on his "seance" with the "ghosts" of Marshall McLuhan and Frank Zappa long before the show was over. You also neglect to mention that Dean's act was singled out, in the newspaper articles you cite, as an example of what makes the McLuhan Festival "kooky." The reason that his claim to be THE "Bob" Dobbs of SubGenius fame (or his claimed age of 84) is not mentioned in those articles is likely because professional journalists try to avoid reporting obvious untruths. If he is "highly respected," why does his name not crop up in more of the legitimate McLuhan forums and books? In fact he was banned from at least one such forum because of his abrasive manner and repeated unverified claims of personal connections to McLuhan, such as that he is in mystic contact with the shade of the deceased Canadian philosopher. He has a small reputation among some radio talk shows that he phones (i.e. at WCSB in Cleveland), but it is as a pest. I have recordings that serve as excellent examples of typical harrassment calls by him. When he is dismissed he calls back repeatedly, shrieking what he evidently considers to be powerful "code" phrases. Radio talk show hosts at New York stations, and guests on shows that he has called (such as Paul Krassner), have told me of very similar bouts of phone harrassment by Dean. The most recent one that Krassner quoted to me just last year involved Dean very specifically refering to himself as the "Bob" of the Church of the SubGenius and even adding that he was smoking a pipe like the one shown in the famous "Dobbshead" picture. -- RevStang 18:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
It's interesting to study the nature of Dean's two much-vaunted forays into 'academia':
Dean's quite fraudulent bio from the U of T appearance:
"Bob Dobbs was born in Paris and after World War Two worked with international intelligence agencies for many decades. He surfaced in 1987 on CKLN-FM in Toronto and began whistle-blowing. Two interpretations of Dobbs are circulating in the popular media: one is through the Church of the SubGenius that Dobbs inspired in 1978 in Dallas; the other is on two CDs, Bob's Media Ecology and Bob's Media Ecology Squared, put out in 1992 by Time Again Productions, early students of Marshall McLuhan. The best presentation of Dobbs' work is in his book, Phatic Communion with Bob Dobbs. Today, he travels the world explaining his/our victory over the Android Meme, and the tracings of these activities are regularly published in Flipside magazine."
A description of Dean's presentation at the McLuhan festival:
"I'm in an overseas phone seance at the Drake Hotel called McLuhan And The Future Of ESP, part of the McLuhan International Festival Of The Future. There've been films, art installations, tech businesses schmoozing for venture capital, and now someone's on the blower from England who speaks to the dead.
The medium, Glow, relates the doings of three ghosts, James (Joyce?), Frank (Zappa?) and Mac (McLuhan?), who communicate through sketch comedy. Apparently, they're on unicycles and have heads that pop open like beer steins.
On the Toronto end with a microphone is Bob Dobbs, former student and archivist of Marshall McLuhan. He can quote passages verbatim from the master's quixotic media theories like a carnival barker.
"The lids are on their heads?" asks Dobbs, seeking clarification from Glow. "And one of them is on the bike? Is it moving?"
"Yeah. The wheel is an ear; it's like a giant ear."
"A giant ear? Ho! That's tremendous."
This goes on past midnight. "
Quite the academic, this Bob Dean. Let's face it, the guy's a con artist, and the preplanned vandalism of this wikipedia topic by his few fans - undertaken specifically to aggravate the holders of the real SubGenius franchise, whose intellectual property he routinely appropriates as his own - is just another extension of his netstalking campaign against Ivan Stang and the Church. It should not stand.
