Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 31
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is the glass half empty or half full?
Not really encyclopedic, very opiniated and POV, no sources (and to that end, unlikely to find sources). Maybe a section in a different article would be appropriate. Newnam(talk) 04:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom-- Mertens21 Talk 05:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep bad faith nomination, could have been solved by tagging it POV and in need of sources. Since this is very well-known, sources should be easy to find. (Oh, and please add new AfD at the bottom of this page next time). -- Koffieyahoo 06:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This doesn't seem very encyclopedic, particularly with a title like that. The concept might warrant mention in a broader article somewhere but I can't think of an appropriate one. Arkyan 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - this isn't a host for people's essays. Byrgenwulf 08:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Opinions can be edited out over time. Deet 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and tag for sources etc... By the history appears to have survived a VfD in the past - Peripitus (Talk) 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Byrgenwulf's comments. This is someone's personal essay. No sources are cited. Violates WP:V and WP:OR. If well-known sources are easy-to-find, please cite some. Scorpiondollprincess 13:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a well-known and well-used idiom and theory. Needs sources and some WP:V cleanup; but well-written and informative. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. I would like to remind Wikipedians that an article is only justified for deletion if the topic isn't a worthwhile subject for an article under Wikipedia rules. Otherwise, it simply needs cleanup, and while this article does need cleanup, it is certainly notable and sources should be very easy to find. Dark Shikari 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The topic is an encyclopedic idea, but I don't often hear the idiom expressed in this manner. Is a user really going to search for a question, or can we come up with a better name (or place) for the article? (My weak keep doesn't imply I think the content should be deleted, it's just that I haven't ruled out the possibility of a move or merge.) Jacqui★ 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed here. The article name isn't very useful, but I can't think of a better one. Anyone have any ideas? Dark Shikari 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wouldn't there be articles on optimism/pessimism: that's really what the problem comes down to; a mention of the expression could be made there (if it isn't already). And since it is a philosophical problem, the little schpiel about "imagining you are in charge of ... " (which reads like a bad teambuilding corporate waste of time) must go, no matter what. Does anyone have any serious objections to me going and excising it? Byrgenwulf 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Jacqui — FireFox (talk) 14:27, 31 July '06
- Comment — The glass is clearly twice as big as it needs to be, and so is inefficient. It was undoubtedly designed to government specifications. ;-) — RJH (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, well known expression. LOL @ previous comment – Alensha
talk 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) - Keep and Comment Keep: Wikipedia has many articles on well-known phrases and terms of speech, see Fork in the road, Standing on the shoulders of giants, Survival of the fittest, Pay through the nose, etc for other examples. This is no less worthy for inclusion then any of these others. It should be kept, and worked on to improve. Comment: I can see how the title would be difficult to find, but I can't think of a better one. At any rate, the problem is easily solved with redirects from other possible search terms. I have added several such redirects.
- Keep - bad-faith nomination. Should have tagged it POV, per Koffieyahoo. --Bigtop 16:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as well known expression and per Jacqui. GrapePie 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Ample amount of information on a well-known (and therefore at least partially notable) phrase. --Gray Porpoise 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Dark Shakari and Grey Porpoise. Joe 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, inappropriate nomination. AFD is not a cleanup tag. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge article itself seems fine to me, however it, and similar articles with little more possible content than the existing stubs, could form a List of philosphical expressions (or some other suitable merge list page). LinaMishima 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I am very disappointed that people keep throwing around "bad-faith nomination". I was serious when I listed this at AfD, and am still convinced it does not belong, not solely for content being POV, but because this is simply not encyclopedic. If you disagree with that assessment, then say so...don't tell me I'm listing it in bad-faith. For what reason would I have to do this? This is my first AfD listing, and I tried to follow all of the steps. To Koffieyahoo, in edit mode it says "<!-- Add new entries below this line -->", not "Add entries at the bottom of the list. "(Oh, and please add new AfD at the bottom of this page next time)" is a little uncivil. Just one request to the rest of the people who comment here. Please don't throw degrading remarks about me around, just because I nominated an article that you think should stay, or because I'm relatively new (and for the record, I've been around for over a year with a different username before this). Newnam(talk) 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The reason for bad faith probably stems from the happy existance of many similar articles. Before commenting, I went looking, and such pages as Have one's cake and eat it too do indeed exist. You are, of course, right to remind people to be civil towards you. LinaMishima 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Important and popular expression. Nominating this is like nominating Meaning of life. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it just needs sources (maybe starting with Filling the Glass: The Skeptic's Guide to Positive Thinking in Business :). I don't think the nom was in bad faith. Ziggurat 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I say keep, it has to do with philosophy after all. Popcorn2008 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008
- Keep as per above. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Why delete? It's a common saying. LLBBooks 00:14, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quantum Legacy
 |
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}} |
Release date June 27, 2006. Substantial article with no sources - probable WP:OR. Weblink for developers, no article. No evidence of player base, innovation, external coverage etc. per WP:SOFTWARE Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, also appears to be a WP:VAIN article. --Porqin 12:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article is still new and has content that needs refining. Infomation and screenshots were taken from the main website, or from what has been said by developers on the forum (the information is publically available for use), so no, its not original content, but I find acurate information from reliable resources much more important, don't you? As for player base (I think this means the ammount of players it gets), the game has many 1000's of players. According to the developer, it was recorded that the game got around 172 new account sign ups in less than 12 hours! As for Vainity issue, it is no different from any other games page I have seen. The title, screenshots, infomation about the game, links to fan sites etc.... Theres no text such as "greatest game", "best game", "you'll die if you dont play" etc. I've tried to keep it as neutral as possible. So my vote goes with "dont delete". If you want something changed, leave a note on the talk page, or do it yourself. --K776 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Thousands" of accounts is really not all that many. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- According to a dev on the forum, 172 or so new members signed up in a matter of hours. 172 (users per 12 hours) * 2 (2 lots of 12 in 24 :P) * 7 = 2400+ in only a week. Now those wont be the exact figures obviously because on/off peak signups, but it should give some idea that when I said thousands, I obviously understated. --K776 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- That still isn't very much. World of Warcraft, for example, had around six million players in February 2006. The US release was in November 2004, so, assuming that players signed up at a constant rate, that comes out to roughly a hundred thousand new players per week. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thats not a good comparison. World of Warcraft is not shockwave based, and it's made by a big company with funding, not an individual in his/her spare time. World of Warcraft also had a prevous player base, from its 3 predecessors (Warcraft I, II, and III), starting with Warcraft in 1994 (12 years ago). World of Warcraft is also finished. Quantum Legacy is still in the pre-beta stages, but has been made public. --05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Point is, 172 users in a 12-hour period isn't all that many. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I said less than 12 hours. For all I know, it could have been in 5 hours or even 30 minutes. I just dont have time to change my timezone to that of the dev who posted the stats to find out what the time difference was. --K776 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Point is, 172 users in a 12-hour period isn't all that many. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thats not a good comparison. World of Warcraft is not shockwave based, and it's made by a big company with funding, not an individual in his/her spare time. World of Warcraft also had a prevous player base, from its 3 predecessors (Warcraft I, II, and III), starting with Warcraft in 1994 (12 years ago). World of Warcraft is also finished. Quantum Legacy is still in the pre-beta stages, but has been made public. --05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- That still isn't very much. World of Warcraft, for example, had around six million players in February 2006. The US release was in November 2004, so, assuming that players signed up at a constant rate, that comes out to roughly a hundred thousand new players per week. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- According to a dev on the forum, 172 or so new members signed up in a matter of hours. 172 (users per 12 hours) * 2 (2 lots of 12 in 24 :P) * 7 = 2400+ in only a week. Now those wont be the exact figures obviously because on/off peak signups, but it should give some idea that when I said thousands, I obviously understated. --K776 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Thousands" of accounts is really not all that many. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This game - and this comment may be biased, note - is quite good, and still in the beta stages (I am a tester, myself). To delete this page would not accomplish anything, that I can tell, except to upset the programmers, testers, etc. There are 438 software companies listed on this site, and I recognize a few as being in on gaming (RealNetworks among them). I did not see any of the high-profile companies (such as THQ, but it is in the database of WP). To conclude: do not delete the QL page, as it is just as valid as the page for Descent: FreeSpace - The Great War, and other games.--Bigfootti 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Completely non-notable, in failure of WP:SOFTWARE, 100% advertisement... it's spam and little more. -- Kicking222 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well then, change it so it suits the guidelines or tell people what to do to make sure it doesn't get deleted. --K776
