Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 28
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 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eric Taubert
Non-notable vanity biography (WP:VAIN, WP:BIO). Google searches indicate no accomplishments of note, except the usual blog and forum posts, etc. His stories are apparently unpublished, and the magazine he is editor of has yet to actually publish its first issue, according to its website. Sandstein 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been hasty: the article claims that his stories were published in what appear to be minor local publications and/or his own blog. Still falls way short of WP:BIO, though. Sandstein 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. Has numerous publications, but none of note. I would say a borderline case of notability, that may get notable sometime in future. But not now. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:41, 23 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, Mailer Diablo 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Solidly fails WP:BIO Bwithh 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity. I would like to point out that contrary to the advertisement at the bottom of the 1page, Wikiquote does not have a collection of quotations related to Eric Taubert. --Xrblsnggt 02:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as NN per WP:BIO. --Satori Son 02:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Clear vanity and advertising. I nowiki'd it, as I'm a little steamed at the free ride to Google stratospheres given this guy. Geogre 02:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 02:56, 28 July 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[edit] Ford Bell
Otherwise non-notable candidate for DFL nomination for US Senate from Minnesota. The party has already endorsed his opponent and his chances of getting the nomination in the primary are slim-to-none. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: A candidate at this point. He has no current elected office. He sounds like an interesting cat, but he hasn't achieved a place on the national stage yet. Geogre 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per geogre --130.216.191.84 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. See Wikipedia:Candidates and elections for proposed guidelines about candidates. If there is an article on this election itself, then the candidate's info should be merged there. "Articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." Scorpiondollprincess 15:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and as per Geogre. wikipediatrix 17:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom Bucketsofg✐ 23:40, 28 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] J/C Moments
Fancruft/trivia list related to Spongebob Squarepants. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's actually related to The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius. I'd say delete and summarize/merge the most salient comments into The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius, where there is already a list of trivia about the program. Fabricationary 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops! I think that's what I meant to say. That was a pretty stupid mistake, sorry. I probably typed that because of all the recent vandalism I've had to revert to articles about the erroneously listed television series. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Summarizing is optional, I suppose, but a stand-alone trivia article is inappropriately granular and unsearchable. Geogre 12:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Is there somewhere this can be transwikied to? It's a good article but it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. Delete. Haikupoet 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I was looking all over the place for list of the j/c moments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.104.171 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per Geogre. — NMChico24
02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC) - Delete Shipping and Fancruft have no reason to be listed in an encyclopedia. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is an encyclopedia, and as such, romantic pairings in telvision shows should not be included. This article would be best summarised in the Jimmy Neutron telvision show article. --DannyDaWriter 05:28, 1 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 OVERRULED- er...I mean DELETED. Despite the army of sock/meatpuppets, the consensus among established users is pretty much unanimous that this shouldn't be a standalone page. With no evidence that this is a noteworthy meme, the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney page won't benefit from a merge, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Objection!
 |
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}} |
An internet meme, and one that doesn't seem particularily notable by any indicator except for the number of "Objections" that the site says have been created. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 22:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with it's listing there, since it's not really about a computer game any more than All your base is. Darksun 13:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- (The participants of this AfD are suggested to listen to the music appropriate to the occassion. Let the wikilawyering commence! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Under the reasoning that Alexa.com's ranking shows high levels of visitors. And sorry if I responded wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.157.218 (talk • contribs)
-
- Comment Given that it has a weekly average of 8,675, which is quite high. We also have to consider that the alexa bias would weigh against this site since the majority of it's users are gee^H^H^Hmore technically minded, meaning they're less likely to have alexa installed, if we believe the sites figures for a moment, 59% of users don't use IE. Darksun 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment, not only is 8,600 not particularily high, but it is clear that it has not held this average for a very long period of time. It could be a passing fad. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- The site has only existed at this address for a couple of weeks, so to look at any other average would be misleading, plus, take into account what I said about a high alexa bias in this case. If it was more representative of true web use, it'd probably be around 4,000, or maybe even higher. Darksun 11:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Move to Objection! (Phoenix Wright). -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, it would still be the same article, with the same reasoning applying. The name isn't really an issue. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If we had a WP:WHOCARES, I think it'd probably apply to this one. This is of zero encyclopaedic value and cannot be documented to pass WP:MEME or WP:WEB, whichever you prefer. GassyGuy 05:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Phoenix Wright and redirect. Penelope D 05:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or Move (as per Chris). I don't agree with Merge on the grounds that this page is not an official Phoenix Wright page, nor is not a feature or easter egg of the game. The page, as it stands as of this moment, is factually correct. The defense cedes that the notability of Objection! cannot be proved by conventional means. However, I propose, based on the fact that this article is well written and accurate, that the prosecution take it upon themselves to attempt to prove this article is not notable. My analysis of the article is, of course, subjective. I naturally invite you to contradict, or support my claim. Although, it might be more productive for Wikipedia if, instead of pointing out factual inaccuracies in this article, you instead take it upon yourself to investigate and rewrite parts which are not to your satisfaction. MrD 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, that's as bad as asking me to prove that Intelligent Design doesn't exist. As I have no access to statistics or anything reliable on the page, its notability is essentially non-falsifiable. That is, I can't prove that it's false. Therefore the burden responsibility should fall upon yourself to prove that it is notable. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I believe we've come to the crux of the matter, which is this: I believe that this article should never have been VfD'd. If you check the history, it was nominated originally for deletion only eight minutes after it was first made. I believe that such an article should at not be outed almost instantly just because it is classed as an 'internet phenomenon', but given 'stub' status until such time as it's notability can be determined without any doubt one way or the other. Is there any Wikipedia statistics that can be used to determine the popularity of the article? Ignoring the website for the time being: until statistics which are considered to be Wiki-kosher are gleaned (refer to my comments about asking the author for any more real stats), this is the only real data that can be analysed in any form. The only other fact around which we can base any real argument is that Objection! exists. Obvious, yes, but I believe that this alone may be the reason why it's been added to Wikipedia: Somebody figured that Objection! was popular enough to write about. Others, including myself, found it useful enough to refer to, and worthy enough to add to. It's a good article as it stands, and it should remain because of this. Basically, it's popularity is shown by its presence on Wikipedia. MrD 10:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's far more productive to AfD the article right away - if the subject fails to get popular, it means there's less wasted effort, if the subject becomes a sneaky hit, it's a matter of DRVing the thing and restoring the history (if needed). If, on the other hand, the (early) AfD finds the material keepable, that strengthens the article's reason of existence and is less likely to get AfD'd later, as you can refer to the earlier decision. Also remember, we don't make articles about stuff that's about to become popular, we're making articles about stuff that is popular. You can only start an "about to become popular" article if a country goes to war with another (apologies for using a current-events example) or something of that magnitude happens. Plus, we're absolutely not shy of deleting articles that are "popular" by Wikipedia standards (ie, have a ton of revisions) - the notability of the subject is all that matters. If Wikipedia article popularity mattered, we'd create articles about the articles. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Now I know you're yankin' my chain: Birkenhead is popular with nobody! :P MrD 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- But the notability of even the smallest of towns is established, they get sometimes AfDd, and pretty much always kept if the town actually exists... And besides, as you can see, you can write a lot more about Birkenhead than this thing. With multiple printed sources. How about deleting a whole frigging continent with no permanent population at all, can't be a very interesting place by that fact alone, now can it? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hehehe @ MrD! I guess you might have to live in Birkenhead yourself to get that. 80.47.227.228 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Now I know you're yankin' my chain: Birkenhead is popular with nobody! :P MrD 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's far more productive to AfD the article right away - if the subject fails to get popular, it means there's less wasted effort, if the subject becomes a sneaky hit, it's a matter of DRVing the thing and restoring the history (if needed). If, on the other hand, the (early) AfD finds the material keepable, that strengthens the article's reason of existence and is less likely to get AfD'd later, as you can refer to the earlier decision. Also remember, we don't make articles about stuff that's about to become popular, we're making articles about stuff that is popular. You can only start an "about to become popular" article if a country goes to war with another (apologies for using a current-events example) or something of that magnitude happens. Plus, we're absolutely not shy of deleting articles that are "popular" by Wikipedia standards (ie, have a ton of revisions) - the notability of the subject is all that matters. If Wikipedia article popularity mattered, we'd create articles about the articles. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I believe we've come to the crux of the matter, which is this: I believe that this article should never have been VfD'd. If you check the history, it was nominated originally for deletion only eight minutes after it was first made. I believe that such an article should at not be outed almost instantly just because it is classed as an 'internet phenomenon', but given 'stub' status until such time as it's notability can be determined without any doubt one way or the other. Is there any Wikipedia statistics that can be used to determine the popularity of the article? Ignoring the website for the time being: until statistics which are considered to be Wiki-kosher are gleaned (refer to my comments about asking the author for any more real stats), this is the only real data that can be analysed in any form. The only other fact around which we can base any real argument is that Objection! exists. Obvious, yes, but I believe that this alone may be the reason why it's been added to Wikipedia: Somebody figured that Objection! was popular enough to write about. Others, including myself, found it useful enough to refer to, and worthy enough to add to. It's a good article as it stands, and it should remain because of this. Basically, it's popularity is shown by its presence on Wikipedia. MrD 10:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, that's as bad as asking me to prove that Intelligent Design doesn't exist. As I have no access to statistics or anything reliable on the page, its notability is essentially non-falsifiable. That is, I can't prove that it's false. Therefore the burden responsibility should fall upon yourself to prove that it is notable. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge And Redirect - A merge would be justified and easy to incorporate into the main Phoenix Wright article; We can easily have a section for memes that it has spawned. Additionally, while I need to look into it more, the episode of XPlay which covered this written version of the review apparently mentioned the meme. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a popular site, it's got an extraordinary number of hits in a small time. Darksun 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Got a reliable source for that claim? wikipediatrix 17:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- In the Objection! FAQ, the maker of the site tells you how many total objections have been made, along with how much bandwidth he uses, currently 224.341 GB. However, disappointingly, it does not name the number of hits. But I think we can substantiate that it is an incredibly popular site. --NomaderTalk 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you should check that seven figure number below the number of "objections": The number of "objection" views. Currently, it's 2580201. MrD 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- And what evidence do you have that it didn't start at 2580000? The site might be that popular, but we can't just take it's owner's word for it. — Haeleth Talk 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you'd like to, just start with the first objection, changing the last number in the URL I just gave you from n=1 to n=2 and so on. Work your way up to number 462,401 if you have the time. --NomaderTalk 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I actually e-mailed the author for any information he might know of that isn't on his site and can prove that it's as popular as he claims it is. He gave me this, which is the site that's hosting it official log record, and this, a screenshot of some menu he has. Nothing that will keep this article alive. I hate to say it, but it's a goner. --NomaderTalk 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you'd like to, just start with the first objection, changing the last number in the URL I just gave you from n=1 to n=2 and so on. Work your way up to number 462,401 if you have the time. --NomaderTalk 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- And what evidence do you have that it didn't start at 2580000? The site might be that popular, but we can't just take it's owner's word for it. — Haeleth Talk 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you should check that seven figure number below the number of "objections": The number of "objection" views. Currently, it's 2580201. MrD 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- In the Objection! FAQ, the maker of the site tells you how many total objections have been made, along with how much bandwidth he uses, currently 224.341 GB. However, disappointingly, it does not name the number of hits. But I think we can substantiate that it is an incredibly popular site. --NomaderTalk 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Got a reliable source for that claim? wikipediatrix 17:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I am the original creator of this article - I believe that this internet meme is popular enough to merit its own article. Considering that things such as Limecat and Bunchies are fine Wikipedia articles, I have no reason to believe that this article is not fit for Wikipedia. --NomaderTalk 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: I think I'm becoming quite a wishy-washy voter here... this site is popular enough in my opinion to merit its own article. Not only that, but since its original creation, the article quality has increased tri-fold. And, from the information provided to me by the maker of the site (it's somewhere in this mess), I approve of the article I started. --NomaderTalk 05:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Delete. Normally, I'm not one to change votes, especially on an article that I created myself in the beggining. However, I now regret what I have written in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. The Generator is fun, but it doesn't merit any article. It lacks any outside sources or references of popularity, and somehow managed to get thousands of hits because it let you type something. If this article were allowed to pass, so would all of these. And although Generators are fun, they aren't meant for Wikipedia. --NomaderTalk 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete per nominator Schicksal 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (and the fact that I don't care). --Rehcsif 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, minor internet meme with unverifiable claims of notability. Note that we cannot take the site's own word for the number of views it has received or the amount of bandwidth it uses! It is not a reliable source. — Haeleth Talk 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- You can verify that the number of Objections is accurate, just create an objection, look at the number, then try any number smaller than that. Consider also that there are 11,200 links to objections listed on Google, a high number considering the site has only existed for a couple of weeks. [23] Darksun 21:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment, that's not unusual on the internet. Other memes with more hits have been deleted, though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- You can verify that the number of Objections is accurate, just create an objection, look at the number, then try any number smaller than that. Consider also that there are 11,200 links to objections listed on Google, a high number considering the site has only existed for a couple of weeks. [23] Darksun 21:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Ok, the hits counter thing is ridiculous! That comment where we can trust hit counters, that's just like saying all text-based hit counters shouldn't be trusted. If it did start at whatever ridiculous number you said, then I'd like to see someone go try rigging a counter to start at 240000000. The counter is put there as a source of facts, not a popularity contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.204.85 (talk • contribs)
- Delete as per User:GassyGuy. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 22:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable website, diiiiiiie Luigi30 (Taλk) 23:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this is only a minor meme. Also fails website notability guidelines. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep* If people view the sie site or want to know about it we must keep the article, or else wikipedia will be a horribly incomplete source of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.245.16 (talk • contribs)
-
- Comment Wikipedia is a source of knowledge, not the source of knowledge, and trying to fill it to replace all other resources would be counterproductive. This is why there are such rules as WP:V and the likes. GassyGuy 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please, oh please, tell me that the above 'keep' comment was tongue-in-cheek. --Rehcsif 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Merge (somewhere) or delete. Keep is not an option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
- Delete. Why is the Objection generator any more notable than any other of the vast number of generators plaguing the internet? Because the site's author says it gets two million hits? Yeah, well I say my website containing the word "parakeet" exactly 243 times gets two million hits, so let's give it an article! You have two choices, either find a reliable source that indicates notability, or admit that this article should be deleted. Which is it? --68.52.65.122 03:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Y'all seem to doubt the verifiability of the hit counter on the FAQ page. Has anybody actually contacted the author for any kind of confirmation? MrD 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, it's not a hit counter, it's an "Objections!" counter. I really wouldn't think of it as a problem though, it's the most pointless of things to fake. Many people may do multiple Objections, so it doesn't necessarily speak directly to popularity. Besides that, see what I said way up about the Alexa info. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just a nit-pick, there's a hit ("objection" views, rather than "objection" creations) counter below the "objection"s counter. MrD 08:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Okay, then I'm blind. Unique hits, anyone? Or non-page-specific hits? (Besides that, still doesn't do much for the web guidelines.) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just a nit-pick, there's a hit ("objection" views, rather than "objection" creations) counter below the "objection"s counter. MrD 08:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bah, hit counters. Get us media citations. Those rarely spin. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, it's not a hit counter, it's an "Objections!" counter. I really wouldn't think of it as a problem though, it's the most pointless of things to fake. Many people may do multiple Objections, so it doesn't necessarily speak directly to popularity. Besides that, see what I said way up about the Alexa info. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Y'all seem to doubt the verifiability of the hit counter on the FAQ page. Has anybody actually contacted the author for any kind of confirmation? MrD 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. (Insert here my best Manfred von Karma impression... which usually fails spectacularly. =) Absolutely no proof that this thing is really all that famous. Funny, though, but not really much more than a minor meme. And as stated so many times before: Yes, Wikipedia is an incomplete source of information - because there's too much to know in our world, we need to stick to stuff that matters and is encyclopedic. We don't need to cover really marginal stuff, and that wouldn't be desirable even... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Article was nominated within minuites of being created. All wikipeida artcles start out as stubs, and if we AFD that quick, we wouldn't have over a million. This is a MEME; it is just a young one, and I would expect it to grow very quickly. If this meme isn't majorly popular within a month or two, then AFD it, not 9 mins after article creation. NeoThermic 16:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: For whatever it's worth, I wouldn't mind seeing an external link on Phoenix Wright article ("... an "Objection!" generator that became a minorly popular Internet meme", or something along those lines). What I really object to is the fact that we'd need a whole article for this. I'm really, really not opposed to having it somewhere. It's just that the extent of the meme's popularity should dictate how greatly it should be covered in Wikipedia. Right now, right here, this thing isn't popular enough to warrant a whole article. It's barely worth the external link.--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- http://objection.4camp.net/go.php?n=505055 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.76.3.62 (talk • contribs) .
- http://objection.4camp.net/go.php?n=508784 Two people can play this game, and I'll be wiser to quit now. =) Seriously, though, using the image generators in deletion debates is not entirely constructive... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Phoenix Wright series. It's a notable meme, enough to get mentioned on a page, but not mentioned as a page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a young meme, but it's had quite a number of visitors. 69.81.201.94 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's a growing and incresingly popular meme. If anything move it into the Pheonix Wright article, but I think it's strong enough to be it's own article. SSJTOM 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or Move as per Chris. While the meme is fairly popular, one can only assume from the number it will increase in popularity. At the very least, it should be merged, not deleted. Diametes T. Jackson 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a popular site worth mentioning. There are hundreds of Wikipedia pages like this one. It's not fair to delete this page, and leave the rest of them there.--Sima Yi 00:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment by all means, please brings these pages to attention with {{prod}} or WP:AFD them. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wouldn't that be Disrupting Wikipedia? Darksun 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or Move as per Chris. Seems like it has a strong enough following to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. - DrachenFyre > YOU! 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or Move as per Chris. 154.20.251.253 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- 'Keep, or Merge into Phoenix Wright series. Growing fast enough to get some sort of nod. --68.9.152.140 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As stupid as hell as these things have proven to be, it should be kept as it is quite a huge phenomenon on the internet and it probably isn't going to die down. A Clown in the Dark 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment everyone here is calling it a "huge" meme. Where the devil is the evidence of this? I would suspect that people are coming here from somewhere else, ie. GameFAQs, though that site's forums are too odd for me to find this out. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I recieved an e-mail from the creator of Objection! regarding Moeron's comment. I had previously e-mailed him for information about the information listed on his site, so he just sent me an e-mail asking for me to post this up for him. Apologies for taking up so much room, but he deserves to be heard out. I also recieved this page, which shows the site's current bandwidth usage for Objection!. It was provided to me at an earlier time, and I posted it - yet, most seemed to ignore it. I do have a screenshot and a few other sites, but I think that's all you need.
I linked to Objection on Wikipedia because I like Wikipedia, and I think that it's become a useful reference for information such as this. That's all," he said.
"To tell you the truth, my host was absolutely livid about Objection. They thought it would be something that would pass in a day or two... when they saw the bandwidth per day, they just cut me like -that-. It was stretching it to convince them to change the message from 'This site has used too much bandwidth and is temporarily offline' (or something like that) to that single spartan HTML page. I wasn't at my home computer at the time of the cut, so I didn't have the Objection source stuff handy. I couldn't FTP the FAQ out of the website, they wouldn't let me. I had to contact the host directly to get them to upload that page instead of the standard bandwidth error. Wikipedia was the only site I could link to that had the correct information so they could find out what all these weird numbered links they were seeing on forums were."