KEEP This is Eli Elliott, the filmmaker who documented the Bob Dobbs in question during his 2005 Los Angeles Tour. I attended 4 different venues where Bob spoke, each event was near capacity except one which was around 50% attendance. Many individuals at the events where aware of Bob, knew him as 'Bob Dobbs', and also were well aware of his work in connection with Marshall Mcluhan and Media Ecology. Bob was also the main guest for a radio program with well known, award winning radio host, Martin Perlich. On the show he was referred to as both Robert and Bob Dobbs. One event I attended was a private Mcluhan study group consisting of individuals who for several years have met regularly for 3 hour sessions studying the work of Marshall Mcluhan; his teachings, writings, interviews, and also books from authors who wrote on Mcluhan. They all were familiar with Bobs reputation as a lecturer/teacher of Mcluhan studies, and identified him somewhere in the top 10 as most knowledgeable on the teachings of Marshall Mcluhan. And they all knew him as Bob Dobbs. Bob met with this group, spoke, and answered many questions. The group was pleased and very impressed with Bobs knowledge of Mcluhan and commented afterwards they had gained a better understanding of the subject matter. I had personally been to previous meetings with this group and gained more information and understanding on Marshall Mcluhan and media ecology from the Dobbs visit, than from the other visits combined. Through the internet, radio, documentary video, public speaking events, and private individual and group sessions, it is verifiable that this individual is known as Bob Dobbs. Through these same outlets it is verifiable that this individual is considered a leader in the field of media ecology/Marshall Mcluhan studies, and is considered as possessing strong knowledge of the subject matter in which he speaks. Eli Elliott 71.160.106.76 05:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm having to repeat myself here every day, it seems: How does this blathering overrule the fact that the article does not meet WP:BIO and WP:V? --Modemac 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment It is interesting that Eli Elliot is not able to provide a single specific identifying name, or URL link, for any of the alleged "events" in Dean's "2005 Los Angeles Tour" aside from the name of a radio interviewer (and neither Dean nor Dobbs are mentioned on Perlich's website list of interviewees). Dean's public appearances are referred to vaguely as having happened at various "venues," yet they all remain unnamed. The group to which he allegedly spoke is not named. -- RevStang 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Its also interesting that all the events are captured on video. Quick search pulled up an archived listing of one event listed almost halfway down the page. And following this event listing, is an article/interview with Bob Dobbs from writer Rahne Pistor, who is the main culture/events writer for the Argonaut, a widely distributed print weekly catering to the west side of Los Angeles. http://www.jesgrew.org/wake/Events.html 71.160.106.76 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Eli Elliott
-
- Delete when you get right now to it, this is an article about a college radio DJ. Can you say Non-Notable? Stev0 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
KEEP Irrelevant of the former Mr. Dean's identity as "Bob" Dobbs, the controversy regarding his claims bears mention as an element of THE ETERNAL MYSTERY that is the Church of the Subgenius. Although I do think that a prominent disambiguation between Dean/Dobbs and Subgenius/Dobbs be included in any page regarding Mr. Dean's claims. A picture of Dean with a pipe in his mouth and a cheeseeatin' grin would be appropriate too, especially if it photocopies well.
-
-
- reply
-
"From what you say, it appears that he has been allowed to speak at those two venues once each, in years past."
From what I said, it should have appeared that he has been allowed (some might dare think 'invited' was a more appropriate term) two speeches at the McLuhan Program at U of T.
"He has evidently not been invited back to either since." -revstang
The McLuhan Festival has had only one other installment, and they hardly invited anyone related to McLuhan in the academic sense, more technology and design showcases and panels. And the McLuhan Program probably doesn't have a huge budget to fly people in, but that's just an educated guess. November 2003 and 2004 is not so many years past.
"You also neglect to mention that Dean's act was singled out, in the newspaper articles you cite, as an example of what makes the McLuhan Festival "kooky." "
I neglect? I'm on wikipedia. I figure they're more interested in who the organizers invited than what reviewers said, except as a record of the use of the name. In precisely that sense, the singled-out opinion I did not neglect was that of the UofT McLuhan Programs 'Chief Strategist' at the time, Mark Federman.
"In fact he was banned from at least one such forum because of his abrasive manner and repeated unverified claims of personal connections to McLuhan, such as that he is in mystic contact with the shade of the deceased Canadian philosopher."
In fact?? Perhaps, but you neglect to substantiate this claim, especially the second part of it.
If I just went to the links currently available, I'd find Federman saying the festival 'seance' was "fabulous" (that would be a 'proper mcluhanatic' who writes academic papers and that sort of thing staying to the end and not just a crowd of the curious (and, in many cases, drunk), cutting out early), and I'd find Bob's statements about this 'mystic contact' on alt.slack, which emphasized not believing them, but being willing to ask questions.
And don't respond to me as if "you neglect to substantiate this claim" says more than it says. This isn't alt.slack. Ad Absurdum 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Ad Absurdum
- You neglect to substantiate this claim. I'll repeat yet again that the point of this article deletion isn't because a joker named Bob Dean likes to use the nickname "Bob Dobbs" in an attempt to get attention from SubGenii. It's because the article is still non-notable and his claims of things like being born in 1922, meeting Hitler, "inspiring" the Church of the SubGenius, and doing anything at all other than making a music CD and showing up at a McLuhan festival to talk on a panel discussion are not verified. So he showed up in Los Angeles - big deal. So he showed up in Toronto - big deal. This article is still a vanity page dedicated to nothing more than his ego. Delete. --Modemac 11:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
COMMENT. Let's look at some numbers.
The average number of people who read a solo Dean announcement on his forum (http://www.fivebodied.com/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=818b753951973b55cc3503651c09948f) is about 20. Usually it takes a couple of weeks for that many people to get around to reading a Dean post. Only about a dozen people actively post to the forum. If a post generates responses, the numbers go up as people repeatedly examine the thread to see if there's anything new, but obviously it is not a very large or active forum.
His "member list" (http://www.fivebodied.com/memberlist.php?mode=joined&order=ASC&start=350) purports to show about 350 people -- but if you look at any given "member," the vast majority of them are spambot-delivered ads for Viagra, porn, etc.