- The first question we have to consider is whether Quantum Legacy is a worthy subject for an article in Wikipedia at all. The criteria we use to determine that can be found at WP:SOFTWARE. If the game doesn't meet any of the criteria there, changing the article won't help. But if you think the game does meet at least one of the criteria at WP:SOFTWARE, then clearly indicate in the article how it meets those criteria, and cite reliable sources to help prove that. Then come back here and explain that you have edited the article and how the game satisfies WP:SOFTWARE. I will offer a neutral recommendation for now to encourage you to do that. --Metropolitan90 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- According to WP:SOFTWARE, QL comes under number 2. It is innovative and significant, being the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector. --K776 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The first question we have to consider is whether Quantum Legacy is a worthy subject for an article in Wikipedia at all. The criteria we use to determine that can be found at WP:SOFTWARE. If the game doesn't meet any of the criteria there, changing the article won't help. But if you think the game does meet at least one of the criteria at WP:SOFTWARE, then clearly indicate in the article how it meets those criteria, and cite reliable sources to help prove that. Then come back here and explain that you have edited the article and how the game satisfies WP:SOFTWARE. I will offer a neutral recommendation for now to encourage you to do that. --Metropolitan90 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well then, change it so it suits the guidelines or tell people what to do to make sure it doesn't get deleted. --K776
- Keep This page is not spam it is just trying to get more people to join with the game theres nothing wrong with that another thing is there are other articles just like it here on wikipedia and you are not deleting them it doesnt seem fair or even make sense to delete this page because its trying to get people to try out this game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk8ter823 (talk • contribs)
- Keep This game is unique in that it is a full-version game that runs directly in your browser. I think that this fact satisfies part 2 of WP:SOFTWARE well enough. And I don't think that it can be called advertising because it was not written by anyone affiliated with Four Thirty One Interactive, it was written by a group of players of the game. As someone has already said, it is just as valid as the article about Descent: FreeSpace - The Great War. That is why I vote to keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.27.115 (talk • contribs)
- Keep Looking at all the delete votes, they cite WP:VAIN, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:OR as reasons why this article should be deleted. I believe the reason QL is fine under Software has been stated clearly enough already, the article is not vain, as it has been written and edited by players of the game who weren't involved in the programming, design or promotion of it, and it is not original research, all statements made in the article are either clearly labelled as opinion/speculation or can be verified by four-thirty one. --Jabor 04:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The question isn't whether the statements can be verified by the game publisher/developer, but whether the statements can be verified by independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Verify independently? 2 things: (One) Play it yourself, and offer judgement; (Two) recruit people from WP, and ask them to play and offer judgement. --Bigfootti 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I played the game myself, or other editors played the game themselves, that would still be original research. Furthermore, if the goal is to prove that the game is unique because it is a full-version game that runs directly in your browser, or because it's the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector, just playing the game would not prove that, since other games might meet those criteria too without my knowing it. On the other hand, if reviewers for, say, Computer Gaming World or PC Gamer confirmed those claims, that would be independent verification. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, Metro90, it is hard to get a game from an up-and-coming company into the limelight for such a review. WP may be the best way to do so. :) --Bigfootti 16:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Metropolitan90, are you saying that if I got it listed somewhere in say NetGuide (a NZ (and I think Au also) publication, then the page could stay? Or does it need to be in a US magazine? --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- NetGuide looks like a legitimate reliable source at first glance, although I personally am not familiar enough with it to say so definitively, and of course other editors may disagree. But, in general, there is no requirement that a reliable source be from any particular country. --Metropolitan90 04:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Trouble is, even if NetGuide decided to publish it in their next issue, thats still two weeks away, and dont these types of debates only last 5 days? How would someone go about suspending the page (or archiving it) till its published? Cause a lot of work has been put into the article and deleting it would be a waste. --K776 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: That is a False dilemma. Wikipedia admins can undelete articles at any time. Or alternatively (supposing the article can't be undeleted), you can take the content of the article,move it to a personal website, and improve upon it yourself. Or, if you really like the wiki format, create your own Quantum Legacy wiki --Mitaphane talk 18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Trouble is, even if NetGuide decided to publish it in their next issue, thats still two weeks away, and dont these types of debates only last 5 days? How would someone go about suspending the page (or archiving it) till its published? Cause a lot of work has been put into the article and deleting it would be a waste. --K776 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- NetGuide looks like a legitimate reliable source at first glance, although I personally am not familiar enough with it to say so definitively, and of course other editors may disagree. But, in general, there is no requirement that a reliable source be from any particular country. --Metropolitan90 04:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Metropolitan90, are you saying that if I got it listed somewhere in say NetGuide (a NZ (and I think Au also) publication, then the page could stay? Or does it need to be in a US magazine? --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, Metro90, it is hard to get a game from an up-and-coming company into the limelight for such a review. WP may be the best way to do so. :) --Bigfootti 16:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I played the game myself, or other editors played the game themselves, that would still be original research. Furthermore, if the goal is to prove that the game is unique because it is a full-version game that runs directly in your browser, or because it's the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector, just playing the game would not prove that, since other games might meet those criteria too without my knowing it. On the other hand, if reviewers for, say, Computer Gaming World or PC Gamer confirmed those claims, that would be independent verification. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Verify independently? 2 things: (One) Play it yourself, and offer judgement; (Two) recruit people from WP, and ask them to play and offer judgement. --Bigfootti 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The question isn't whether the statements can be verified by the game publisher/developer, but whether the statements can be verified by independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 14:00, 27 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 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Kicking222. Gets 3000 google hits. The game should be notable before being added to Wikipedia, not the other way around. (also, I'm not sure what to make of the WP page being used in other efforts to to get the word out [5], but whichever) --Interiot 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The link on the digg to the wiki was for more information as its the only page at the moment that has lots of information on it without having to be searched for. So dont make a decision based on that :P --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Interiot. Don't try promoting non-notable things on Wikipedia in order to make them notable; it never works, even when they aren't found for a while, and deleting them takes up valuable time/energy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Who said it was for promoting the game? The game already has more than enough players. And it is notable. As said above, "According to WP:SOFTWARE, QL comes under number 2. It is innovative and significant, being the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector." --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt this was the first multiplayer Shockwave game - I'm pretty sure RuneScape was there first. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, Zetawoof. Runescape is Java based. I am a programmer, and could give proof of RS's Java-ness, but I'd just be over people's heads.--Bigfootti 10:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Read it again Zetawoof. I said "first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector". I know there are other shockwave mp games. --K776 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever. Point is, I don't think there's anything it's doing that hasn't been done before in some way, shape, or form. The mere combination of pre-existing concepts (like "multi-time" and "multi-sector", whatever those mean) doesn't really add up to something really "innovative and significant", particularly as there are no reliable sources confirming that this combination of features is indeed unique. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Read it again Zetawoof. I said "first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector". I know there are other shockwave mp games. --K776 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, Zetawoof. Runescape is Java based. I am a programmer, and could give proof of RS's Java-ness, but I'd just be over people's heads.--Bigfootti 10:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt this was the first multiplayer Shockwave game - I'm pretty sure RuneScape was there first. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Who said it was for promoting the game? The game already has more than enough players. And it is notable. As said above, "According to WP:SOFTWARE, QL comes under number 2. It is innovative and significant, being the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector." --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. It does seem to meet number 2 of SOFTWARE as K776 points out, but I'm not seeing any third party sources to that effect; it's pretty easy to simply claim to be innovative. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There appears to be some sockpuppetting going on here for the keep votes - K776 is a new user who created the page and exclusively edited this article, as is Bigfootti (8 edits, joined on the 26th), as well as 24.109.27.115 (3 edits, same day), Sk8ter823 (2 edits, same day) and Jabor (3 edits, including one on this page). --SevereTireDamage 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I had mentioned on 2 QL forums that the wiki page was nominated for deletion (nothing wrong with that?) and that people could head on over and make their vote whether or not they wanted to keep or delete it and told them the decision is theirs so their decisions they make are in no way mine. --K776 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The game isn't doing anything but trying to be known why would you delete it's page when the game hasn't even come out yet.TYRQ
- Delete. Blatant advertisement for an ultimately non-notable (albeit rather shiny-looking) web game. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - the open beta development path and browser / download approach seem worthy of mention. Ace of Risk 12:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The title is using a very unique system of content delivery and method of displaying that content. Its unique for that alone, as for the notability of the game outside this new system I am not sure. However seeing as they are the first to attempt, or at least publically acknowledge this method I feel its notable. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