"Anyway, Objection!'ll be back before you know it, and Wikipedia can be back to it's ordinary self again. Wouldn't that be a relief, eh? :D" --NomaderTalk 01:52, July 31, 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I found this page on my own, and I must say I'm very suprized this would ever be considered for deletion. I myself have seen about 100 different objections used on a forum I visit. They're quite fun. FreeLance FoX 03:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I have seen so many of these used in several forums I go to. Several internet memes derived from videogames HAVE recieved their own Wikipedia page, not a category of the game itself. All Your Base Are Belong To Us doesn't direct to Zero Wing, does it? And, if the site does start to stop being used a bit, we can always delete the page later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.166.5 (talk • contribs)
- Keep, interesting Meme, nice example how a game celebrating a feature of the DS (you can actually shout Objection at your console), will spark memes like this and ofcourse on the PW page their should be a linky in the trivia section to this Romanista 07:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, i find the talk of whether this meme is 'popular' enough to be somewhat bizzare - how to you qualify that anyway? hit counters only show half the story - it all depends on whether the visitors wanted to go there/knew where they were going in the first place, for a start. memes are a social phenomenon, and as such, i have seen this one on a number of different forums i frequent, and just as much as, say 'All Your Base', so I would say it is valid.--Gecks 09:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It must meet some sort of verifiability as well as some criteria for notablility; in this case, WP:WEB. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All that is required is a footnote on the page for Phoenix Wright. Objection! is amusing, but entirely ephemeral, and has become 'popular' only because the game is. PatrickJLByrne 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Phoenix Wright. This is a non notable internet fad, but it would do well to redirect to the game -- Steel 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MrD --Morlark 11:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing about this is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedian06 05:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Phoenix Wright You have no proof it was me. 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The Objection generator is already mentioned in the external links of the article about Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorny, it warrants nothing further. 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As not notable for an article --Pichu0102 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Because Wikipedia is not an organisation that determines whether sites or notable or not based on thier liking of them or personal opinions on the matter. It's a resource, even a passing fad is something to be noted and remembered. If you can't see the logic behind keeping it, at least include the link in the Pheonix Wright entry. --Seraphna 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, WP:WEB. Bzzzzzt. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Articles still need to meet some sort of verifiability as well as some criteria for notablility; in this case, WP:WEB. Granted, possibly in the future the site may meet WP:WEB, but it doesn't right now. And if there are any other articles on here similiar PLEASE point them out to us. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We Wont Run Out Of Room Owwmykneecap 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not the concern. It's WP:NOT and that the Wikipedia strives to be (mostly) encyclopedic. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base This is how internet phenomena go - To delete this is to delete what made Wikipedia, the input of the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.249.13 (talk • contribs)
- Comment The thing is that both of those articles have reliable sourcing in non-trivial publications, as per criteria. This article (at this present time) has yet to reach other media then a small community. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Explain what "small community" you are referring to. Listed on the Objection! wiki, it claims 3 rather LARGE "communities" are involved with the use and knowledge of Objection!. Various friends I know online and offline, who aren't involved or aware of those 3 communities know of Objection! and have directed my attention to it. A rather large portion of people who browse the internet on a daily basis know of this, in such a short time. Also, various people have been stating that it gets a high voltage of traffic, and the proof is in it's stats. Each "Objection!" page is rather small in filesize, for a site that hosts it's main content as a small, singlefile page, sure is using a large amount of bandwidth and gets a large amount of hits. IceSage 04:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "small community" meaning it has yet to be mentioned in a non-trivial, reliable source ala All Your Base and Leeroy Jenkins. Wikipedia is about verifiabiliy, not truth. We can not go on your saying the page is popular, since that is original research. We also can not add content to a Wikipedia article going on what the webmaster reports to users here, since information added needs to that have already been published by reputable publishers (WP:V). -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not to get off-topic, but I'm a bit confused as to an actual example of a reliable source is, and yes, I read the guidelines... However, where are the reliable sources in the Leeroy Jenkins article? (Please don't reply with "Jeopardy.") Provide an accurate example of a reliable source and I can make the appropriate arrangments to get these sources notified into printing an article, etc.
- Comment "small community" meaning it has yet to be mentioned in a non-trivial, reliable source ala All Your Base and Leeroy Jenkins. Wikipedia is about verifiabiliy, not truth. We can not go on your saying the page is popular, since that is original research. We also can not add content to a Wikipedia article going on what the webmaster reports to users here, since information added needs to that have already been published by reputable publishers (WP:V). -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Why? Very simple. It's an amusing internet phenomenon that is developing the kind of fanbase that makes Snakes On A Plane already a smash hit before even coming out in theaters. It's the kind of driving force that has a life of its own because it was so simple, yet so clever. A device that generates comments in a court scene for fun and games? Sure, why not? People have adored more for less. It's the simple things in life that get to you. I don't think you should bother blotting out "Objection!", though I will say that it's good to see it gets a fair trial. And if anyone has any...objections...well, so be it. Personally, I like it. Let's keep it around for our simple enjoyment. 204.215.207.106 02:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)The Lord Massacre
- Keep Seems to be reasonably popular, I have seen it linked from several (unrelated) websites in the last few days. And the article can be deleted later if the fad dies, there is no need to rush it. Alsaan 07:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep because this is just another example of deletionist fuckheads trying to ruin the Wikipedia project.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.233.87 (talk • contribs)
- Yeah, I mean, it couldn't be that people think that it's not notable enough. So are you going to vote keep for every article, including a random person who lacks any notability? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Simple enough. I saw 'Objection!' being repeatedly linked to on a forum, I was curious, I looked it up on Wikipedia and the article told me exactly what I wanted to know. That is, after all, why I use this site. Regardless of whatever standards of 'notability' are considered necessary for an internet meme to warrant a serious encyclopedia article (laugh), I found the article useful, so I say let it stand. S. Mitchell 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. That argument could be made for any article, whether it be for my friend down the street Isaac Sletto or the Iceberg level from Kirby's Dream Land 3. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I like Wikipedia primarily because of its indiscriminate nature. To me, the fact that it archives information even on minor things that only a handful of people would want to look up is what seperates it from other encyclopedias. I'm aware that any point I could make has probably been hammered into the ground already, but you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that an article containing information I found personally useful is not noteworthy enough to exist. 59.167.180.72 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but there are more people who will turn to Wikipedia for information about this popular site than for information about your friend, and the information about the Iceberg level can be placed into the main Kirby's Dream Land 3 article. Granted, you could argue that this information be merged into the main Phoenix Wright article, but I disagree with that merger on the grounds that it's not an official Phoenix Wright spinoff or advertisement. However, I'd rather see the article merged than all information about it deleted from Wikipedia. Darksun 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- So because it's more popular than some random person, it deserves its own article? There are probably hundreds of thousands of pages that are more well-known than Objection!, and few of them have articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. That argument could be made for any article, whether it be for my friend down the street Isaac Sletto or the Iceberg level from Kirby's Dream Land 3. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This site is used on many forums for humorous purposes. It would be a moot point to try and use all of these forums as references.24.17.69.236 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- If you find that that's a problem, get to writing! MrD 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Keep, since memes have had their own pages in Wikipedia quite a number of times. 72.231.145.5 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's popular... it gets alot of visitors. It's a valid thing to have an article on, and keeping the article will not harm Wikipedia in any way, and will probably have more of a positive effect than a negative one. --71.194.67.119 07:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Furthermore, wikipedia should not be used as a tool to promote non-notable websites. Combination 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge although not worthy of its own article just yet, it’s getting a large amount of hits and should therefore get a mention in the Phoenix Wright article.
or, to put it another way http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=555850 --El cid the hero 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge It's a popular fansite that is used a lot, but I don't think it's so complicated that it deserves it own article.
- kep noo noooo what ru doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! keep thies articale is very important. on forums i go there many people yea check out this this is objection and is very funny hahaha makes me laugh all the timea nd those links prove alrady its notable. sso yeah..... keeeeep!!!!!!!!!!! Gyakugene 02:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Gyakugene (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep Seems to be popular enough to be notable. DanPMK 11:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Very notable, seems to be quite literaly blitzing many large forums. AthlonBoy 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge It's literally blitzing? Literally? Wow, as impressive and physically impossible as that is, I think the site should probably just get mention in the Phoenix Wright article for now...
- Delete - In no way does this in any way meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and verifiability. Much content of the article as it stands is original research as well. At most, this gets a mention in the main article. Wickethewok 15:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- KeepIt is notable enough to keep,it's been in knowledge on runescape community which has 74,000 members. This is why I don't like wikipedia, it's full of ignorant fools who don't know anything but regulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.32.83 (talk • contribs)
- Keep or merge Yes it's a bit of a silly phenomenon, but it's notable enough to keep around one way or another. EASports 20:48, 3 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. Rje 00:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Undie Run
|
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}} |
Entirely NN college tradition clearly fails all inclusion standards I can think of. If anything, this deserves a 1 sentence mention in UCLA. αChimp laudare 04:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete' as per nom. Hahaha. --Merovingian - Talk 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Some other college students, at least, take all their clothes off before running around campus :). Fabricationary 04:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Merge mention of it at UCLA
or circle jerk. It does seem notable enough to mention there. ref Medtopic 06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC) - Delete or merge Unencyclopedic tone, but has some limited notability. There's nothing here to suggest it merits a page, though. Ace of Sevens 06:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Merge (one or two sentences) with the UCLA article. ViridaeTalk 09:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's Legit When over 25% of the student body at a University jumps on a tradition like this so quickly, the history books need to record it.