Here, for instance, are his 5 most recent "members": http://www.fivebodied.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=382 http://www.fivebodied.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=381 http://www.fivebodied.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=380 http://www.fivebodied.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=379 http://www.fivebodied.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=378
A click on the "website" URLs of any of these so-called "members" gets you a sleazy ad or else a nonsense site that probably carries a virus or spyware.
On the legit SubGenius end, there are 3 different Yahoo e-lists (subgenius, X-Day, and Euro-SubGenius), plus alt.slack, alt.binaries.slack, and alt.binaries.multimedia.slack on Usenet. Alt.slack is classified as a "high volume" Usenet group (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.slack/about). It carried 8697 posts during July 2006. There are generally about 50 people participating.
The main SubGenius website, subgenius.com gets an average of 19,000 visits a day. Not hits, but visits. A look at the SubSITE links page (http://subgenius.com/contact.htm) reveals many dozens of spin-offs and fan sites.
The Church of the SubGenius has a mailing list of about 5,000 current active $30 dues-paying members. Over 30,000 have joined since we started in 1980, but we have lost contact with most of them over the 26 year period. We currently get an average of three new Members a day. By "member" I don't mean somebody signing up on a free Internet guest list, I mean people who sent us $30 for the ordainmant package.
The first SubGenius pamphlet was written in 1979 by myself and Philo Drummond, was published in January 1980, and is copyrighted that year with a copy deposited in the Library of Congress.
The first SubGenius radio show, Puzzling Evidence, started at KPFA in Berkeley in 1982 and is still on the air weekly.
THE BOOK OF THE SUBGENIUS was published by McGraw-Hill in 1983. It is still in print (now from Simon & Schuster) and has sold somewhere around 100,000 copies. REVELATION X is due to be reprinted in 2007 by Thunder's Mouth Press. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671770063/104-1363251-2055919?v=glance&n=283155) Thunder's Mouth is also releasing our new book THE SUBGENIUS PSYCHLOPAEDIA OF SLACK -- THE BOBLIOGRAPHON this October (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560259396/104-1363251-2055919?redirect=true). The out-of-print "THREE FISTED TALES OF "BOB" anthology has stories by William Burroughs, R A Wilson, John Shirley, Lew Shiner, Mark Mothersbaugh and others.
Dean compiled and self-published a 130-page book (although half of it is comprised of quotes from other writers that he simply copied from other sources). It is called "Phatic Communion with Bob Dobbs" but it is copyrighted 1992 by "Robert Dean." It has not been in print for many years.
There is no evidence whatsoever of Dean calling himself "Bob Dobbs" before THE BOOK OF THE SUBGENIUS was published. His story of meeting Philo and me in 1978 is a lie or a delusion.
The SubGenius radio show called THE HOUR OF SLACK was first broadcast at KNON in Dallas in October, 1985. We are currently carried on 23 broadcast stations in the U.S. and Canada. (http://subgenius.com/ts/hos.html) We haven't tried to count the number of Internet streams and "pirate radio" outlets. We are presently on episode #1,060. Guests on the show (in the station) have included Robert Anton Wilson, Negativland, Paul Krassner, Hal Robins.
Dean, on the other hand, has not had his own show in well over a decade since he was fired from CKLN. (And the "SubGenius jargon" he used on that show -- references to "Pinks," "The Xists," etc. -- all came from THE BOOK OF THE SUBGENIUS.) He was on a Toronto show as guest with conspiracy theorist Nelson Thall a few years ago, but that only lasted 17 episodes before Dean was removed from the show. The Toronto station CKLN, which originally broadcast his show in the 90s, is now playing old reruns of it once per month. The same station plays new HOURS OF SLACK every week. HOUR OF SLACK showcases many new bands, sound collagists, and "ranters." It is almost entirely original material, by many contributors.
Notables who have joined the Church include the late Ken Kesey, David Byrne, Paul Krassner, Timothy Leary, Paul Mavrides, Robert Crumb, Mark Mothersbaugh, Jonathan Demme, Gilbert Shelton. "Bob's" face was in the opening credits of PEE WEE'S PLAYHOUSE and was part of the set. The Dobbshead face was also used as part of David Letterman's set. David Byrne put a SubGenius-themed song in his movie True Stories ("Puzzling Evidence." The SubGenius membership is heavy with artists, writers, and musicians, as is obvious from the 9 anthology albums of SubGenius music, a perusal of SubSITE's "Art Mines," and our books.
By contrast, the only famous people that Dean lays claim to as friends are all dead. (That hasn't stopped him from "interviewing" them, however!) Dean drops Frank Zappa's name a lot, but in Zappa's autiobiography, he specifically mentions being a fan of the Texas-based Church of the SubGenius and describes "Bob" as "some guy with a pipe in his mouth." (page 234)
Rev. Stang has been interviewed by so many magazines and talk shows over the years that the list is many pages long. He appeared on CNN, BBC's "Things to Come," A Current Affair, the Jon Stewart Show, directed a SubGenius "art minute" for MTV, and has worked with DEVO on two of their music videos (doing animation).