DeleteWeak Delete (revoted, see comment below) - Wow, the sock puppetry. You really should have brought only one person in here to argue for keeping it, since you're all saying the same thing, and none of the arguments are grounded in wikipedia policy. QL does NOT pass point 2 of the software guidlines - read the last clause of that sentence and you'll understand. You and I do not qualify as reliable sources. Basically, wikipedia is not free advertising. You've stated that you're not trying to advertise, but then encourage people to try it out for themselves. That's blatant advertising. Wikipedia is here to report the findings of *other* peer-reviewed publications, that's why verifiability and no original research are so important. Advertise elsewhere and let someone else not affiliated with the game make the article AFTER it becomes famous (and yes, testers are affiliated).129.61.46.16 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh- The edits address the Vanity and NPOV problems in the original version, which certainly helps and shows good faith on the creators' part. I still don't think it passes the verifiability and original research policies (which are two of the most important policies here), since no independent peer reviewed publications have been shown to cover the game to date. And that is not Wikipedia's job. The edits are making it into a useful article, one that would be acceptable if it becomes notable enough without wikipedia's help. 68.106.198.28 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
- If I've read it correctly, original research means information that isn't reliable/doesn't have a reliable source, right? Well, everything on that page has been said by the developer of the game, Miles. How much more reliable can you get? --K776 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, not exactly. Let me give you an example - if Stephen Hawkings were to come to me and say that his theory on Hawking radiation was patent nonsense, then that would not be acceptable to be put on wikipedia, even if I could provide proof of the email. If the New York Times reported that he said it, it would be reported that "in 2006, Stephen Hawkings raised objections about..." on a wikinews article, and might get a mention on the Hawking radiation page in a controversy section. However, until he published his findings in a peer reviewed scientific publication, the article would retain the incorrect information, as it is the most verifiable. I realize that it's difficult to draw analogies between hard science and small online games, but similar standards apply. If the game developer has publicly stated the design intentions of the game in a press release (or equivalent), then it can be mentioned that they said that - but one man's personal opinion, no matter how intimately he knows his subject, is Original Research until it has been peer reviewed. Ok, this is getting long, but I hope that helped clarify the policy as I understand it. 68.106.198.28 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
- If I've read it correctly, original research means information that isn't reliable/doesn't have a reliable source, right? Well, everything on that page has been said by the developer of the game, Miles. How much more reliable can you get? --K776 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The edits address the Vanity and NPOV problems in the original version, which certainly helps and shows good faith on the creators' part. I still don't think it passes the verifiability and original research policies (which are two of the most important policies here), since no independent peer reviewed publications have been shown to cover the game to date. And that is not Wikipedia's job. The edits are making it into a useful article, one that would be acceptable if it becomes notable enough without wikipedia's help. 68.106.198.28 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
- Comment - Even more wow as I try to edit the article to remove the worst of the advertising and to tag all of the things that might not be advertising if they can find sources to back them up...the article uses the word "you" in reference to you as a player so many times that I'm not going to bother trying to remove it. That's blatant and terribly bad encyclopedic style, and wonderful advertisement style. Rewrite the article with an emphasis on how independent publications have reported on the game, instead of why someone should sign up. Otherwise, it is an advertisement and has no place in an encyclopedia. 129.61.46.16 14:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
- All references to "you" have been place with "a player". --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- weak delete i do not believe that this game is notable at this time, but that in the near future it will be. all those angry developers can request undeletion when their game meets WP:SOFTWARE. --Samael775 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This might become one of those great information sites about games...why would we want to delete it? -Qsik-
- Comment Because, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it does become notable in the future, it can be recreated, but for now it's simply not. Wikipedia reports, but does not promote. And if it does eventually become notable enough, the article would *not* look anything like the current one, so there's not much point in saving the current version. 129.61.46.16 18:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
- Quantum Delete - Notability first, article second. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- ^ Pointless comment above. ^ I checked the 'under developement' category page, and there are a large number of games on there which have had little to no large-scale publicity. This article has just enough information to get a reader interested, and has a full web site to back it up. I looked up some other UD games, and found Galaxylife, whose release date is marked as 'soon'. QL, on the other hand, is in open beta, and is arguably full-featured, compared to some post-release games. The largest obstacle to the release of QL is thhe fact that some bugs still need ironing out, and somewhere around half the (SP) storyline is unpublished (to the testers).--Bigfootti 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Fails notability, unreleased, WP's not a crystal ball. Thank you, come again. I just like a little humour at times. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment In the case of "under development" games, those articles are (or should be) nothing more than stubs, placeholders that give information in a press release (usually circulated in peer-reviewed publications) about expected release information. If the article is basically blanked and says that QL is an upcoming MMORPG with X release date, will be set in X world, and will run in the X environment, then that's all the article needs. The fact that other articles don't do that just means that other game developers are abusing wikipedia as well. The current article does nothing more than gush about how great it is and how you should sign up and play. Wikipedia covers a wide range of topics that a paper encyclopedia wouldn't because of space constraints, but it is still an encyclopedia, not free advertising space. 129.61.46.16 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
- This discussion could go on until QL is oficially released, and we'd still not have a satisfactory solution. QL is a free and open beta, effectively released, and being upgraded and bug-checked regularly. As such, it coincides with both full-release and UD game headings.-Bigfootti 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Josh, if say 99% of the page was to be deleted out then, would that means the actual article could stay there until it is notable, then be reverted back to the revision atm? Or is that againsr wiki policy? --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- This discussion could go on until QL is oficially released, and we'd still not have a satisfactory solution. QL is a free and open beta, effectively released, and being upgraded and bug-checked regularly. As such, it coincides with both full-release and UD game headings.-Bigfootti 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- ^ Pointless comment above. ^ I checked the 'under developement' category page, and there are a large number of games on there which have had little to no large-scale publicity. This article has just enough information to get a reader interested, and has a full web site to back it up. I looked up some other UD games, and found Galaxylife, whose release date is marked as 'soon'. QL, on the other hand, is in open beta, and is arguably full-featured, compared to some post-release games. The largest obstacle to the release of QL is thhe fact that some bugs still need ironing out, and somewhere around half the (SP) storyline is unpublished (to the testers).--Bigfootti 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - let it grow organically. GrapePie 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep three diferent editors and an article on a fairly bit stratergy gaming website count strongly in it's favour. Needs POV tagging and hence POV fixing urgently, however. Would perhaps be best merged into a list of garage/bedroom games. LinaMishima 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this WP:NPOV article. Vizjim 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Quantum Legacy article has been changed based on 129.61.46.16's feedback (regarding citations and facts)
Please re-evaluate the article based on WP:VAIN, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV (not WP:SOFTWARE) and continue to offer comments on where it would be improved by editing the article or the talk page. Thanks, K776 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising, unless good verifiable sources meeting WP:RS are cited that say that this game is important. Currently, no sources are cited at all, and all external links are to sites which fail to meet reliable source guidelines because they are to forums to which anyone can post or to a website whose content is controlled by Four Thirty One Interactive. Such sites could be acceptable sources of information on game content, but they are not reliable as an indication that the game is of any importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I dont suppose MoFunZone or StrategyInformer count as reliable sources? They are pretty common websites. Does it have to be published print articles? --K776 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Neither site has any significant information - all they're doing, as far as I can tell, is linking to the game. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The medium doesn't matter - it's perfectly acceptable to use online sources. Those particular websites, however, don't say anything notable about the game that could really be cited in a wikipedia article. 68.106.198.28 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