- Here are some recent articles: Article 1Article 2 Wikipedia has allowed the Texas A&M Midnight Yell, so precedent has been set: Midnight Yell--Jasonmoreno 16:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to panty raid: I'm glad that it's a co-ed phenomenon and all that, and hooray for gender equality, but this is a local phenomenon at only one U. On the other hand, this is a probable euphemism and mistyping for the panty raid. Geogre 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The "history books" (even a history of ULCA) will most likely not record this phenomenon. Regardless, it's not notable enough to need a whole article here. Merge with UCLA if you must. Geoffrey Spear 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, but only because the included pictures feature no female coeds, dammit. (Yes, that's sarcasm. Delete.) VoiceOfReason 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable and unverifiable phenomenon. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It or Merge, The Naked Guys deserve to be recognized as the genesis of the current UCLA tradition. At the very least, they should be included with the Undie Run information. Bruinbowler 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- This comment is the user's first edit. --Merovingian - Talk 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Verifiable but wholly unnotable student hijinks. -- GWO
- 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clip Smith
Appears to be a local celebrity of little renown outside of his broadcast area. ghits: [34] — NMChico24 04:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He is very notable in the Buffalo area as a fixture on several stations and as the play by play announcer for reasonably large college program. Also, not many people had a tribute to them entered into congressional record. Agne 05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-notable person. Erechtheus 05:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Sorry, was notable in Buffalo is not notable enough for Wikipedia. And yes, many people get tributes -- you basically just ask your congressman and he'll do it. All it is is the text of a glowing speech that some intern delivers to the Clerk of Congress. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Article was created on 7/27 to clear request at WP:AR1, so perhaps it would be best to allow some time for the article to gain traction.--Thanatosil 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- After a bit of additional research, based on the length of time he was on-air and his local political activities, Clip does appear to be somewhat notable. Not saying this has "perfect article" written all over it, but apparently quite a few people know of him. --Thanatosil 00:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Article has verifiable sources. Subject gets a handful of indpedendent Ghits. Article was only created a short time ago. Not a major notable figure, but I think it squeaks by and has some potential to "gain traction" as mentioned above. Scorpiondollprincess 14:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The article can always be recreated when and if he ever "gains traction". wikipediatrix 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt Clip himself will "gain traction", as he is dead, but my point was that prodding an article fulfilling a WP:AR1 less than 10 minutes after its creation seemed excessive, not allowing the WP community time to augment the stub. --Thanatosil 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem very friendly, and I'd frown upon that practice. At the same time, Smith's book is written as you point out. Is there something that would establish his notability missing from the article? If so, there is time to add information to satisfy notability. Erechtheus 19:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I guess we'll see...I just created the stub by doing a bit of Googling in order to satisfy the request for an article. I'm from Chicago, so I hadn't heard of Clip previously, but if he's notable outside of Buffalo, hopefully someone will provide the info. :) --Thanatosil 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem very friendly, and I'd frown upon that practice. At the same time, Smith's book is written as you point out. Is there something that would establish his notability missing from the article? If so, there is time to add information to satisfy notability. Erechtheus 19:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt Clip himself will "gain traction", as he is dead, but my point was that prodding an article fulfilling a WP:AR1 less than 10 minutes after its creation seemed excessive, not allowing the WP community time to augment the stub. --Thanatosil 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete: For an insider's guide to broadcasting, this is probably good, but I'm not sure that those outside of that community and outside of the broadcast range will have encountered the name or that the personality created much of an effect beyond the local area. Geogre 21:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Local media figures are perfectly encyclopedic. - SimonP 12:52, 29 July 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 13:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dirty burglars
Possible hoax. Nothing in google regarding this band. Extremely dubious claim of notability (such hits as Stalker, Your Worst Best Mate and Happy Friday Went triple platinum over night! Were huge hits world wide!) — NMChico24 05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no sources to back up notability in WP:MUSIC. Fabricationary 05:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - one editor, no other edits, likely vanity. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per CSD A7 No verifiable assertion of notability. Jesse Viviano 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)- Strong delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Found out that even a ridiculous assertion of notability is enough to dodge CSD A7. However, it is a hoax and is so bad grammatically I am tempted to tag this as patent nonsense, even though I know it is not patent nonsense. Jesse Viviano 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Yeah, one of the problems with A7 is that "In 2008 he conquered Asia" can duck it. Were I to have seen it on cat:csd, though, it might still have experienced an unfortunate accident in the night. Delete as buddycruft and a hoax. Geogre 21:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wow. Dirty burglars. It's so important!--Planetary 08:38, 1 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.
Please vote now, I have put hangon in the page and I want a revote. The one topic I know a lot aobut, and it gets deleted in first few minutes. Absolutely fantastic welcome. --MasterEagle 07:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I've reduced your header to avoid the AfD page format from going wrong.--Andeh 07:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review, as the page has been deleted. -- Koffieyahoo 07:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Just counting votes, consensus is iffy here. The deletes put up a more cogent argument: this fails WP:WEB. Why is that important? Because this game apparently isn't notable enough to have even a single independent non-trivial reliable source to cite regarding it. With no reliable sources, this article, if it is to be neutral, is at best an unexpandable stub. Which, if you eliminate the unsourced puffery in the "Customizability" section, is pretty much its state right now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GraalOnline
|
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}} |
Does not conform with these guidelines, as well as these. Members of both sides seem to agree that because no resolution can be found, this should be deleted. Administrators also agree, and there is a growing concensus for this to occur on the article's talk page.
- Comment as Nominator: The reason that I nominated this, as well as the above reasons, was that I believe that this article is unfixable. Because of GraalOnline's staunch opposition (harrsasing phone calls to Wikimedia Corp, which Brad Patrick described to me as: "That's how [this issue] was brought to my attention, that and the harassing phone calls from the crazy Frenchman.") to anything added which doesn't have a positive connotation and serve as an advertisment, there will never be a NPOV on this page, unless GraalOnline corporation members are prevented from removing material. I would accept this resolution (GO staff being banned from removing material) as an alternate to deleting it, but if that isn't possible, delete it will be. Killfest2—Daniel 07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment We now see where all this is coming from "a crazy Frenchman" (strange from an Australian and some American guys), that's the real problem not the article. About your statement about Graalonline removing material, we have removed the unsourced criticism content in conformity with wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Who are you to judge me and my corporation? Are you above of all wikipedia rules to be able to decide what article should be deleted or not and who should be able to edit the article or not? We have given URL of articles speaking about graalonline and lot of people think that the article should not be deleted pointing to wikipedia rules. Graal unixmad 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Chill out. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: None of the critisism was sourced in this article, and when it was sourced, it was from a source which the wiki does not allow. I hope that you are not suggesting that this article go against wiki rules? What is wrong with fixing the article, and not adding things that people cannot source until they can per wiki guidelines?--Moon Goddess 12:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was referred to this page by Danny as a likely reason for this page being deleted:
- "If the rules are unhelpful, ignore them and do your best to improve or maintain Wikipedia's quality."
- So if i understand, if the wikipedia rules don't allow you to delete an article about a game you have never played, then just break wikipedia written rules and destroy it for improving Wikipedia's quality. This remind me something... Perhaps a country declaring war to another for improving the world even if it's against all rules made by ONU. Graal unixmad 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to ignore that last statement as nothing more than a distracting red herring. While I do believe there are enough reviews of graal floating around on the web to base an article off of, your edits are obviously acting in bad faith. You claim that negative comments are deleted by your corporation because of being unreferenced (which is correct in general, although bad form in a long standing dispute without discussion) - HOWEVER, take this statement currently on the page. "Perhaps Graal's greatest strength is its customizability. An intuitive editor allows even the most technically-inept players to build levels of their own, complete with custom graphics and interactive NPCs. The latter are developed using a simple - yet surprisingly powerful - language named GScript, the syntax of which was loosely inspired by Java and which lately has adapted some semantics of the scripting language of the Torque Game Engine. The target audience of the game has not yet used these features to their fullest extent. [citation needed]". That entire paragraph, consisting of weasel words such as "greatest strength", "intuitive editor", and "simple-yet surprisingly powerful", was made without a single reference, independent or otherwise, to back it up. You're acting like an interest group lobbying for your article, obeying the rules only when it suits your position. That is blatantly abusing Wikipedia policy. JoshWook 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The GraalOnline team have not written the wikipedia Graalonline article (and the part you are talking about), the article has been written by someone called Loriel, this graalonline player is the creator of 'http://wiki.graal.us/' that has no relationship with us. You should compare 'http://wiki.graal.us/Graal' and you will see the actual article has not been written by GraalOnline Staff. Also have a look at other game article like RuneScape and tell me if you don't see weasel words, the article is full of make "RuneScape one of the top online games", "Unlike many similar game", "RuneScape places a lot of emphasis on ... allowing players ", ... Graal unixmad 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Runescape page is heavily referenced, notice the footnote after "Runescape is one of the top online games." Also, I did not accuse GraalOnline of writing the paragraph in question - I only question why you are so intent on removing unreferenced negative information while ignoring the same standards on unreferenced positive information. JoshWook 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Did you watch what we have deleted? It's nothing about removing negative information about the game but defamatory and false content against Me, the GraalOnline Staff and the Game. Perhaps you have not followed the story but the section has been written a few weeks ago by 2 players because they have been banned from GraalOnline for not respecting rules ( User:Warcaptain and User:Di4gram. Have a look who have modified the article and made this war... Graal unixmad 19:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're ignoring the crux of my argument - if the reason for deleting what you refer to as "defamatory and false content" was that it fell under WP:OR, then why have you allowed the other unreferenced information to stand? User:JoshWook 19:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- We were not the creator of this article (article created long time ago) so we prefered to discuss on the talk page (What have done Stefan Knorr and Me). We have deleted the defamatory and false content because it was new content and it was also not discussed with anyone before being added. Also we are not experienced Wikipedia User and we have learned the hard way. Graal unixmad 19:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- To throw in my other 2 cents: Almost whenever I heard of Graal, I also heard about Unixmad's and the forum administration's unfairness towards the players. So if you like it or not, this issue also concerns users of your game. But then, as your actions were only announced in your private forum that is not immune to later modificiation or private conversations that are not at all quotable, there is probably no way to state this in a "verificable" way. Forum posts of banned persons were altered, and players critising the action of Graal's administration were silenced by threatening them with bans. --Philipp Kern 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- We were not the creator of this article (article created long time ago) so we prefered to discuss on the talk page (What have done Stefan Knorr and Me). We have deleted the defamatory and false content because it was new content and it was also not discussed with anyone before being added. Also we are not experienced Wikipedia User and we have learned the hard way. Graal unixmad 19:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're ignoring the crux of my argument - if the reason for deleting what you refer to as "defamatory and false content" was that it fell under WP:OR, then why have you allowed the other unreferenced information to stand? User:JoshWook 19:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Did you watch what we have deleted? It's nothing about removing negative information about the game but defamatory and false content against Me, the GraalOnline Staff and the Game. Perhaps you have not followed the story but the section has been written a few weeks ago by 2 players because they have been banned from GraalOnline for not respecting rules ( User:Warcaptain and User:Di4gram. Have a look who have modified the article and made this war... Graal unixmad 19:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Runescape page is heavily referenced, notice the footnote after "Runescape is one of the top online games." Also, I did not accuse GraalOnline of writing the paragraph in question - I only question why you are so intent on removing unreferenced negative information while ignoring the same standards on unreferenced positive information. JoshWook 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am the User:Loriel who unixmad attributed the aforequoted weasel-words to. However, they originated in this edit of the Graal article on our Graal wiki. While I hosted the wiki at that time, it was not entirely written by me and this edit was not my doing. Also, while I am not currently associated with Graal and was not when that edit was made, I used to be a game master/administrator and involved in or managing some of Graal's projects. While I suppose that the wording used was not entirely NPOV considering my past enjoyment of the customisability of Graal, it still does not appear particularly glamourising or advertising to me. Having a "greatest strength" does not imply any notable strongness compared to other things, and "surprisingly powerful" only served to relativate "simple" which I believe is entirely justified considering most of the game's content, outside of the actual engine, is written in this language.
- However I would like to point out that I also made plenty of "negative" comments regarding Graal, the volunteer administration and so on, which were partially lost by vandalism (that went unnoticed by me until the recent edit-war when I did not dare to interfere anymore) and by the administrative intervention after the mediation. While pf course it was entirely unsourced (apart from a link to our wiki) as I was blissfully oblivious of Wikipedia policies at the time, but hey, nobody complained, and it appeared way more balanced and less "dramatic" than the current version.