Stang, under his real name Douglass Smith, has been a filmmaker of note (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0808028/) since the age of 16, when he won the Grand Prize in the Kodak Teenage Movie Awards. That winning animation ("The Wad and the Worm" went on to garner a Cannes silver cup and many other international film awards. The SubGenius feature film, ARISE!, was distributed by Polygram starting around 1988. It is still being shown in film festivals, the most recent being the Brussels International Festival Of Fantastic Film (http://www.bifff.org/nl/archive/film1.php?id=1676). Stang also wrote and edited a series of documentary feature films for director Mickey grant, including the award-winning "The Cu Chi Tunnels," about the Vietnam war as seen by former Viet Cong.
As public speaker and performer, Stang and cohorts have led "devivals" since 1980 at such diverse venues as the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, The Stone in San Francisco, Danceteria (NYC), The Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston, First Avenue (Minneapolis), Club Metro in Chicago, The Victoria Theater (San Francisco), University of Washington (Seattle), Alexandria Hotel, Los Angeles (sponsored by High Performance), Caravan of Dreams (Fort Worth), Massachussets College of Art (Boston), Bd Kuip in Amsterdam, SKAM (Hamburg, Germany), The Foundry (London). Stang has been a featured speaker at the Winterstar and Starwood Festivals (largest neopagan festival in the U.S.) every year since 1990, and since 1996 he has produced the annual "X-Day" SubGenius festivals at Brushwood Folklore Center in New York. This outdoor camping and music festival attracts from 150 to 300 SubGenius fans and has been the subject of two documentaries (one by Stang and another, "Countdown to X-Day," by Richard Darrigo). There is also an annual "teX-Day" in Texas and annual European X-Day Drills, usually held in Amsterdam. (In 2006 it was in Pisa, Italy.)
Noted filmmakers The Bolex Brothers made a film of Stang's Brag of the SubGenius, called "Day of the SubGenius." (See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4585014238229810366&q=SubGenius for that film and many of the others mentioned here.)
There have been four World SubGenius Conventions since 1980, in Dallas, Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco. People came from as far away as Bolivia and London to attend these bizarre events.
For a list of SubGenius events since the middle 1990s, with text reports and many photos, see http://subgenius.com/bigfist/fun/devivals/devivals.html
Delete. --RevStang 21:17, 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 Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joe Kelly (Freeholder)
Nomination incomplete. Finishing for nom. Fails WP:BIO as a county officeholder who has received no major press coverage. --DarkAudit 17:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. A google search turns up a surprising amount of info on him. I don't see any coverage in the national media, but he seems important in New Jersey. And Atlantic County is a pretty big county, with Atlantic City and all. --Allen 17:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But none of that is here. This just says he's a board member. Just that is not enough to warrant inclusion. --DarkAudit 21:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Herm. Googlehit count drops from 1,170 hits to 417 if you exclude the term "wikipedia"[45].And a lot of the searches later on seem to be non-relevant Bwithh 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Weak keep. Neutral per Bwithh and Ohconfucius, and possibly speedy delete if "no assertion of notability" is indeed true. If the google search is that comprehensive, someone can use it to clean up the article and make it warrant inclusion. Just because info that makes him notable is not in the article now does not qualify as a deletion criterion. Morgan Wick 23:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article as it stands now, fails WP:BIO. That makes it a candidate for deletion. That there may be info out there to satisfy notablilty standards ventures into crystalballism. --DarkAudit 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- We judge notability based on the subject, not the article. "Crystalballism" would apply if there aren't sources out there to satisfy notability, but hey, there could be in the future! But if there may be sources out there, we verify that. If there are, we should keep it, if there aren't, we delete it. Simple as that. Morgan Wick 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article as it stands now, fails WP:BIO. That makes it a candidate for deletion. That there may be info out there to satisfy notablilty standards ventures into crystalballism. --DarkAudit 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any assertion of notability, therefore Delete per WP:BIO. I think Allen's google search is good but pushing the boat out a bit. There is always, rightly, information on anyone who has to stand for election. There are several Joe Kellies out there who seem quite notable, but unless anyone cares to put something there to underlien this one's impoirtance, I say "you're fired". Ohconfucius 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I also notice that this item was supposedly part of a bundled AfD dated August 6, but somehow slipped the net. Ohconfucius 02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and above Bwithh 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The Google search listed above demonstrates notability. The article is a stub and will benefit from expansion using the variety of independent, verfiiable sources available. Alansohn 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - as per alansohn --ZeWrestler Talk 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alansohn and my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders. Accurizer 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You Drink
This isn't even really a drinking game to begin with- it's just people saying "you drink." I searched on Yahoo! and Google and found nothing except this page and several copies of it, leading me to believe this game isn't notable or even established in any way. --Wafulz 18:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom, very stupid, non-notable. If you ask me, I think it's just a game made up in school one day. --S-man 19:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This ranks up there with the rules of "calling shotgun" in terms of encyclopedic value. --dtony 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per WP:NFT and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Morgan Wick 23:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I have actually done this, but I didn't know it was a game. It's not encyclopedic, and not much fun with jerks for friends FancyPants 19:38, 8 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MiseTings