- Actually, its verifying information (which everyone wants). Strategy Informer clearly says in its description "it will also feature a unique "multi-sector" style of game play", making that inovative and significant with a reliable source, right? It even says "This innovative breakthrough.....". What more do you need? --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- What more do we need? A review that was written independently. That text was taken straight from the Quantum Legacy site. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, most sites and probably some publications wouldn't do any better. Theres not a lot of ways to say the same thing. --K776 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- What more do we need? A review that was written independently. That text was taken straight from the Quantum Legacy site. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, its verifying information (which everyone wants). Strategy Informer clearly says in its description "it will also feature a unique "multi-sector" style of game play", making that inovative and significant with a reliable source, right? It even says "This innovative breakthrough.....". What more do you need? --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mofun zone appears to just be a generic game information page. Instinct says that the website listings are not limited to the notable. LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Strategy Informer entry contains a link to an interview with the developers which gives the game merit. However a single source is rarely enough LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Lina - the single reference to the interview helps (and the interview is an example of what should be cited in an article), not exactly enough, but it helps. JoshWook 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I dont suppose MoFunZone or StrategyInformer count as reliable sources? They are pretty common websites. Does it have to be published print articles? --K776 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It is rare of anyone voting on an Af to go check an AfD'd website's forum, find the "omg, AfD!" thread and make helpfull comments. This is, thankfully, one of my little hobbies. K776 is to be aclaimed for being unusually gracious in this debate. Posted that:
- 1) Article is likely to be deleted due to lack of notariety
- 2) Notariety should be easy to get to allow the restoration of K776's work
- LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Also worth noting that correct name should be "Quantum Legacy (game)", since there is a book by this name about Quantum physics. (seperate comment as is different point) LinaMishima 02:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll change it once I'm done editing then. :D --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Not notable, fails WP:WEB --Peephole 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No independent, reliable sources used to provide any evidence of being notable in accordance with the proposed standards at WP:SOFTWARE or the standards at WP:WEB. GRBerry 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I updated the daily AFD page to reflect that this AFD discussion has been moved to a different page. The broken period was presumably less than 24 hours. GRBerry 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? The article, while it very much needs a ton of work, has the essentials for a CVG article. Lots of stuff should be moved around , citations are needed, as well as the "game under dev" tag, but it seems that it's a very valid article in and of itself. I must be missing something, big time. Keep Scytheml 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This debate is admittedly somewhat confusing at this point, and for good reason. Since the beginning of the AFD, the article has been edited heavily - most of the earlier discussion was about a version of the article that would indeed never be acceptable on Wikipedia. Since then, it's really turned into a debate over notability, which is more subjective. Just hope that clarifies. JoshWook 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Well filled out article. Havok (T/C/c) 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I utterly reject the original research claim for games. The only way one can become familiar with a game is to play it. You read books, watch movies and play games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:48, 5 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. Amidst all the sound and fury, the multitude of supporters of this site/company bring up some solid arguments that aren't refuted with regards to notability. Those arguing for deletion seem to be applying vague standards and merely asserting non-notability. The article isn't sourced, and WP:V is critical, but it seems WP:V could eventually be met, and no strong arguments have been presented to counter that. Mangojuicetalk 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Masters of cinema
|
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}} |
Contested prod. Article about a website with an Alexa rating over 750,000.[10] Only real claim to fame listed in the article is a collaboration with another website that has an Alexa rating over 500,000.[11] Delete unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article and to demonstrate compliance with WP:WEB. --Allen3 talk 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- What does "contested prod" mean? This article describes what the "Masters of Cinema" website is, and the associated "Masters of Cinema Series" of DVDs. A famous boutique DVD label in the UK. What claims in the article require your verification? Why the mention of Alexa ratings? Peerpee 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Uncle G 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Also see all of the policy and guideline pages that are hyperlinked in the above nomination. If you want to make an argument that this page should be kept, you'll need to cite sources to demonstrate that the subject satisfies one or more of the WP:WEB criteria. Uncle G 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom, and contested prod means someone tagged it with prod, and it was removed. tmopkisn tlka 21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A site doesn't have to be popular to be important (and the converse is true: popularity does not necessarily mean a site is important). Masters of cinema is well known within the cross-section of two groups: (1) film aficionados and scholars and (2) the web-savvy. Try googling on it and clicking on various links amongst the results. In addition, they now have a series of DVDs that they collaborate on with Eureka (an indiciation of how seriously their site is taken), which, while not exactly rivalling The Criterion Collection in popularity, do rival them in how seriously they are taken amongs collectors of both obscure and canonical artefacts of cinematic history. Jun-Dai 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Instead of giving vague and largely useless indications that there are sources out there somewhere ("googling and clicking"), please cite sources, as asked above. Uncle G 09:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. You will find the Masters of Cinema website listed on the Carleton College Cinema and Media Studies department's Research Guide here: http://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/cams/resources/research/. You will also find them listed among the Film Reference Sources on the University of Toronto Cinema Studies Department pages: http://www.utoronto.ca/innis/library/cinemaother.html. You will also find them listed among the recommended internet sources for a film class at the University of North Carolina Wilmington: http://library.uncw.edu/web/research/subjects/film/guides/fst377.html. As a selected web site on the Washington University in St. Louis library pages: http://library.wustl.edu/subjects/film/. As a research resource on the Wellesley College Library pages: http://www.wellesley.edu/Library/Research/cinema.html. On the Barnard College Library subject guide for film studies: http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/library/guides/film.htm. On the Purdue University Film and Video Studies department's internet links pages: http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/idis/film-studies/links_internet.html. Among the internet resources on the Georgia State University Library's pages for film and video research: http://www.library.gsu.edu/research/resources.asp?ldID=75&guideID=0&resourceID=1. Among the film studies research sources for film studies on the University of New Hampshire Library's pages: http://www.reference.unh.edu/guides/filmstudies.html. You will find them listed among the links on Senses of Cinema, a major online film journal here: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/links.html. They are also on the links page of Bright Lights Film Journal, another major online film journal: http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/sources.html. They were cited in the Internet Scout Report over two years ago: http://scout.wisc.edu/Reports/ScoutReport/2004/scout-040507-geninterest.php. They were a Yahoo! pick over two years ago: http://picks.yahoo.com/picks/i/20040403.html. As a website and as a DVD producer, they have been cited several times in articles by Jonathan Rosenbaum, film critic for the Chicago Reader: http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs24/col_dvd.htm. Their articles have been picked up by GreenCine Daily, a major film blog: http://daily.greencine.com/archives/000267.html. Plenty more where these came from. Msbailey 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)msbailey
-
- Comment: While that is an impressively sized list of links, when looking for reliable sources to build an article from it is necessary to locate sources that talk about the article subject instead of merely provide a mention of the subject. Source statements such as "Seminal site devoted to world cinema on DVD", "focuses on - but not limited to - the world's major directors", "A non-academic site with some excellent links, in particular to information about directors", or being listed among a group of favorite blogs do not typically provide the type of information needed to build an encyclopedic article. Do you have any sources that speak about Masters of Cinema instead of about the movies that the website/organization deals with? --Allen3 talk 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment: However, the whole point is that MoC is not merely an "impressive sized list of links". Look in the top right hand corner of the MoC site. They have (in addition to their own cinephile DVD Series) four distinctive branch sites (painstakingly crafted over the last 8 years by the MoC creators themselves) all of which contain unique (i.e., not found anywhere else — where else can you find a decent photo of the reclusive Chris Marker?) content. The four sites are well-known to cinephiles world-wide: The MoC Tarkovsky Site, The MoC Bresson Site, The MoC Ozu Site, and the MoC Dreyer Site. These all have original content written by, among others, family and close friends of these four filmmakers, and they consistitute an invaluable resource to researchers (i.e., users of wikipedia). I think most of the drive-by shootings in this debate (does not apply to author Allen3) stem from a lack of (or a mere cursory) understanding of the whole MoC concept. The MoC Wikipedia page will obviously need to clarify things better, once it becomes a proper stub.--Stalker63 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- KEEP. This is one of the most valuable sources for cinema on the web. It offers not only intelligent, thoughtful analysis of great directors (such as Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Ozu, and Bresson), but also is a invaluable source of DVD information. This site talks about discs from all around the globe, not just releases in North America. As cited before, Bright Lights Film Journal and the Chicago Reader have linked this website because of its very well researched information. I really don't understand why this website is scheduled for deletion. It's a real website that has been in existence for years, dedicated to those who take film/cinema seriously. I think that Wikipedia can save itself a lot of time by leaving this page alone, when there are much more egregious violations out there. I was at a comedy club recently, and a comic told a story about how he created his own page here (which, Wikipedia decided to delete). The Masters of Cinema website contributes a great deal to the world of film. If people really wish for things to delete, perhaps they should delete people like William Hung, the godawful American Idol contestant who has no artistic value whatsoever, and has made no contribution to society at all. Or delete Brian "Kato" Kaelin, O.J. Simpson's infamous houseguest, who aside from living at OJ's house at the time of OJ's murder trial, hasn't done anything worthwhile before, during, or after Simpson's trial for murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondbrilliance (talk • contribs)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP. This site has, over the years, been an integral part of my own education in art cinema. The Masters of Cinema (MoC) section on Andrei Tarkovsky [12] is second to none and has been acknowledged in the foreword (or acknowledgment sections) of every recent scholarly work on Andrei Tarkovsky, just two examples being Robert