- Loriel 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The GraalOnline team have not written the wikipedia Graalonline article (and the part you are talking about), the article has been written by someone called Loriel, this graalonline player is the creator of 'http://wiki.graal.us/' that has no relationship with us. You should compare 'http://wiki.graal.us/Graal' and you will see the actual article has not been written by GraalOnline Staff. Also have a look at other game article like RuneScape and tell me if you don't see weasel words, the article is full of make "RuneScape one of the top online games", "Unlike many similar game", "RuneScape places a lot of emphasis on ... allowing players ", ... Graal unixmad 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to ignore that last statement as nothing more than a distracting red herring. While I do believe there are enough reviews of graal floating around on the web to base an article off of, your edits are obviously acting in bad faith. You claim that negative comments are deleted by your corporation because of being unreferenced (which is correct in general, although bad form in a long standing dispute without discussion) - HOWEVER, take this statement currently on the page. "Perhaps Graal's greatest strength is its customizability. An intuitive editor allows even the most technically-inept players to build levels of their own, complete with custom graphics and interactive NPCs. The latter are developed using a simple - yet surprisingly powerful - language named GScript, the syntax of which was loosely inspired by Java and which lately has adapted some semantics of the scripting language of the Torque Game Engine. The target audience of the game has not yet used these features to their fullest extent. [citation needed]". That entire paragraph, consisting of weasel words such as "greatest strength", "intuitive editor", and "simple-yet surprisingly powerful", was made without a single reference, independent or otherwise, to back it up. You're acting like an interest group lobbying for your article, obeying the rules only when it suits your position. That is blatantly abusing Wikipedia policy. JoshWook 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- So if i understand, if the wikipedia rules don't allow you to delete an article about a game you have never played, then just break wikipedia written rules and destroy it for improving Wikipedia's quality. This remind me something... Perhaps a country declaring war to another for improving the world even if it's against all rules made by ONU. Graal unixmad 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Kicking the indentation back to a reasonable level. User:Graal unixmad, this is a valid and serious point. It looks, on its face to be POV protection. To maintain a truly NPOV, both unsourced negative and positive commentary needed to be removed. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We now see where all this is coming from "a crazy Frenchman" (strange from an Australian and some American guys), that's the real problem not the article. About your statement about Graalonline removing material, we have removed the unsourced criticism content in conformity with wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Who are you to judge me and my corporation? Are you above of all wikipedia rules to be able to decide what article should be deleted or not and who should be able to edit the article or not? We have given URL of articles speaking about graalonline and lot of people think that the article should not be deleted pointing to wikipedia rules. Graal unixmad 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Killfest2|Daniel (Talk) 10:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hey I originally said to delete this article :-P Oh well, but hey its working out right anyway --Warcaptain 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: The company in question is CyberJoueurs, not GraalOnline by itself; the latter is rather a published product. --Philipp Kern 10:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Changed into Keep (previous Neutral) on date of signature. It think an unbiased entry should be present, which neither serves as a plain advertisement by CyberJoueurs, nor as a plain flame of their administration. --Philipp Kern 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, but way too much history for a non-partisan observer (I like to think that's me) to wade through. I suspect if it does get deleted you'll need it protected to prevent recreation. Yomangani 10:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect your right, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to salt the earth without at least one inappropriate recreation WilyD 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB and I'm sure I could swear at least one other criterion. Anyways, get your axe and give this article the treatment it deserves. WilyD 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm now willing to work with another couple of users to try and bring this article up to standards.Di4gram 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I have always known it didn't meet WP:WEB, I just didn't know the policies very well. As somebody who has been following this dispute in it's entirety, including talk pages involved, and many others related to Graal Online, this is the only way to resolve it. I'm sure of it. --RogueShadow 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Keep in mind that the inability to find reliable anti-GraalOnline sources is not a reason to delete the article. Also - note to closing administrator: keep in mind that there are a lot of people involved in this article dispute and all but two or three of them are staunchly-anti-GraalOnline - or at least anti-GraalOnline management. Don't read this as support for or against deletion (in fact I'm leaning towards delete if I vote at all) but it's something to keep in mind. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Anti-GraalOnline" is a very funny phrase to use, whether or not it preceeds the word "management". You seem to be dangerously close to following that game's management in that you are defining critics as "anti". I'll still let good faith guide me away from saying that you are speaking under their direction, but please don't suggest otherwise by using rather black-and-white terminology.
- Huh? I certainly wouldn't classify too many in there as pro-GraalOnline, would you? You prefer another phrase, throw it out there. Pro-GraalOnline-criticism seems a little unwieldy to me but that's fine too. As for www.suiffix.com, I can't even figure out how to use the site so how reliable can it be? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I entirely agree with di4gram in the "anti-Graal" thing. If you are so eager to condemn contributors as anti-GraalOnline, I just have to consider you biased or heavily influenced by the GraalOnline management. Loriel 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, just trying to keep count of people who wanted the criticism section vs. those that didn't. It felt like the ratio was weighed heavily in favor of the former and, if you consider that two of the users in the latter group were blocked indefinitely, the ratio approaches infinity I think. Maybe I'm wrong and it was just the same pro-criticism-section (is that better?) users posting over and over but it seemed like it was becoming quite a hive mentality. Whichever, take a look at how many of my 12,000+ edits here have been related to online gaming at all and reconsider how affiliated I am with the GraalOnline management. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Anti-GraalOnline" is a very funny phrase to use, whether or not it preceeds the word "management". You seem to be dangerously close to following that game's management in that you are defining critics as "anti". I'll still let good faith guide me away from saying that you are speaking under their direction, but please don't suggest otherwise by using rather black-and-white terminology.
- Delete - Fails WP:WEB Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not re-posting the mini-essay; see talk page if you want to (re)read it. --That Jason 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Considering Phil's comment above, I see that the article indeed describes a game and not the company behind the game, except where necessary to explain criticism, so the policy cited in the nomination is not applicable at all. Also, it seems pretty questionable to me to consider an online game/community "web content" as per WP:WEB. Loriel 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Changing my vote to Delete - the discussion has transcended the reasons given in the nomination that I originally considered and it seems only a clearly biased subset of possible sources (amateur game review sites) would be admitted as sources. I would prefer no article at all over a rather useless advertisement. I find the guidelines that are cited to support this wholly inadequate for an article of such limited scope, so I doubt that anything good is going to come of this. Sorry, guys. Loriel 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)- Retracting my vote. Some of the involved party are taking this issue way too serious and personal, and I do not want to lose friends over this. Loriel 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There is no fair way to cite this article so that every party involved will be satisfied. Also, if you are going to be strict about the Wikipedia rules then there are no valid sources since the Official Graal online site is not neutral and you wont allow forums. --Warcaptain 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Again, I'm going to say that Graal doesn't quite measure up with WP:WEB. Graal Online is not well known and this "Civil War" won't be resolved on Wikipedia, that's for sure. Quamsta 18:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
- keep, conditionally If the style is good, and in depth, and information is cited, then WP:WEB should only be considered a single strike against it, Not a kill. i kan reed 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - If Unixmad is so against any criticism, whether true or not, there may as well not be an article about the game at all instead of a very one-sided article. -Daltonls 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB fails WP:NPOV Vipercat 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above.--Gillespee 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 01:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I used to play GraalOnline back in the day, but I don't think it meets WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 01:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep What do corporate notability guidelines have to do with this? This article is about a game, not a company. Same for web guidelines. Besides, my understanding is that it's not notability that's the problem here. We list many lesser-known video games. The problem is the inability of the editors to properly NPoV the article. As there's nothing about the topic that suggests it's inherrently PoV, this doesn't seem like a reason to delete, more a reason to refer to the neutrality project. We don't scrap things because we have difficulty writing good articles. Look at any article abotut an ethnic group for examples.Ace of Sevens 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete* Things should be worked out, instead of sestroying a great resource--Xc4l1br 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment I agree with you, but not enough people care that are posting here, to do it correctly. It is really a shame that it will be deleted. --Moon Goddess 13:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete: it was attempted to work things out, and it ended up being a complete failure.Kevinazite 03:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Combination 15:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This look like a private war made by Killfest2|Daniel against the GraalOnline article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian78 (talk • contribs)
-
- — Possible single purpose account: Adrian78 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 4 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Danny 16:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not seeing where this passes WP:WEB. GassyGuy 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep Please see the discussion of the "notability requirement regarding Deletion reform Spiderweb 13:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- — Possible single purpose account: Spiderweb (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- User has only 3 edits, all of which was to this AfD. User created account only 4 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If GraalOnline article need to be delete because of this false reason then 50% of wikipedia need to be deleted Markis 14:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- — Possible single purpose account: Markis (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 2 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: GraalOnline article is old on wikipedia, it is a revenge from User:Daniel, see User_talk:Graal_unixmad Antidot12 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- — Possible single purpose account: Antidot12 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 5 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Last 4 votes smell a little meaty... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but complete rewrite: GraalOnline was one of the first MMORPGs of this kind. It was once very popular, but lost many users when much of the service switched away from a free to a pay-to-play service. The article should be on Wikipedia, but not in the current form, which seems to have more than a little too much propaganda. --Gau 08:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Meh, the article was way less one-sided before the recent edit-warring. Consider just reverting to an older version and going from there. Loriel 10:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment. --Philipp Kern 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - It is customary to point out accounts that seem to have been created solely to vote; I'd like to point out to our newcomers that they should not remove such notices. --Golbez 08:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Let it be cleaned up and developed. Almost all games are kept on Wikipedia. Orangehead 15:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please note that this user is currently suspected of being involved in sockpuppetry. Killfest2—Daniel 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Smaller game are on wikipedia so Graalonline should be allowed to get an article. Also see comments bellow Graal unixmad 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- You own it neither. Keep that in mind. --Philipp Kern 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I've gone through and read a lot of the information on wikipedia about this particular dispute, and while I'm sympathetic to the "I give up" position, I think we all need to step back and breathe for a second. I've never played Graal before but I've heard about it before this mess - surely it's been notable enough to get a mention independently somewhere before. As far as the criticism, "positive", and "negative" information is concerned, I could care less as long as there are reliable sources listed. If not, tag and eventually delete, as per the mediation dispute. The corporate website is fine for information on game mechanics, publication date and history (as long as the information cited avoids advertisement and blatant self-praise), etc. - that stuff is NPOV and their website is nothing more than a convenient source. If it is later vandalized, temp. protect the page. Don't let wikipedia be bullied by a couple of minor online communities. In short, I'm sure this can all be worked out before the publication deadline. 129.61.46.16 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
- Comment I don't known if this is common on wikipedia that someone introducing a request for deletion try to influence the vote saying that everyone agree to delete the article. But the team managing the game and the creators of the game (Me and Stefan Knorr) are completly against having the article deleted. Could be also interesting to ask the > 300000 players that have downloaded the game and open an account if the game is WP:WEB or not.