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
This article was up for deletion twice in 2005 (here and here) before current notability criteria for websites were formulated. It never sucessfully passed Afd; both times, the result was No Consensus. I think that with our current notability guidelines it is clear this article won't pass. Alexa Traffic ranking is 1,063,977 and no statements that it is known outside the Magic subculture. Andrew Levine 19:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Andrew Levine 19:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, miserable Alexa rank.--Andeh 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as longtime contributor to article. No longer notable. Mr Bound 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: What's with the {{afdanons}}? Morgan Wick 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- A precautionary measure, which seems to eventually come into play every time a forum with a few hundred or more members is listed on AfD. If you think it is premature, you can remove it. Andrew Levine 09:38, 8 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 Round Lake, Illinois. I've merged the name of the mayor - the rest of the article, e.g. that he is the first mayor to have a blog, should only be merged if anyone manages to verify it with an independent source. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bill Gentes
Was listed as a speedy candidate, but being the first blogging mayor may just be a valid assertion of notability. theProject 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If you believe he should still be deleted, you could have {{prod}}ded the article. Morgan Wick 23:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- mergeto Round Lake, Illinois (population 5,842). WP:BIO Subject not sufficiently important in his own right by his office or by what he is doing (ie blogging). Ohconfucius 02:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- merge per Ohconfucius. JPD (talk) 11:45, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] German-English Dictionary
Wikipedia is not a dictionary GringoInChile 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 22:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. This probably could have passed WP:PROD. Morgan Wick23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. —dima /sb.tk/ 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- What criteria for speedy deletion would that be? Or are you citing WP:SNOW? Morgan Wick 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not a dictionary of course Shushruth 22:37, 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 Merged with John Paul II. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Death certificate of Pope John Paul II
Surely this doesn't need its own article. NawlinWiki 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and add the information his article, if it's not already there. --Wafulz 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with John Paul II, I don't know why it'd be separate. --Awiseman 20:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with John Paul II; this certainly does not need its own article, but it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge with John Paul II. I'm surprised it wasn't there already, actually. Morgan Wick 23:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- Merge Short enough to just be added, I think. Dev920 23:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per others. --Canley 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with John Paul II this info is suitable for the main articleDoctor Bruno 15:16, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Runescape Scoring
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
|
- Gamecruft, a scoring system. Never could be notable, never could be more than just a stub. I even struggle to see anything of this could be merged. J.J.Sagnella 21:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Article's purpose is to inform about Runescape's scoring system. It is notable.--Ed 20:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ed, we don't have to mention everything. For example in the Adolf Hitler article does it talk about his toenails? Wikipedia is not a discriminate list of information. J.J.Sagnella 21:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete; we have enough problems keeping the current set of subpages under control, without rogue pages like this cropping up. This deserves nothing more than a couple of sentences in the main article, certainly not a separate article. The worst bit is that it doesn't actually contain anything about the hiscores system, it just lists the ingame skills, which is duplicating RuneScape skills. For a while, it was a borderline attack page against a RuneScape player aswell. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant rogue subpage per Captain V. Hyenaste (tell) 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Compromise???Why don't we try to add a few sentences about Runescape's scoring system on RuneScape, then make this page the main article? That way, we could have the info on the RuneScape main page, and this article.--Ed 21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Everything that a reader will need to know about the scoring system can be expressed in two or three sentences in the main article, with a link to the official RuneScape.com page explaining how it works in detail. A separate article is completely unnecessary. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic game-guide info. We generally wouldn't have scoring guides for even the absolute most notable games (Pac Man, Super Mario Bros) and certainly not for Runescape! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per above.--Andeh 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can we at least talk about the compromise proposed above?--Ed 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete — unencyclopedic. — Deckiller 21:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete - Ed, if it's non-notable and unencyclopedic, adding a few sentences to a different article and linking to this one doesn't change anything. --PresN 21:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have decided to comply with the deletion policy. As creator of the page, I will be deleting it.--Ed 22:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you hate the article so much, why are you putting it back???--Ed 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because only an Administrator can delete an article! You are only blanking it, which is setting off User:Tawkerbot2. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. - useless subpage --Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fairly useless. It doens't really tell me anything useful abotut he scorign system and I suspect if it did, it would be a game guide. There's no way for this to provide any large amount of good info. It can't possibly cover anythign that couldn't just go on the main RuneScape article. Ace of Sevens 04:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ixfd64 03:27, 9 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anarcho-homosexualism