Bird's excellent Andrei Rublev (British Film Institute, 2005 [13]), and Sean Martin's Andrei Tarkovsky (Pocket Essentials, 2006 [14]). Chicago Sun-Times resident film critic Roger Ebert (of Siskel & Ebert fame) has also provided fascinating input especially written for this MoC site (see their Topics' section). The Masters of Cinema main site as well as their "micro-sites" ("micro" being somewhat of a misnomer) on Ozu, Dreyer, Tarkovsky, and Bresson are prominently featured in the latest edition of the acclaimed Time Out Film Guide: They write: What The Criterion Collection is to DVD Publishing, Masters of Cinema is to online DVD coverage (this was written just before MoC got into DVD publishing as well). Check it out for yourself next time you're at your local bookstore [15]. Director Paul Schrader provided specially written input to the Masters of Cinema Bresson site (see their December 7, 2004 news update [16]). Director Martin Scorsese provided a specially written essay for the booklet of their recent Rossellini DVD (MoC #10 [17]). Jim O'Rourke (musician), now a filmmaker, wrote a long essay for MoC for their Matsumoto release (MoC #32 [18]). Alex Cox has provided MoC with purpose-taped video introductions to their Naked Island release (MoC #12 [19]). And the list goes on... I would go as far as saying that it would be a grave mistake to delete this page, as it is such an incredibly valuable resource to scholars, filmmakers, and fans alike. I have no idea whatsoever what an "Alexa rating" is, but I highly doubt she's a patron of the Fine Arts. --Stalker63 (Effete Film Snob) 20:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. A good website which would be great as a link resource for various film articles. But this is not an encyclopedically notable website (fails WP:WEB) that should get its own article. Also Wikipedia is not a free space for promoting websites Bwithh 01:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep.That the site may be considered encyclopaedically notable is borne out by the presence of the high profile names that go on record here (right hand column), the frequent references to/reproductions of e.g., this article (e.g., [here]). The MoC Tarkovsky bibliography [[20]] is arguably the largest in existence and is used as a standard reference by the authors referred to above (Martin, Bird) and others (such as Milos Frys in his latest tome www.tarkovskij.wz.cz and [Michael McCormick],...), as well as by film school students around the world (if we are to believe the readers' letters occasionally published on their site). The MoC Bresson site caught the attention of Gary Indiana, see his (I dare say) historically interesting letter [here]. Whatever its failings, there certainly is no lack of encyclopedic value, in my mind. MoC has turned into a bit of a "phenomenon" (l will resist comparisons to William Hung). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalker63 (talk • contribs)- Struck out the keep, as this is the second keep by Stalker63. -- Koffieyahoo 04:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to delete this page
- Delete, as stated by Bwithh, no evidence has been provided to show how this site meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Ironically enough, the alexa rating has gone down since its original nomination. It's now a whopping 886k, and clearly a failure of WP:WEB. alphaChimp laudare 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Surely the WP:WEB should not be the only criterion for evaluation of this entry. MoC is not only a website but also a DVD label. If entries for other DVD labels are allowed to remain on Wikipedia (Kino International, Image Entertainment, Anchor Bay Entertainment, Blue Underground, Digiview Entertainment, Synapse Films, The Criterion Collection, and so forth), why not MoC?--Msbailey 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 16:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not stopping you from bringing them to AfD. My guess is that they are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, but you're always welcome to express your dissenting opinion. alphaChimp laudare 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Question. Well, instead of arguing for the deletion of every other entry on a DVD label as well, how can I go about arguing for keeping this particular entry on the basis of MoC being "sufficiently notable to merit inclusion"?--Msbailey 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment WP:CORP guidelines would be the appropriate thing to gauge a claim for inclusion as a DVD label, if that helps.--Isotope23 17:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment — see MoC mention in the current issue of CinemaScope vol 27 (MoC mention in an earlier Vol. 24 was referred to above). Hardly a mere "price listing", nor a simple "media reprint of press releases." Fwiw. --Stalker63 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't understand why anyone thinks Alexa ratings are relevant to this conversation. Surely there are better things you people could be doing than going around and trying to get every article under some arbitrary alexa rating deleted? I can understand that the original version of the MoC article was quite bad--mostly copied from their "About" page, but I can hardly see what the fuss is about at this point. Jun-Dai 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, some people use Alexa rankings as a gauge of website notability or popularity. These are not however part of the core guidelines of WP:WEB, personally I don't put much stock in Alexa rankings, but this is a gathering of opinions and opinions will vary. All the fuss is about whether or not this entity, Masters of cinema, meets the accepted guidelines for inclusion here (WP:WEB and WP:CORP) or if they don't, what extinuating circumstances or compelling arguments exist that would make a strong case for why said guidelines should be ignored in this case. you may not agree with the guidelines Jun-Dai, but they are the guidelines that are in place here, so your energy would probably be best spent arguing how Masters of cinema meets one of those guidelines, or why we should not apply those guidelines to Masters of cinema. Hope that explains it a bit better.--Isotope23 19:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it seems to me that the citations listed above and below already qualify it under those criteria. At the very least, nobody has really tried to counter them. Given that everyone seems to be ignoring them, I wonder what the point in continuing further is? In any case, given that we have at least four distinct people supporting the article's continuing existence, what happens next? Do we delete it because we could fail to build a consensus for keeping it, or do we keep it because the
delete-happyusers in favor of deleting failed to drum up enough support against the article? I've never involved myself this much in the deletion process, so I'm curious to see where it goes. Jun-Dai 00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)- Comment, for sake of clarity, let me just state I'm not an administrator here or anything and I'm merely stating my own opinion. If you are refering to the list of links Msbailey provided, Allen3 basically answered why that does not meet WP:WEB. The first criteria of WP:WEB states "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." a link to a site, or including the site in a list of seminal sites does not meet WP:WEB. Stalker63 also provided some links, but these were largely either links to sections of the Masters of Cinema site, or were external links to articles where Masters of Cinema were mentioned in passing, but the articles were not about Masters of Cinema. There has also been a claim made that MoC meets WP:CORP, but again meeting WP:CORP requires "multiple non-trivial published works" and I only see one external cite provided that has non-trivial coverage of one of their products. Where this goes from here depends on the closing admin. This is not a numerical vote, so the closing admin has to decide if there is consensus to keep, delete, or no consensus either way (no consensus defaults to keep). Generally, newly registered users and those who render opinions from IPs without creating a user have their opinions weighed less unless they make an actual argument based on the accepted guidelines and policies at Wikipedia. Basically, the admin is looking for a consensus, though I've seen cases where numerically the consensus was split, but the result was either outright keep or delete because one side did not make a compelling argument. Usually the whole process takes roughly 5 days from nomination. Hope that clears it up. Also Jun-Dai, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Calling Wikipedia editors who disagree with your position "delete-happy users" doesn't really add much to the debate on the content and, speaking personally, doesn't really entice me to continue take the time to try and explain the process to those unfamiliar with it...--Isotope23 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize for the delete-happy comment, and am retracting it. I'm just bewildered by the concern for deleting the article. Also, Allen's rebuttal was posted after my response, and is the first time that anyone even acknowledged the citations. :-( Jun-Dai 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, fair enough. I know how frustrating it can be to see an article you started/worked on (or about a subject you feel strongly about) brought for deletion and people argue to have it removed. Beyond that, Wikipedia guidelines, and processes seem fairly obtuse and arcane if you are not familiar with them, which doesn't make it any easier.--Isotope23 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize for the delete-happy comment, and am retracting it. I'm just bewildered by the concern for deleting the article. Also, Allen's rebuttal was posted after my response, and is the first time that anyone even acknowledged the citations. :-( Jun-Dai 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, for sake of clarity, let me just state I'm not an administrator here or anything and I'm merely stating my own opinion. If you are refering to the list of links Msbailey provided, Allen3 basically answered why that does not meet WP:WEB. The first criteria of WP:WEB states "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." a link to a site, or including the site in a list of seminal sites does not meet WP:WEB. Stalker63 also provided some links, but these were largely either links to sections of the Masters of Cinema site, or were external links to articles where Masters of Cinema were mentioned in passing, but the articles were not about Masters of Cinema. There has also been a claim made that MoC meets WP:CORP, but again meeting WP:CORP requires "multiple non-trivial published works" and I only see one external cite provided that has non-trivial coverage of one of their products. Where this goes from here depends on the closing admin. This is not a numerical vote, so the closing admin has to decide if there is consensus to keep, delete, or no consensus either way (no consensus defaults to keep). Generally, newly registered users and those who render opinions from IPs without creating a user have their opinions weighed less unless they make an actual argument based on the accepted guidelines and policies at Wikipedia. Basically, the admin is looking for a consensus, though I've seen cases where numerically the consensus was split, but the result was either outright keep or delete because one side did not make a compelling argument. Usually the whole process takes roughly 5 days from nomination. Hope that clears it up. Also Jun-Dai, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Calling Wikipedia editors who disagree with your position "delete-happy users" doesn't really add much to the debate on the content and, speaking personally, doesn't really entice me to continue take the time to try and explain the process to those unfamiliar with it...