Also if a game giving 60000 results on google and having more than 20 reviews is WP:WEB then lot of other articles should be deleted see this list of review:
- http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setView/overview/gameID/38 This is the biggest web site for MMO game
- http://www.gamebanshee.com/reviews/software/graalonline.php One of the biggest game review web site
- http://www.virtualworldlets.net/Worlds/Reviews/Reviews.php?ID=22
- http://macteens.com/index.php/features/fullstory/review_graal_online/ One of the biggest mac site
- http://graalonline.softonic.com/ie/50364
Graal unixmad 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment The preceeding comment by unixmad was originally placed in the header of the AFD with the nomination. I'm going to assume good faith in that they meant to add it to the bottom of the page as a new comment and were not trying to interfere with the nomination itself, so I moved it down appropriately as a new comment. I think they're right about the reviews though - they do at least attest to the notability of the game. Would it be possible to use those as a basis for a rewrite? 129.61.46.16 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
- Those reviews appear pretty onesided, so you might as well replace the article with an advertisement copy&pasted from the game's website. Though I am laughing pretty hard at "modified version of C, know as Graal Script.". Loriel 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I did not mean to suggest that the reviews are balanced in coverage, only that they qualify as sources independent of graal online and therefore testify to the notability of the game. I guess the main issue I have with this AFD is that it was nominated for deletion because it was not notable enough, when the real problem is the content dispute. Unfortunately, content disputes generally do not fall under any deletion guideline that I'm aware of. Of course, they also usually don't result in Wikimedia's lawyers stepping in...so this may be a highly unusual case all around. 68.106.198.28 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
-
- Comment While I hate to pass the buck here, you have to understand that even if the entirety of the internet and print world has been purged of negative information on a subject, it is simply not Wikipedia's job to publish that negative information first. That's original research, and goes against one of wikipedia's foundation policies. You may have the right to get the word out about Graal, but basically, you don't have the right to do it here until it's done in a reliable, peer-reviewed source elsewhere. 68.106.198.28 11:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
-
- Comment No, Wikipedia does not condone advertisements - many articles about non-notable games or websites, usually written by the owners of the product, are deleted on a regular basis. The websites listed above, however, confirm in my mind that Graal is not something invented last week. It has a fairly long history for an online game, and is notable enough for an article. Most of those reviews do not appear to be affiliated with the site, and even if they don't mention the personality conflicts that seem to be the issue here, their impressions of the game aren't overwhelmingly positive either. I guess the thing is, that while a game or website may be notable enough for a wikipedia article, not all of its components (in this case, its forums and spin-off forums, I guess) are necessarily worthy of the same treatment. JoshWook 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment While I hate to pass the buck here, you have to understand that even if the entirety of the internet and print world has been purged of negative information on a subject, it is simply not Wikipedia's job to publish that negative information first. That's original research, and goes against one of wikipedia's foundation policies. You may have the right to get the word out about Graal, but basically, you don't have the right to do it here until it's done in a reliable, peer-reviewed source elsewhere. 68.106.198.28 11:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
-
- Comment I did not mean to suggest that the reviews are balanced in coverage, only that they qualify as sources independent of graal online and therefore testify to the notability of the game. I guess the main issue I have with this AFD is that it was nominated for deletion because it was not notable enough, when the real problem is the content dispute. Unfortunately, content disputes generally do not fall under any deletion guideline that I'm aware of. Of course, they also usually don't result in Wikimedia's lawyers stepping in...so this may be a highly unusual case all around. 68.106.198.28 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
- Those reviews appear pretty onesided, so you might as well replace the article with an advertisement copy&pasted from the game's website. Though I am laughing pretty hard at "modified version of C, know as Graal Script.". Loriel 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The preceeding comment by unixmad was originally placed in the header of the AFD with the nomination. I'm going to assume good faith in that they meant to add it to the bottom of the page as a new comment and were not trying to interfere with the nomination itself, so I moved it down appropriately as a new comment. I think they're right about the reviews though - they do at least attest to the notability of the game. Would it be possible to use those as a basis for a rewrite? 129.61.46.16 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
- Comment Honestly this is getting old. This wikipedia war is not going to end. I can see perfectly why it's nominated for deletion as it is one-sided and more advertisement friendly. Everything put in it is simply on Graal Online's side and as much as I love the game, this wiki is not part of Graal Online and is control by the community. I don't see why both sides can't come to a conclusion and by allowing the article to go back up just means the war will start again. Deletion seems to be the easiest method, this whole situation has gotten so complicated and has become such a big issue that it disserves itself to be on the wiki as it's an issue. It just seems like a bunch of accounts are being made to say "Keep" now as if it truly matters... just let it go and forget it for a while and if it is deleted just wait a while to make a new one. Even when you make a new one, people are going to alter it because that's how wiki works. Once someone alters it then more arguments will happen on Graal Onlines side. It's more likely in the future that there will be citable information for critism for the game... even those reviews of the game are not very good but in no way reveal any critizism. Brandon Mitchell 5:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I would love to see a good, Graal article here, like other games have. Just don't add anything that cannot be sourced, until it can be by wiki rules.--Moon Goddess 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: per Graal unixmad and Philipp Kern. WP:NPOV is not a valid reason for deletion. If the article is poor as is, then fix it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'd hate to see a precedent established that you can prevent anything negative from being said about you on Wikipedia through empty law suit threats. Jack Thompson (attorney) threatened to sue Wikipedia and his page is still intact along with all the information that makes him look bad. Ace of Sevens 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- That article has 84 references at the bottom including CNN, Miami Herald, L.A. Times, etc., etc. As soon as someone can find reliable verification for the serious injuries caused by Cyberjourers, feel free to add them. As far as the alleged threatened legal action, it's sad that that's what it took to get the editors here to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is there somethign wrong with having an article without mentioning the negatives unless sources can be found? Ace of Sevens 11:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uh. No. That's why I voted keep. And you did as well. We agree on that but apparently don't agree with Wikipedia's actions being a bad precedent. To me, WP's actions were very justified - it's just unfortunate that things had to go that far to get the policies enforced. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with that, although sources need to be found for a fair bit of the positive spin as well. And if "policy required enforcement" there should be some discounted keeps. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uh. No. That's why I voted keep. And you did as well. We agree on that but apparently don't agree with Wikipedia's actions being a bad precedent. To me, WP's actions were very justified - it's just unfortunate that things had to go that far to get the policies enforced. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is there somethign wrong with having an article without mentioning the negatives unless sources can be found? Ace of Sevens 11:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- That article has 84 references at the bottom including CNN, Miami Herald, L.A. Times, etc., etc. As soon as someone can find reliable verification for the serious injuries caused by Cyberjourers, feel free to add them. As far as the alleged threatened legal action, it's sad that that's what it took to get the editors here to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unsourced, questionable notability. Kotepho 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Source Even though I still believe this article is irrelevant and hard to find good sources for, and still should be deleted. I have found a source to cite that Stephane Portha is a harsh individual and threatens his customers and staff http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.petitiononline.com/bhunter/petition.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDMCA%2BPORTHA%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG note the article is originally in french and some words may be hard to understand, but it is easy to understand the basic picture. This is not intented as anything but a statement of facts about an event pertenent to this topic. Vipercat 08:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to say it but isn't that a site where anyone can contribute anything? That's like using unverified information on Wikipedia as a source. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are right, which is why I did not attempt to directly post it on the article, but rather put it in for consideration here. The standards for verified information in relation to the nature of this article makes the whole situation difficult to be fair either way. All of the information is going to come from some person or another from the internet, you are not going to get verified pictures of over 300,000 people, or even 30 people to stand and pose in a picture with todays newspaper and a sign saying "I PLAYED GRAALONLINE, or that GRAAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH EVERYTHING AND IN C++" and even if they did exist I do not think they would organize in such a fashion, make the cardboard signs and do such a thing. This whole situation is not an easy one, no matter who you are, if you are to make the GraalOnline wikipedia article more relevant, factual, and verified, it is simply not the nature of non-mainstream lesser popular online games. Vipercat 13:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to say it but isn't that a site where anyone can contribute anything? That's like using unverified information on Wikipedia as a source. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Would be good to have both view points from both long time players/members of Graal, and new players/members. It's just so hard to be able to find sources that will be accepted.--Moon Goddess 16:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Excellent, now if we can keep the article from being deleted, maybe we can make it a notable, decent article. --Moon Goddess 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment As a longtime player of GraalOnline I'd hate to see the article go, but that being said after seeing the CyberJoueurs staff conduct on the page I can't put myself to give this a Keep vote. But since when did we start deleting things because non-wikipedians asssociated with that article vandalised repeatedly in an attempt to ruin the NPOV...isn't it usually just protected? Canadian-Bacon 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm willing to help rewrite this article NPOV. I am sorry that things have descended to this, people have gotten sucked in from both sides and reputations have been ruined/put on the line on both sides. I think that this article should stay, and that both sides can work together to make a decently informative and NPOV article. I'm pretty much eliminating my previous comments; they were based on false pretenses. This thing has spiralled out of control, and I think that civility has pretty much been shot in the face by people on both sides (including me). I think that deleting this article would be for the wrong reasons. Di4gram 16:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is a lost process, some people having lot of time to loose and some wikimedia staff have decided that the article must be deleted, so i will not loose any more time fighting a system that is corrupted. Thanks to all of you that have spent lot of time trying to get this article published and to wknight94 that have been neutral and given lot of good argument since day 1 of this story. Graal unixmad 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Um, what? Do you have some knowledge the rest of us are unaware of? JoshWook 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- After extensive discussions between myself, Wikimedia Foundation and Graal Unixmad, obviously Wikimedia have told Graal Unixmad the bad news, so he's giving up. Killfest2—Daniel 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- If