This term appears completely non-notable, with not even one google hit. The article is long, however. Perhaps I'm missing something? —Mets501 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Appears to be WP:BJAODN material. —freak(talk) 22:18, Aug. 7, 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The main editor Joeferret has a history of joke articles (see User talk:Joeferret#Eugene verkhovsky)
- Anarcho-homosexualism is an underground movement, so its not suprising that Google would miss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeferret (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 August 2006
- Delete - if it's far enough underground for Google to miss, can it ever be verifiable? BigHaz 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a single mention in Google. If it's as notable as the article professes it to be, I'd think that people would be talking about it somewhere. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
Changed to Keep. Oh wait, I actually did find something. Schumin Web 07:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)- Comment. Not me, but an imitator. I still support delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not Delete. Is it as far fetched as Anarcha-Feminism or Gynarchy? kodakfilm 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.239.17 (talk • contribs)
- Both of which have extensive Google results. This one comes up completely blank. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't Delete. Seems to me that some of this is legitamate. The publication and musician are real aparently. pokeyman 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.239.17 (talk • contribs)
- Striked as IP already voted above.--Andeh 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not Delete. A good search does in fact return 279 results.joeferret 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It should also be noted that the comments allegedly posted by "kodakfilm" and "pokeyman" were both actually elected president according to Wikipedia's records. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A movement that's been around for 30+ and gets no Google hits whatsoever? hmmm... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- It has 279 Google hits. Get it right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeferret (talk • contribs)
- Please also google Kathy Fire, if you need more proof. joeferret
- Grr you people are stubborn. In addition to the above, also check Myspace groups for Anarcho-homosexualism. Its all there.joeferret
- Comment Funny how there are three persons here not familiar with conventional AfD jargon delete/keep. Medico80 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The existance of someone who creates an album called "Songs of a Lesbian Anarchist" does not indicate the actual presence of a notable movement. HalJor 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that Kathy Fire's music was popular I think attests to the fact that the movement exists.joeferret
- Delete. Unless there are numerous reliable academic/print sources which define this term and attest to its frequent use, this is original thought. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Bucketsofg✐ 23:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't Delete As I'm sure anarcho-homosexuals will agree, just because an academic institution doesn't pay attention to you, and just because the mainstream media shuns you, doesn't mean that a particular movement doesn't exist. joeferret
- Striked, you already voted above.--Andeh 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - possibly created in response to the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anarcho-monarchism debate. Yomangani 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. G-hits: 0 with quotes, 279 without quotes, 0 de-hyphenated without quotes. Sadly, 279 is still not sufficient by most standards of the Google test. Worse, only 130 unique G-hits on that hyphenated, non-quotes search. The best word to describe it would be neologism. Morgan Wick 23:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Hence, "This term appears completely non-notable, with not even one google hit" would be completely wrong. Like I said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeferret (talk • contribs) .
-
- Comment Since the term doesn't actually appear anywhere on any of the pages brought up by that unquoted search, yes it is true that there is not even one google hit for this term. You can always prove me wrong by finding a single one of those 279 pages that actually has "anarcho-homosexualism" on it. Fan-1967 23:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- And, you're missing the point that your coveted "oh, there aren't ZERO G-hits" is not sufficient justification to keep the article. You are hanging by a thread, my friend. Morgan Wick 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not Delete The Anarcho-homosexualism is not only legitimate but is also a quickly growing movement. Much like the Log Cabin Republicans who advocate homosexuality in the conservative party, these anarcho-homosexuals advocate homosexuality as an important aspect in libertarian-style anarchy. Although sources are important, this is a relatively new grassroots movement and information on the issue is very scarce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.241.240 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 August 2006
Note: IP's first two edits. I suspect this may be a sock puppet. Morgan Wick 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- If information on the movement is very scarse, that is a perfect reason to delete this article. —Mets501 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The amount of sources containing this factual information does not take away from its validity. The reason for the scarcity of information is because people such as those wanting to remove this article always claim that sources must be based on information found in other sources in order to be true. Someone has to initially start the literature on the topic or else that argument will be used for every new topic. Let this article stay as is until new information either invalidates specific information or add additional information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.241.240 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is not the place to "start the literature on the topic". See Wikipedia:No original research. We do not keep articles because they may or may not turn out to be notable, in the spirit of not being a crystal ball. Morgan Wick 00:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I did not "start the literature on the topic". The guy who said that was just saying that even though there are few "reliable" sources on the internet (not sure how reliable any source is on the internet anyway), there are other sources, and more information that can be added by users that will demonstrate the credibility of this movement. Joeferret