--Isotope23 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand why anyone thinks Alexa ratings are relevant to this conversation. Surely there are better things you people could be doing than going around and trying to get every article under some arbitrary alexa rating deleted? I can understand that the original version of the MoC article was quite bad--mostly copied from their "About" page, but I can hardly see what the fuss is about at this point. Jun-Dai 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep.Thank you, Isotope23, that does help. If one looks at MoC as a DVD label (not just as a website), one will see that they are, in fact, highly notable. Several of their DVDs have been featured as 'DVD of the Month' in Sight & Sound, the film magazine published by the British Film Institute. Their DVDs often show up as 'DVD of the Month' and in best-of-year polls on DVD Beaver (a website with a low Alexa rating and no Wikipedia page but which has been cited numerous times in the New York Times): http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/feature.htm. As noted above, filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese, Alex Cox, and Paul Schrader; scholars such as Tony Rayns, and Scott Eyman; and critics such as Kent Jones, Phillip Lopate, David Ehrenstein and Bill Krohn have all created exclusive content for MoC's DVD releases.--Msbailey 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)- Keep - The products seem very professional and notable. A great source of information on professionals in the cinema. GrapePie 19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - No difference between this and the Criterion collection (which you're not considering deleting), so I see no reason to delete it.85.210.180.115 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Apology - I forgot in my haste to click the "sign it" button on my last entry, as I was responding directly to a response to my already signed entry. I was not aware that there is a limit of one "keep" per person. If "this is not a vote" (as stated in the box at the top), why was my "keep" overstricken, as if it was a vote? I believe, personally, that the discussion itself has established that there is no justifiable reason to delete the page from the encyclopaedia. There are many good, considered reasons brought forward for keeping it, and mostly (not exclusively) a few pat responses and glib formal comments brought against. --Stalker63 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, It's a courtesy consideration. This isn't a vote, but it is an exercise in consensus building and multiple keeps or deletes make it harder on the closing admin to sift through who is an original contributor to the discussion, especially in very long debates.--Isotope23 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP Agreed with Stalker63. Looking at all the comments on this page, it strikes me how sad it is that the Wiki-ites cannot quickly see the worth of both the Masters of Cinema Series of DVDs and this entry at Wikipedia from the information provided. There are numerous worthwhile profile entries of similar DVD labels (Criterion, Kino, etc.) which by virtue of their presence condone the "Masters of Cinema" entry. Seeing as most of you have a lot of time on your hands, may I humbly suggest a read of this page. Peerpee 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment, saying there are other DVD labels that justify inclusion of this one is a straw-man argument. Those DVD labels either meet WP:CORP criteria, or they too should be nominated for deletion. The presence of articles about similar items or entities does not condone inclusion of a specific item or entity. Each article has to stand on it's own, meet accepted policies, and be subject to accepted guidelines. The question isn't whether or not "Masters of Cinema" has "worth"; it is whether or not it meets WP:WEB or WP:CORP. There are tons of websites out there that to me personally (and a like-minded group of enthusiasts) have an immense amount of worth... but if I saw an article written about them on Wikipedia, I would sadly have to opine deletion becuase they cannot be proven to meet Wikipedia's accepted guidelines for having an article about the topic.--Isotope23 12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP This entire debate is baffling by any standard. Why the Masters of Cinema site -- a storehouse of scholarly articles about the cinema, and more -- has to fight for retention of a Wikipedia page, while something like Ain't It Cool News seems to have been given the green-light for hysterical reportage in a "fanboy" key is crazy. Are we really voting for which Wikipedia entries get to stay on the basis of their "popularity" with a mass audience? Shocking and disgusting. --Evillights 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn website.--Peta 06:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Care to expound, Petaholmes? What does "nn website" mean? I've spent five minutes looking for what it might mean, and haven't found anything. Peerpee 08:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- "nn" means "not notable". AndyJones 12:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Care to expound, Petaholmes? What does "nn website" mean? I've spent five minutes looking for what it might mean, and haven't found anything. Peerpee 08:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep.Allow me to transcribe the first few sentences in the opening paragraph of a featured review of MoC's recent release of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau's Faust in the new issue of Sight & Sound: "During the last two years, Masters of Cinema has established a reputation as one of the UK's most enlightened DVD labels, assembling an eclectic catalogue which mixes such classics as Metropolis and Kwaidan with lesser known works by Dreyer (Michael), Renoir (Toni), Kurosawa (Scandal, The Idiot) and Nicholas Ray. Like Criterion in the US, MoC handles each title with loving care, creating some remarkable extras (including lavishly produced sleeve notes) and, more importantly, ensuring that its transfers are as complete as possible." A cursory search in Lexis Nexis shows positive mentions of MoC's DVDs in The Daily Telegraph (London), The South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), Time Out (London), and The Liverpool Daily Post. If MoC does not meet the Wikipedia requirements for WP:WEB, it should by crystal clear by now that they more than meet the criteria for WP:CORP. But to keep harping on the importance of the website, here is the recommendation made by the American Library Association in their Choice magazine which highlights recommended books and Web sites for libraries: "Graphically attractive, informative, and user friendly, this invaluable Web site focuses on but is not limited to the work of major world directors. It is divided into numerous sections, the most significant of which are "The News Fountain," which runs down the left side of the main page and provides current news on directors and films (past and present), releases of historical and critically important DVDs, awards, and tributes. Down the center of the page is a month-by-month calendar of upcoming DVD releases of major films. The site's growing library of recent articles on international cinema is evident on the right side of the home page; there are links to articles and a list of more than 100 directors also included with links to at least a biographical essay and, at most, a Web site devoted to that director. This section also offers useful links to dealers in everything from DVDs and video to film posters; critical reviews; online writing support for budding screenwriters; and film publications. The particular appeal of this site is its commitment to world cinema-there is a good balance of international film and US movies, with overall emphasis on the achievements of the filmmakers and the films themselves. Summing Up: Essential. All film collections. August 2005."--Msbailey 16:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
KEEP I WOULD vote with my feet to keep this site. It is non-commercial in nature, maintained by the devotees of the Art known as Cinema and thus belongs to the general treasure of knowledge, rightfully here in wikipedia. I personally have seen entries in this encyclopedia with infinitely less content and shallow essence, so why the heck not a professional site (one of its kind) entirely devoted to the true masters of Cinema? IMO it would be a big loss to Wikipedia if you delete this article. Please consider keeping it. Thank u in advance.Eenspaaier 02:33, 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. It should be noted that being on IMDB is not proof of notability in the least. Wickethewok 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bachelors Cottage
|
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}} |
Apparently a short film, written/directed by a Harvard student, starring Harvard students, filmed at Harvard, screened at Harvard. Looks like a typical student film, not notable. Fan-1967 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is listed on IMDB, but take a look at the director's credentials. Stubbleboy 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nonnotable student film. NawlinWiki 03:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOT a place to promote every single non-notable student project. --Kinu t/c 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Short films are rare and this one sounds like a jewel. Online, it screens in NYC at Anthology Films. Sounds noteable to me. Jdlow 08:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Note: First edit from new user.
-
- Comment No, short student films are not rare in the slightest. There are tons of them. Fan-1967 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I read this advertised in NY. Smartly produced student films are welcome with me. Wasn't THX 1138 a student film once? If it's on IMDB, it should be here. NYcine 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Note: Third edit from new user.
- Delete per nom. Non-notable student film. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep It- Queer Cinema by queer filmmakers is very rare, and this is a gem of a movie with very high-quality production design, acting and directing. This is not "just another" student movie.-Darla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.120.226 (talk • contribs) Note: First edit from new user.
- Delete per nom. Regarding the notability issue, I get 12 distinct Google hits for "bachelor cottage" +movie, seven of which are IMDB pages, and a couple of blog mentions and showtimes. I'm not seeing multiple non-trivial third-party articles about the movie. While I don't believe Google should be the final arbiter of notability, at this level I think the point is symptomatic. Tychocat 11:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedy KeepBack again for keeps. I choose to give it the benefit of the doubt. The Google and IMDB links are strong reason in favor of noteability. Why? I'm hearing a little bias in this discussion persuading the editors and possible admins from student films in general (and from Harvard in the nom), so I'm going to be bold, as Wiki asked when I joined up, and suggest we consider merit and not number of hits. Has anyone seen the film? Hasty deletes can be symptomatic as well. Jdlow 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment "Has anyone seen the film?" That's exactly the point: practically nobody has. The movie has no distribution, which, barring an Oscar nomination or some other claim to fame, makes it inherently non-notable. Tens of thousands of student films are made, shown to other students and maybe an indy festival or two, and then are forgotten. (BTW: Multiple comments are welcome, but Keeps or Deletes are one per person.) Fan-1967 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete I don't think IMBD requires notability, as long as it's a movie. We don't need to mirror all of their content. -Sanbeg 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no claim made in the article that the film is notable in any way. Something should be encyclopedic before an article is written. -- DS1953 talk 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well, I saw the film. After my 7/31
keepand being an active NY film buff, I wanted to see for myself what this discussion was about. Yeah, doesn't sound like the short film is too well known. But I'm here to report that the film is pretty notable. Yesterday's screening was a small but excellent sample of new filmmaking. Very impressive and probably doesn't need a self-referential claim of notability to be what it is. Glad its on IMDB. Once again, for those who haven't seen it but enjoy an ever-evolving encyclopedia:KEEP.NYcine 6:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Note: Multiple recommendation from this user struck out per WP:AFD.