wikimedia staff have decided this must be deleted, why are we having an AfD discussion? Ace of Sevens 23:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- i didn't had any discussion with you or wikimedia about the deletion of this article, i give up because wikipedia is managed like a bananas republic Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Abuse of power WP:OFFICE ,so why loose time when the decision will not be taken in conformity with the wikimedia rules. Graal unixmad 04:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just because you cannot control everything on the internet does not make it a "Bananas Republic" Wikipedia staff was far more reasonable, and gave you far more chances than I would have given you if I had control over this situation, you signed a mediation then broke the mediation agreement by threatening people over the phone with lies. I think we all know who and what the "Bananas Republic" is here... Vipercat 05:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unix, for a second I was sort of miffed, because I thought someone high up in wikimedia had contacted you and decided to over-rule the discussion taking place here. The fact is that a number of people who frankly find your behavior deplorable in these debates have voted "keep", including myself. The most likely result right now, especially since you posted a number of reviews, is a "no consensus" result, which will result in the article staying. The nomination to delete was not brought up by wikimedia, so stop with these conspiracy theories. There's no reason to cry foul - it's childish and distracts from the points of the debate itself. On another note, I do not believe wikipedia should cover your dispute with your members until a reliable source can be found to document it - but on a personal level, I very much hope that a well known gaming website does a story on how you treat your customers. JoshWook 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- i didn't had any discussion with you or wikimedia about the deletion of this article, i give up because wikipedia is managed like a bananas republic Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Abuse of power WP:OFFICE ,so why loose time when the decision will not be taken in conformity with the wikimedia rules. Graal unixmad 04:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- If wikimedia staff have decided this must be deleted, why are we having an AfD discussion? Ace of Sevens 23:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- After extensive discussions between myself, Wikimedia Foundation and Graal Unixmad, obviously Wikimedia have told Graal Unixmad the bad news, so he's giving up. Killfest2—Daniel 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Um, what? Do you have some knowledge the rest of us are unaware of? JoshWook 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, if that happens, hopefully more than just a handful of people would be included in the survey. ^^ --Moon Goddess 12:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, and while you're on it: Please do not include administrative staff. --Philipp Kern 11:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if that happens, hopefully more than just a handful of people would be included in the survey. ^^ --Moon Goddess 12:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If it's notable, a person uninvolved with the site can write about it Karwynn (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Another possible source for consideration is http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=0a0d5d069e2f5481d42cd2824c93bafb&t=42339 this is a libelous and slanderous message against me from Unixmad from his own site, with no external citation, no direct proof, and no prior permission to post my name and personal information on the internet. This supports the criticism that Stephane Portha is a harsh individual, and also illustrates the kinds of attempts at illegal public attacks, slander, and threats he does. Vipercat 09:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment That's not a source that could be used for a wikipedia article. Take your story to CNN, or even a local paper, and get them to *publish* a story about Portha's harshness. Even then, it would be greatly preferred if you stop using wikipedia as a soapbox. JoshWook 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Viper....just stop. Stop trying to use the wiki for revenge. --Moon Goddess 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I did not make either of those articles, Unixmad himself published that in his own forums, and the other on PetitionOnline was made by someone who I thought was the most pro-graal person in the world, the former GraalOnline admin MagicalTux who was once very close and big time in the GraalOnline staff until he was clearly betrayed and threatened at some point by Unixmad. So I am trying to get revenge by using magical mind control fairies to make them both write things that makes unixmad look bad? And some people try and call me crazy... Vipercat 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hold up - you're missing the point. From everything I've read, I'm fully on your side on a personal level...however, I honestly don't think Wikipedia is the right media to vent your complaints. Wikipedia is, above all, an encyclopedia. I would not expect the Encyclopedia Brittanica to cover a non-notable dispute, using only forums and personal emails as evidence - Wikipedia is not constrained by the limits of paper, but it still strives for the same quality standards. An encyclopedia is, in general, a compendium of the research of others - and by research, I mean of the intensive, peer-reviewed kind. That happens in a newspaper and even more in sources like scientific journals, and there are simply no controls or authority behind an individual, or even a group of individuals, posting semi-anonomyously to an online forum. It amounts to original research, and is not appropriate subject matter for an encyclopedia. User:JoshWook 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign in - and I am kinda new, although I've been contributing as an IP for a bit)
-
- This is where the problem lies. Nobody has written a documentary or scholarly artice, or published book in print that has been extensively peer reviewed on this matter. You are also correct this is an encyclopedia, but if it is not a relevant subject such as Elephants then how can it fit into an encyclopedia in the first place? How can any game? Vipercat 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Easy - there are lots of print magazines dedicated to games, and even more online. The business as a whole is undeniably massive, on the same order of magnitude as film, and receives a good deal of media coverage. It doesn't have to necessarily be scholarly, it only has to meet wikipedia's internal standards for verifiability and reliability. And verifiable is not the same as truth - just because something is true doesn't mean it warrants coverage on wikipedia. Actually, see the big discussion I had up above in this AFD that now looks like I had it with myself under 129.61.46.16 and 68.106.198.28 because the other guy deleted his comments when he changed his opinion ;) JoshWook 13:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- So basically I just need to talk some random gaming website with arbitrary standards of verificating content into publishing my rantings, and suddenly my opinion becomes more important than that of a dozen people arguing the same topic on several forums and wiki discussions? I am not sure it should be this easy. Loriel 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well...don't take this the wrong way, but that's just how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a forum - it's an encyclopedia. Go to your local decent-sized library and check out the reference section. Ignore the Brittanica and find a more obscure, specialized encyclopedia, such as an encyclopedia on Occult phenomena (yes, they do exist). And then look at how the articles are written and, more importantly, the references. You'll find that the encyclopedia, no matter how obscure, has not gone out and conducted its own study and interviewed people about their experiences with alien abductions - it relies on the published "research" of others. There might be other wikis out there with different standards, but as an encyclopedia, wikipedia is not the place to *conduct* research, it's a place to *report* on it. JoshWook 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Link Feel free to add it to User:Daniel/GraalOnlineSandbox, which I will use to create an extensive and detailed criticism section for the GraalOnline article if this AfD is deemed to have not reached a concensus. Hopefully with my knowledge of the loopholes and precise definitions of policies, I can advert a situation where someone rings up Wikimedia FOundation and cries until they get what they want. Killfest2—Daniel 10:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Uh, what? --Moon Goddess 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- DB is just continuing is sad work on the GraalOnline article, he will have the privilege to talk with Viper :) Good luck. Graal unixmad 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like it flew over the both of you completely. What Daniel is attempting to make, as far as I can tell, is a sandbox for a criticism section with notable citation. I don't find it "sad work", rather, I find it as an attempt to give the Criticism section a chance, which was unfairly removed before the 7 days after mediation, due to Unixmad's bickering over the phone, which in turn blew off Daniel's faith in the Wikipedia system. That's just an analysis on my part. In any case, that's all only if the article isn't deleted.--Kuribo 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- DB is just continuing is sad work on the GraalOnline article, he will have the privilege to talk with Viper :) Good luck. Graal unixmad 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, what? --Moon Goddess 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep & Clean Havok (T/C/c) 12:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well well well, Graal Online are back to their old tricks. Why did you block my account on GO? I have broke no rules, and yet you continute to oppress people who disagree with you. Anyone willing to explain? Killfest2—Daniel 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Daniel, while I understand that unixmad's user page is currently blocked from editing, could you move that comment somewhere off of this AFD? Email, a forum, something. Yes, I understand that you posted here to publicly out him, but wikipedia is not a soapbox. This page is big enough already without voicing a personal off-wiki dispute. Delete my comment too when you do (later edit: Daniel, check your talk page). JoshWook 14:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry, but I have direct permission to post here, from a WMF foundation member. If the comment goes, so does the persons' head who removed it. Killfest2—Daniel 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Daniel, what account are you talking about? I assumed you were killfest2 based on your email address, but that account is apparently not banned. Loriel 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Just checked the account killfest2, you are right Loriel, he is not banned at all. Graal unixmad 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Daniel, while I understand that unixmad's user page is currently blocked from editing, could you move that comment somewhere off of this AFD? Email, a forum, something. Yes, I understand that you posted here to publicly out him, but wikipedia is not a soapbox. This page is big enough already without voicing a personal off-wiki dispute. Delete my comment too when you do (later edit: Daniel, check your talk page). JoshWook 14:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment How come when others make remarks such as what you just made, Daniel, they are told to not post things like that here? (Nice threat, btw =/ ) --Moon Goddess 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- The only one that tells them not to post criticisms thus far has been Unixmad. And defacing and deleting articles and criticisms, especially in the talk page is considered defacement, defacement is not allowed, it is not a threat, just a simple fact of life, one which some people can't seem to deal with... Vipercat 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, neither I nor anyone else ever threatened to remove anything - I simply asked if he would move this particular branch of the discussion off of the AFD for the article, since whether he was banned from Graal or not has nothing to do with whether or not Wikipedia should include an article of GraalOnline. I still hold to that position, and ask that Daniel and others please continue this discussion elsewhere. JoshWook 18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Sorry. Loriel 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, neither I nor anyone else ever threatened to remove anything - I simply asked if he would move this particular branch of the discussion off of the AFD for the article, since whether he was banned from Graal or not has nothing to do with whether or not Wikipedia should include an article of GraalOnline. I still hold to that position, and ask that Daniel and others please continue this discussion elsewhere. JoshWook 18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
 |
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article EvidentHost. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
- 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. Several arguments for keeping failed to adress the article and instead focus on the errors of renomination, on the article serving as a honey trap for trivia, the fact that "notable" elements existed within the list, or a certain undefinable "extra" something. I've also disregarded recomendations to keep from *cough* very new editors, or that were borderline nonsensical.