- Yes yes i can. Here's one, another, another,another, and finally this. I hope this proves to the skeptics that this movement does in fact exist.joeferret
-
- ... and not one of those sources contains the word "anarcho-homosexualism". In fact, there is nothing to indicate that anyone but you has ever used the word. Fan-1967 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable verified evidence that this term/ideology exists (not only are all the sources provided above by joeferret unreliable in themselves (see WP:RS), none of them support the article's specific assertions about the purpose and history of this ideology or the claims that it exists as widely used in discourse). Also - remedial homework assignment for the article's really sloppy use of the word "postmodern", not to mention the ill-use of the words "veritable" and "synthesis". 2500 words on Queer Theory by Monday, please. Bwithh 02:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't like the use of "postmodern", then change it.joeferret
- Strong Delete 0 google hits, 0 dogpile hits, 0 alexia hits, and 0 newsgroup hits (I covered all the bases here) for "Anarcho-homosexualism". I can not find one credible news article, one credible website, or even one credible Blog that mentions this word. --Bschott 04:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I've never seen anyone identify as an "anarcho-homosexualist". I'm getting no google hits when "anarcho-homosexualism" is put in quotes. I'd say it's OR and a neologism as there does not seem to be any established movement with this name. The term "queer anarchism" does get some hits, which I expected since there is a queer-oriented trend within anarchism (similar in nature to anarcha-feminism). There is even a queer anarchist flag (like the anarcho-syndicalist one but with pink instead of red). I wouldn't be opposed to an article on queer anarchism, but even that would probably be mostly OR since most anarchists would inherently support queer liberation anyway and few anarchists have focused on queer issues specifically. Anyways, most anarchists who do focus on queer issues would use the term queer, not homosexual since homosexual isn't inclusive, which casts further doubt on this article's veracity. The Ungovernable Force 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- Seriously I think there could be a good article here, about lesbian and gay anarchists/anarchism. However, this article just seems too trolled to have any hope of turning into that.... And, people are right about the "google test" -- there are feminist anarchists, and there are gay/lesbian anarchists, but people commonly call feminist anarchism anarcha-feminism, whereas no one really seems to call homosexual anarchism, anarcho-homosexualism... it seems to be too much a rare/made up term to refer to a real phenomenon. In part, I think (as The Ungovernable Force has well put), lesbian/gay anarchism is (correct me if I'm wrong) most often not sufficiently distinctive in its thought or praxis to need to be described under a specific term, whereas for feminist anarchism there is more distinction of thought/praxis. Anyway, delete this, but hope that someone will one day write a better article, under a better title as well. --SJK 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. "Underground movements" that are so deep underground that they've received no attention at all do not belong on Wikipedia. The entire article is also unverifiable. Please publish this somewhere else to "start the literature" - I suggest free website domains such as Freeservers.com or Freewebs.com. Srose (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strange...If I go out and "start the literature" like you say, then the information would be verifiable for use on Wikipedia... so then why isn't it good enough now? The information won't change if I just move it somewhere else... Lets leave the damn article alone and if you people can disprove it, then you can delete it. Its like Popper's philosophy of science: nothing is verifiable anyway, so lets strive to disprove things. joeferret
-
- If you go out and "start the literature" that would make no difference. There must be multiple, verifiable, reliable sources. Right now there are zero, but if there were one or two, they wouldn't be sufficient. Fan-1967 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. joeferret
-
- Incorrect about what, that there must be multiple, verifiable, reliable sources, or that right now there are zero? Both are true, I'm afraid. (Also note that for something to be counted as a source it must include the title of the article – Anarcho-homosexualism) —Mets501 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- You're incorrect because nothing is truly verifiable anyway, Karl Popper demonstrated that. So, short of verifying my article, you guys, who seem to have a deep-seeded hatred for my work, should try to disprove it, instead of whining about sources. joeferret
-
- It isn't up to us to disprove anything. You've offered absolutely nothing to show that this concept even exists. There's nothing for us to challenge. Fan-1967 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think Fan-1967 is just a homophobe. Look the fascist american media has ignored this movement just like all anarchist movements and you guys are a part of it. Ownership of information is wrong. KodakFilm 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, anyone who wants to delete this article is a homophobic fascist. Impecable logic. Too bad it doesn't hold water. As a queer and an anarchist I can safely say this movement does not exist, at least not under this name. Don't make personal attacks. The Ungovernable Force 20:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note: Besides resorting to personal attacks, this vote represents Kodakfilm's only two edits. Morgan Wick 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes there is something for you to challenge: the points made in the article. The concept does exist, and I think I've shown with relative clarity that nothing can be proven, or "verified", with absolute certainty anyway. Also, I think the fact that the article exists lends credit to the existence of the movement itself. Why would I make it up? Finally, like I said before, please stop whining about this. I think you've all made your points, and I've made mine, and I won. So lets let bygones be bygones. joeferret