- 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 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kapoutland Pro Wrestling
|
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}} |
Long article on nonnotable fantasy/Internet "wrestling league"; 13 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is the greatest Wikipedia link of all time. Its sweet8 and everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSKANK88 (talk • contribs) (article creator)
- KPW is great. Who are you to doubt them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.215.128 (talk • contribs) (user's only edit)
- Delete as spam for a site that would fail WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not myspace. --DarkAudit 17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. hateless 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Jeez Louise. That's really all I have to say. -- Kicking222 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good Lord! Delete, spam for a non-notable website for a non-notable organization. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all deletes above, looks like a worthy WP:SNOW candidate. Can we go one day without a backyard wrestling article? --Kinu t/c 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, no, this isn't a "backyard wrestling article" as you so put it Kinu. Secondly, this isn't spam for a site that would fail. The site is anything but failing. We have new participants at a contant rate. By putting something on here, it allows more people to get an introduction to a game that is fun to play. I for one say Do Not Delete the article. Then again, what do I know. I'm simply a wrestling fan, a group of people who are looked down upon by the rest of civilization for watching "fake rasslin", and I'm also a gamer, yet another group of people who are looked down upon and considered "geeks" who live in their parent's basement. We're people, just like the rest of you, and we're simply trying to reach other people. --187inthe317
- Comment: It seems that many wrestling leagues have been posting articles recently, most likely out of sheer coincidence, and I apologize if my comment was somewhat coarse and based on that generalization. However, please note that AfD is not a debate as to the merits of wrestling, its fans, etc., but whether the article itself meets the "rough justice" Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. In this case, the guideline used by other editors is WP:WEB, and unfortunately no evidence from reliable sources is presented that such is the case. You are more than welcome to address those issues so that the community may make a more informed decision. Thanks! --Kinu t/c 04:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- there is no message anywhere telling people to come here and say KPW should stay. KPW wont fail, it's still running and means alot to the people who are a part of it. Hell, they gave up time to write this long article. I say keep it. Introduce new people to a fun game, that anyone can do. And i have too much respect for wrestlers to attempt any backyard wrestling. KPW is electronic, not set up in someones garden.
Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.173.77 (talk • contribs) Note: User's first edit.
- 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 02:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Medsoc
One student organization at a med school. I don't see anything particularly notable about it and their social calendar for the year is definitely not encyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 04:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Um, if you could please wait until i finish the entry. I'm still writing it. NickLCL
- Delete Local student organization at one school, not notable. I don't see how adding to the article will change that. Fan-1967 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment ok, it's pretty much finished. NickLCL
- Delete Author states it's finished, but it still doesn't appear to meet inclusion guidelines. Also obvious vanity, as it's apparently written by the organisation's president. — NMChico24
05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) - Comment I'm still neutral on this article, but fyi, I have opened related afd discussions for UNSW Medshow and University of New South Wales Revues. Bwithh 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just wondering what inclusion guidelines you're talking about and how does our article differ from Adelaide Medical Students' Society in validity for a wikipedia entry? NickLCL
- You might take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and review the information regarding groups/clubs. Basically, the issue is your club needs to be notable to a broad range of people. If your club is only notable at school, or to a very narrow readership, it's unlikely to remain posted here. Hope that helps. — NMChico24 05:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- You might take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and review the information regarding groups/clubs. Basically, the issue is your club needs to be notable to a broad range of people. If your club is only notable at school, or to a very narrow readership, it's unlikely to remain posted here. Hope that helps. — NMChico24
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted. My justification is: this is an obvious hoax (the toothbrush was known as a poor French attempt at "paedophile"; CRT was once known in poor French as "rapist"; he died from "Tiberius"), and no-one will complain. Kids! Don't try this at home! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Leigh Goedecke
Possible hoax. Zero relevant ghits for this individual. Page author gives dubious explanation in the talk page that this person was the inspiration for a "best selling novel" written by the page author (Bobbbbbb). — NMChico24 04:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious WP:BALLS. --Kinu t/c 06:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 07:55, 31 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. Wickethewok 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Charmed Sons
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Article about small online fan group, written by the movement. None of WP:WEB criteria met, no outside source, no outside reference, no recorded public reaction, partly fanfiction. Violation of WP:WEB, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research. As a whole, article is highly unnotable, it is possibly fancruft, vanity information and advertising.
EDIT: Furthermore, members and supporters of this fan group, in response to the deletion nomination, have been vandalizing many Charmed-related Wikipedia pages, two of them being IP-blocked today. Creators of The Charmed Sons article have continuously attacked Wikipedia contributors and have admitted in their own forum (see below for screenshots) of using multiple Wikipedia accounts to win this voting. AdamDobay 07:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC), edited by AdamDobay 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable as per the extensive reasonings above. Perhaps if proof was supplied that its actually being considered, even then its still crystal ballism until it goes into production at least and is acknowledged by the studio. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, for all the above reasons. I bet it was Britannia from TWoP that made this too. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--I didn't create it Zythe, but I've contributed to it. And you can go on Wes Ramsey's own website for confirmation of actor's involvement, as well as the site to see that he has done an online chat and been encouraging this effort. This entry is notable in that it's the first fan campaign ever to create a new show. It isn't just a fan board, this is about a fan campaign for a brand new show, something that has never been done before. And why should it bother any of you that there is an entry for this campaign? Retrieved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Charmed Sons —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for above reasons. Well laid-out points Adam. Also Anonymous2004, all I see on his page is a link to TCS. Am I missing something? And yes, of course he'd like to see the show resurrected...it would be a starring role. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Save Everwood is also a fan campaign and they are also that "successful" or even more so, and it still does not have its own wiki article. I think having and wanting to keep this article (and to be honest, the whole campaign) is just being a busybody instead of doing something important or useful. Charmed is over, and there are plenty of other great shows to watch. Get over it and get a life. Liz85 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Liz85. God knows there are enough "make it up as you go along" dramas on the air. Danny Lilithborne 19:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- "God knows there are enough "make it up as you go along" dramas on the air."
- That has nothing to do with this article. This is a discussion about wether to keep the article, not about wether you support it or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.66.105.253 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep This is not a debate over a television show; it is a debate over a website. The article has made no infringements on copyright and is simply describing a legitimate campaign. Just because you don't think the campaign is "Useful" doesn't mean it should be deleted. Just because you think the show shouldn't be on the air gives you no grounds to delete the article. We have the support of the actos desired for the roles, and Kern is reviewing the possibility himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.67.235.17 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep Why shouldn't it be here? adamdoby has debated that it shouldn't be on wikipedia because it doesn't exist; TCS does, in fact, exist. Because we are not talking about an article about a TV show; we're talking about a website that does exist. And does it matter who started it? if someone would point out specifically what codes of Wikipedia this article has broken, we can debate the most relevant topics. Adamdobey has expressed strongly that he does not support this website; yet he has given no specifics besides his own opinion. If the information doesn't hold strong for you, then why not give us a chance to revamp it to include Wiki required info, instead of jumping straight to 'delete?' Retrieved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Charmed Sons Shondrea 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Shondrea
Keep--None of your reasons cited for why this entry should be deleted hold any water. Everwood's campaigns efforts not having an entry does not mean they aren't entitled to one, only that no one has created one yet. This entry is not about a website, it's about a campaign effort by fans. This entry does not violate any rules of wikipedia for entries and should remain. And these comments about "getting a life"? Perhaps those posters should take their own advice and stop hassling other people's efforts or spending all their time obsessed with trying to convince people that Piper had a daughter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- This vote crossed out, as user had previously voted. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. GrapePie 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NPOV, unnotable, advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan database. prezzey 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not Craigslist or MySpace. --FuriousFreddy 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. This is certainly not notable enough to warrant an article. —Mira 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Its a brand new type of movement, the first of its kind. As such, and especially if it is successful, its history should be recorded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.216.53 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with that statement is that just because it is a new type of movement, does not make it notable. There are a multitude of "new movements" that begin and end all the time, yet they are not recorded on the site. Even if it becomes successful, it is uncertain whether it should still be included in the 'pedia. Even the famed campaign to bring back the original Star Trek series for a third season doesn't have it's own article; rather, it is included as a few mentions here and there on the main TOS articles. I don't see why this campaign should be any different. If and when the series comes about, then the information can be included as a footnote. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just because other fan campaigns do not have an entry does not mean they shouldn't have one, only that no one has created one yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- That really isn't a reasonable statement. To keep with the Star Trek theme I have going, historically, those TOS fans are fairly rabid about their favourite show. I fully expected to find an article that had been written about the campaign, and was surprised to not find one. In this instance, one of two things happened: either those fans realised it didn't necessitate a separate article, or the article was created but later put through the ringer as this campaign is now. Which one, I can't say. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just because other fan campaigns do not have an entry does not mean they shouldn't have one, only that no one has created one yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Compromise proposal : I'm quite sure I have seen this article a month before, it got deleted then. So before this devolves into yet another create-delete-create-delete bulls*** escapade, I propose to Delete this article, BUT: take the text presented here, shorten it to the more important parts(meaning: this is a fan campaign, there is a website, what efforts have been made up to now), and add it at the bottom of the Charmed main article under "Fan spin-off campaign".