brenneman {L} 06:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of one-time characters from The Simpsons
Characters who only appeared only once in a TV series (in other words, 99 percent of all characters on all TV shows) are inherently non-notable. Massive fancruft like this unsourced list of every non-notable one-time Simpsons character opens the doors to all kinds of obsessively fannish lists. Similar lists could be made for any TV program - can you imagine a List of one-time characters from Gunsmoke? wikipediatrix 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC) wikipediatrix 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete per nom. I'm sure this list is notable in the eyes of many strong fans of the show. But ultimately, this is not notable to causal fans (or those unfamiliar with the program). Scorpiondollprincess 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Its hard to say. The Simpsons is a long-running, highly notable series, which is why it has so many one-time minor characters. There are lists of these for many other series also, but they're drastically shorter due to the series' shorter length. Still, it seems somewhat crufty, so I'll stay neutral. Dark Shikari 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete where's Gerald Ford, Ricky Gervais etc - Simpsons gets so many celebrity guest appearances and none of them are documented in what is already a very lengthy list. MLA 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - one time characters are not notable in any show, regardless of how popular the show may be. If we're not keeping reality show contestants, or recurring game-show contestants, both of whom would have had more screen time than a one time character in a 22 minute show, then this really should not be kept. I don't care how many Simpsons cruftateers there are. Proto::type 14:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete very bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the list it a textbook example of an article that conforms to WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, any character notable enough for a mention can be mentioned in the article for the episode in which they appeared without loss of information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Carlossuarez46 and Night Gyr. Lazybum 21:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and others above. Simpsonscruft Bwithh 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, excessive fancruft. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Strewth -- GWO
- Keep, no point punishing users who don't know if characters are recurring or not. Kappa 11:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Despite being a huge Simpsons fan, I don't like this article- in fact, I voted delete on it the first time, when it was nominated for AfD two months ago and was kept by a wide margin. It's really unfair to renominate articles after such a short period of time, especially when there was a strong consensus the last time. -- Kicking222 18:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. One-time characters is a red flag. However, for me this list is saved by the impressive parade of famous people who voice the characters. Also a good way to contain the trivia (as opposed to individual articles...) Weregerbil 20:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because I agree with the above, it's just containing unencyclopaedic minutiae about a television show. This belongs on a Simpsons fan site, not Wikipedia. GassyGuy 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Weregerbil, and per last AfD, and per Kicking222's views on the validity of this AfD. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per last AfD, and a useful article. The Simpsons is one of the most notable TV shows, so it deserves a little "extra" more than others. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Sets a precedent that might result in similar articles being credited for Star Trek, Gunsmoke, Doctor Who or even My Mother the Car. You can't just pick-and-choose what shows deserve a little "extra". 23skidoo 23:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per before. They should have individual articles, but this is a decent compromise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Half of Wikipedia is unencyclopaedic minutiae. If that were a reason to delete that would set a very bad precedent. Orangehead 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. i would add, however that Mary Bailey is not a one time character - she also appeared in the episode where Homer gets put in that designer prison Marge has built as a concert hall. Magic Pickle 18:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The Simpsons is a long running series and by that very nature will generate a large number of one-time characters. This article is a useful way to keep this information together. I am sure that Lucius Sweet cannot be considered a one-time character. He has been featured in many episodes. --Tomvox 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - there are two semi-notable people there, one of which already has his own article. This is not encyclopedic. violet/riga (t) 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Entirely not notable, and characters can have their information in the articles on the specific episodes in which they appeared - in example, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Marge has more information on Otto's near-wife than this article, making her inclusion here redundant. Same applies for all characters, with the possible exceptions of Birch Barlow, who already has an article, and Terwilliger. --Switch 11:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There are notable characters here.- JustPhil
15:12, 2 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richland, Township, Allen County, Ohio
- 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. Yanksox 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- Yanksox 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[edit] The football forum
Non-notable website (Alexa ranking: 234,000); Delete Owen× ☎ 16:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Erechtheus 16:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. Oldelpaso 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Guinnog 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB -- Alias Flood 22:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, aLii 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable website. Slightly crufty, too, with the discussion of users. Vickser 22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Definately not worth an entry on Wikipedia. NJW494 14:08, 30 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deke the Scrange
Per the article, "a popular game created by three Program Assistants at the Massachusetts branch of Emagination Computer Camps". Not that popular, since Google comes up totally empty. WP:OR, WP:VAIN, and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school camp one day. -- Fan-1967 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nonnotable game limited to one summer computer camp. NawlinWiki 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NFT probably comes closest - Richfife 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This article would not be useful for anybody but the camp members and original authors themselves. Therefore, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. --JCipriani 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 03:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 2 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Temple Beth Am
Non-notable church, no claims of notability Wildthing61476 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Richfife 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Most individual religious congregations (this one is a synagogue, not a church) are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 02:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Just another congregation. — Frecklefoot | Talk 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 2 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IIUG
I know I'm taking a chance here -- but this seems like advert spam for this web forum. The article on the forum's subject, Informix, already lists a link to this user's group under External links. Does the forum need it's own article too with 4 more links to the forum website? Mattisse 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. IIUG article should be merged into an Informix category (if there is any IIUG-specific information) or left as an external link there, and IIUG could redirect there. This article contains no actual content. --JCipriani 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - This doesn't appear notable enough to motivate anyone to even take care of the article...been on the wikify list since April. Akradecki 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Peta 06:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 2 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dynabyte Solution
WP:NOT for advertising Gekedo 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (Delete) --Gekedo 14:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete spam. Also nominated Financial Suite, added by the same author. Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious spam. Wikipedia is not for advertisements. --JCipriani 18:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the spam, please. Diagonalfish 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Jimmie Walker says "Dyn-a-byte!". But delete per above. NawlinWiki 18:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 2 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. Rje 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trank
Is this notable enough to be on Wikipedia? I think it can be interesting for people involved in this art scene themselves - so I wouldn't want to remove the article from the face of the internet - but I doubt it is interesting for Wikipedia users, so maybe there is a better place than Wikipedia for it? Ignavus 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, now there's already an edit conflict with the first vote, but there are more similar articles I was going to add (more detailed than the first, but same topic and level of interest, I believe..) --Ignavus 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[vote below applies to Trunk only --Ignavus 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)]
- Delete, considering it's been around for 18 months and doesn't contain much of interest outside a blurb to justify following the link. SB_Johnny | talk 00:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to minor artscene groups. Practically asserts un-notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep once again I must remind folks the standard for keeping is VERIFIABILTY, not NOTABILITY. Users who've been here a whopping 11 edits (That would be you Ignavus) should learn the policies to wikipedia before putting stuff up for deletion. This is yet another example of a new user with complete ignorance of policy listing something he's never heard of for deletion. "I've never heard of it, so it should be deleted" is not the way wikipedia works. ALKIVAR™
15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC) - Delete as per nom and above. As WP:NN explains, non-notablity, while not a core policy like verifiability (WP:V), it is the basis for a number of guidelines for article inclusion which represent consensus opinions on Wikipedia (such as WP:BIO), and can be arguably associated with official policy WP:NOT. WP:NN also explains that notablity is a controversial issue, but is frequently used as arguments for afd. Ignavus is perfectly justified to nominated these articles for deletion. While every Wikipedia user should take time to read up on policies and guidelines, its totally unnecessary and unjustified for ALIKIVAR to scold a new user like that - and on the basis of ALIKIVAR's own opinionated reading of Wikipedia guidelines as well. I would suggest that ALKIVAR read WP:BITE. Bwithh 17:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alkivar. And since the "vote below applies to Trunk only," why are we talking about Trank? If you want an article to be deleted, you might want to proofread your request (yes, I'm aware that typos happen). I'd also like to point out, as others are so fond of saying, AfD is not a vote. Also, if you'd like to nominate the other articles you've listed, you should do so. As of now, the AfD template for them links to this AfD; they're separate articles, they deserve separate discussions (which will likely mirror this and every other AfD discussion). There's probably a policy on mass nominations, but I'm pretty sure this isn't how it works (please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong). --Myles Long 00:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or merge per Dhartung. If I'm reading this correctly, this is a small spinoff group that eventually returned to the fold of it's parent group. There are no claims of notability. MLA 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - per Alkivar. Orangehead 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP - I believed it to be a bad joke by somebody. FYI, there was a time before the internet and before Windows 95 and up. People used Modems not to call an ISP to connect to a NET, but somebody elses Computer that was in most cases a private computer up for 24 hours on a designated telefon line just for the computer. That person had a software running called BBS Software that accepted incoming phone calls and provided features like Messaging (just like Email) and Upload and Download of files. Those "things" were called BBS which stands for Bulletin Board System and the PC Versions usually operated under MS DOS which was Text Based and fairly uggly. Thanks to ANSI and ANSI art and ASCII art got BBS's a much better look and touch of individuality. The Guys that did those weird type of Art (in the opinion of some folks of the after-MS DOS -> Windoof Generation) usually formed Art Groups (like the Guys that did Demos (Demo scene) and the ones that removed copy protections from games and applications (Warez scene) later the guys that ripped MP3's and Movies, something everybody should be familar with, because they are still around. Btw. ASCII and ANSI Art is also still around. There are a lot of folks out there that have vivid memories about ANSI and ASCII art, but might not remember the groups and artists that made them, but there are also still a lot of guys out there that remember very well and appreciate the fact that Information can be found about it and that it is not all forgotten. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- additional comment: the CEO of deviantART also things that Groups like SAC and and ACiD and Remorse are very much notable, but he only runs the foremost artist community on the Web, nothing notable --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- If the vote is about "Trank" only, remove the "Articles for deletion" template from the other articles. They link to this vote. Regardless of that is my vote I already nade for all of the groups listed above and flagged as "Articles for deletion" --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Remorse (for Trank only), at least unless someone writes a longer article about it. I'm a bit confused by this "multi-voting", as the deletion links in those articles you listed link here. I can't really say anything about Trank or Mistigris, but I think it's totally absurd that you're suggesting the removal of the articles about SAC, Remorse and ACiD. These groups are very notable considering the history of digital art. DiamonDie 07:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not again... speedy keep. Of course this part of computer history is noteworthy. --Avatar-en 07:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- as per roy<sac> --Pseudo Intellectual 07:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC) ... and we will pretend for the time being that my association with Mistigris has nothing to do with this position.
- Keep, per Alkivar. bbx 08:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. These are notable computer graphics organizations which pre-date the modern internet, worthwhile for coverage on Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 08:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Initially, when I created the minor artscene groups article, I included Trank ASCII. That was until I discovered someone had already created a Trank article. It is notable by being closely related to ascii scene legends Remorse ASCII. I could live with the Trank article being merged into the Remorse article, but honestly, adding the Afd for ACiD, Mistigris, Remorse, SAC, is just ignorant, and this opinion doesn't stem from the fact that I regularly edit these articles. --Sodium N4 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, ASCII Art and all of it's groups deserve a rightful place in history as any other. To remove it would violate the purpose of even having Wikipedia. Bad move by whomever nominated this. --Conexion 17:38, 1 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.