-
- A movement that consists of one guy and his socks is not worthy of an article. Fan-1967 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hey my socks have nothing to do with this. Leave the socks out of it, they're innocent. joeferret
- Listen Joe, it's no secret that you've been using sockpuppets to try and get your point across. Either it is all you, or you and your best friend or something. So far, every Wikipedian besides you has voted delete. You should stop making personal attacks, and frankly, if you cannot provide sources which use the word Anarcho-homosexualism, you should give up. —Mets501 (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oy vey. Those are the only two words to describe this. I never use friggin' "sockpuppets", and my friends have nothing to do with this. Simple as that. If some asshole happens to be vandalizing other comments or supporting me for some reason, then how is that my fault? Listen to my arguments, not his. Also, cocksjoeferret
-
- "Also, cocks"? Where did that come from? —Mets501 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Grr I think its that Kodakfilm guy. He should be blocked from Wikipedia. joeferret
-
- Comment The results of this AFD are clear, it may be unproductive to continue the discussion. -- Fan-1967 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- You mean, bring up WP:SNOW? Morgan Wick 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- (personal attack/vandalism removed) —Mets501 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- comment I think that Fan-1967 is correct. It may be time ask an Admin to close this AFD. Possibly cite Joe for vandalism, hoax/joke articles, sockpuppets and trying to abuse WP to make a point --Bschott 21:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Even if it isn't closed, just stop responding to him. No further comments are needed here. Fan-1967 21:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete One guy in 1873 wrote an essay about "Post-Capitalist Anti-Fascism" and handed out on a street corner. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- You guys don't know what your'e talking about. Funny how my "personal attack" was removed, but when you people slander me by saying I use sockpuppets, total silence. If Kodakfilm was my sockpuppet, WE WOULD HAVE THE SAME IP ADDRESS. WE DO NOT. STOP BEING IGNORANT. joeferret
- As can easily be found out, my IP address is 72.134.55.158, while Kodakfilm's IP address is 75.27.239.17. Hopefully this will stop the lazy slander that you people so blatantly participate in. joeferret
- So far, you've donwe nothing but hide behind a series of flimsy pretexts and strawberry arguments. You still haven't shown how this exists beyond your own mind, and the closest you've come to a legit argument is trashing the policy and not showing how it adheres to it.
And I now suspect Kodakfilm is either you on another computer, or your best friend, since you know his IP address.Striked out as Kodakfilm had earlier voted as an IP, thus giving it away. Morgan Wick 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- So far, you've donwe nothing but hide behind a series of flimsy pretexts and strawberry arguments. You still haven't shown how this exists beyond your own mind, and the closest you've come to a legit argument is trashing the policy and not showing how it adheres to it.
Incidentially, I just got this on my talk page:
-
- Please consider not responding any further. It somehow boosts his ego to respond. In other words, don't feed the troll. If no one responds to him, he has nothing to say. The results of the AFD are already inevitable, so nobody needs to say anything further. Fan-1967 04:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, I would like to ask that this be the last word on this subject (well, with the exception of Joeferret blathering to himself) until it comes time to close. Morgan Wick 04:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I won't say anything else to you hypocrits, except to make sure that its known that the user Bschott slandered me by accusing me of using so-called sockpuppets, when I clearly haven't. I guess the world just isn't ready for anarcho-homosexualism. Finally, I'd like to thank the few out there who supported my cause, and I'd like to say pokeyman, pokey is the guy who comes out of the thing..and he looks hhfffebbhbhehheb, the kids liisten tothe rap music, which gives them the brain damage, ya see, jazz is like jello pudding, no actually it's more like kodak film...actually jazz is like the new coke, it will be around forever heh heh heh. Koo koo katchoo! Abuckbuck. Here I go down the slopes hey there little fella you like to jump rope? I had an uncle named stewie and he used to sell bicycles whatchugot there? A BIG STINKY DOO DOO HEAD! In closing, also cocks. lol, internet. joeferret
- delete neologism, unsourced OR. HGB 17:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Grr stop making me say stuff. Neologism esta una retardando. Plz disregard his useless vote. Peace. joeferret
- keep I actually own a copy of that publication, The Gay Anarchist. I think the confusion here is the name of the movement. I've heard some people call it anarcho-homosexualism, but it's more of a new pc term used to describe the movement, Queer Anarchy is also used in addition to less common term "gaynarchy". Many don't refer to it as anarchy at all for PR reasons, but the movement does exist. There's a movement in San Francisco called "Gay Shame" which promotes what could be described as anarcho-homosexualism. Just my two cents Hosedeck 05:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep (for now) I think that joeferret and that other user KodakFilm are acting very childish. This is encyclopedia, not a game. That being said I feel sorry for them because I think this article acutually deserves some attention. I think the problem here is that the page needs more work put into it. There are many entries on wikipedia that could use the same attention, yet no one ever tries to delete them. Why not keep it up for now and have some more extensive research put into it? DownTheSlopes 06:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The facts are there ok...you don't need to go find out about it from the corporate media or the republican propaganda machine KodakFilm 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Shut up Kodak, you're hurting my cause. Just let these fine sensible people help me out without you ruining it. 72.134.55.158 07:16, 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.
(Note: the second nomination for deletion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydney_bus_routes_100-199_(2nd_nomination).)