- Advantages:
- The article, which might be not notably enough is gone.
- The history of this campaign will be recorded and updated (since the Charmed main article is likely more frequented).
- It's more topic oriented. The average Charmed fan will probably not have heard of The Charmed Sons, but if he/she has interest in a possible spin-off, he'll find the information where he/she will certainly look at (the Charmed main article).
- If the campaign turns out to be nothing more of a dream, one simple edit, and it's gone.
- If the campaign turns out to be more, and/or attracts more interest, then it warrants to be expanded into a whole article. Teshik 10:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article is about a campaign to get a new television show created. The website and message board are just tools to that end. Adam Dobay's own argument of why it should be deleted states that this is a "Fan Movement". There is nothing in the guidelines of Wikipedia that states that a fan movement cannot be listed as an article. Therefore, all the points about why this should be deleted do not hold water. This entry has a right to be listed, moreso than the seventy different entries I've seen on Wikipedia discussing different aspects of Charmed. The campaign is notable and does exist, and the article talks about that. Fan campaigns have been notable stories, starting back with the Save Designing Women campaign in the 1980s, and recently the Save Angel, Save Veronica Mars and Save Everwood campaigns. This campaign is especially notable because it's for a tv show that does not exist yet, but fans are campaigning for it. It just seems some people are jealous because they cannot do what others are and are trying to discredit this campaign. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. You can't have rules and regulations against something that is in it's own category. I have yet to even hear of another campaign, or even whispers of idea's of campaigns to get an entirely new TV show on the air. How can you apply rule for things that have been done before to something that, in it's right, is brand new? It hasn't been done before, there isn't any equal and fair etiquette to compare it too. Shondrea 00:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Shondrea
- You're not helping your case by citing jealousy as our rationale. Danny Lilithborne 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Charmed Sons are Cheating the Vote!
- Look what I found. On the Charmed Sons Message Board there's a whole thread for this wikipedia entry. Some interesting founds:
- *User angel_23 just said: And I've voted under annonymous, and my name Shondrea. I don't know how they track members, but if I have two more e-mail addresses; think If i make two more names, they'd be able to track it? Or maybe Mom would let me use her conputer...whole dofferent IP...*wheels turning*
- *She and the there-admin Brianna personally attacked wiki-user Zythe and wiki-user AdamDobay on this message board, confirming my thought that this whole issue is more like a personal issue for them and therefore they cannot think rationally and objectively.
- *The admins are on this site and are contributing to the thread and they support this behaviour.
- I think after the cheating the question whether to delete this article or not is no longer a question. Ever heard about fairplay?! And just because now I'm prepared for everything, here are the screencaps of their comments in case they delete the thread and pretend that it never existed. Confession of cheating, Bashing1, Bashing2, Bashing3. Liz85 06:16, 1 August 2006
- Because deleting reasons such as "get a life" as SO much more legita,ate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.66.105.253 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- While I have encouraged members of The Charmed Sons campaign to vote, I have not encouraged anyone to vote multiple times. I am also not responsible for the actions of others that I did not encourage.
- Furthermore, any comments made on another message board about AdamDobay or Zythe should have no bearing on whether this entry remains or goes. It is obvious it is a personal one for them, as many supporters of the campaign do not believe the character of Piper had a third child and that seems to be a sore spot for AdamDobay. As far as Zythe goes, he was banned from the Charmed Sons message board awhile back for trolling as well as banned twice under two different usernames from TWOP by the moderator on the Charmed board there for purposely antagonizing other posters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous2004 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- EDIT: Uch. This is exactly the kind of sh**stirring debate I tried to avoid.
- Liz85, thank you for drawing our attention to this. I just told Shondrea to withdraw her anonymous vote, and told everyone else multiple voting is forbidden. We want to keep this article, but we want to do it the fair way.
- As for the matter of Zythe versus Brittania and Shondrea, I don't know who kicked whose puppy in that one, but more importantly, I don't care. Leave the "I don't like you comments" to yourself, This was about whether the article merits Wikipedia status or not, not if you like each other or not. I hope we ALL can now return to an objective debate about this one. Teshik 13:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP - the Internet Fandom Community is a powerful one, and this is the first movement of its kind. As such, it should be allowed to remain. Besides - is it hurting anyone? There is no attempt to claim copyright, nor is there any attempt to make money from the original copyright. I don't see how this is a violation of rules, as this is the first article of its kind. I say keep it - regardless of what some immature fans may or may not have said on another website. The decision should be made purely on whether the article is appropriate for Wikipedia - and not about whether someones feelings got hurt from a personal attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.235.213 (talk • contribs) User's second edit.
-
- Dear whoever. I never trolled on the Charmed Sons. I think I may have expressed that I felt it was an attempt that couldn't go anywhere, but I contributed to discussion and actually I wasn't aware I had been "banned", since I stopped frequenting both TCS and TWoP. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and verifiability is not optional. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:27, 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 as follows: I took into account the arguments to delete, and at first glance, this looked like a clear "delete". However, having also (obviously) taken into account the arguments to keep, and given the circumstance that the article has been edited so that it is not plainly advertisement, I see no consensus either way. --Ezeu 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please note the the version that I based my descision on was edited extensively while I was writing the above basis for my decision. --Ezeu 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Out Now Consulting
blantant advert Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep. I'm afraid I disagree that the listing is a "blatant advert" Adam.
- I note too that the AfD guidelines state "Companies directly reported as significant players in major news events are generally notable is a reason for a listing in wikipedia."
The Pink Pound Conference in June 2006 UK featured Out Now Consulting MD as the Keynote Speaker.
Time magazine today covers the organisation. This year has seen Out Now Consulting covered in other media and in fact over 15 years Out Now Consulting has been frequently covered in news media in relation to the company's leading role in what is a new development in marketing - developing strategies to target gay consumers.
Some of these publications include: The Independent (UK) The Times (UK) The Guardian (UK) The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) The Australian (Australia) Business Review Weekly (Australia) Het Financieele Dagblad (Netherlands) De Morgen (Belgium)
TV appearances by Out Now Consulting staff have been many and include: BBC TV (UK) Jim TV (Belgium) TCN 9 (Australia) Nederland 1 (Netherlands).
There has been much other media coverage of Out Now Consulting's role in this development during this period.
In each case, Out Now Consulting is reported upon as a "significant player" in the "major news event" of - the emergence of a visible gay and lesbian consumer market. Perhaps to you that isn't a major news event but today's issue of Time magazine obviously does as the story about the emergence of gay advertising in Europe quoting Out Now Consulting's work is the one item from the current issue that Time magazine has chosen to highlight at the top of their homepage http://www.time.com/time/europe/ and see also the article at http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060807-1220477,00.html
Other media events include the coverage in much UK media of the revelation that 49% of lesbian and gay people feel unable to come out at work. http://www.sundayherald.com/53693 (Scotland) and http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article341714.ece - again media coverage of gay community research that Out Now Consulting was the significant player in.
I again request undeletion of the Out Now Consulting page.
Thanks for your attention,
Ian - 31 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outnow (talk • contribs)
- Note: the preceeding comment coincidently enough was made by the articles author. --Porqin 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Who also coincidentally enough has the same name as the company being described in the article... Dark Shikari 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- And whose only edits are either a) editing/creating this article, b) linkspamming other pages with links to this article, c) editing this AfD page, and d) leaving messages on user talk pages. Morgan Wick 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I did not think that was hidden from anyone at all - and was not the point of the post. Forgive my relative unfamiliarity with wikipedia technical aspects - I had thought that logging in as outnow was what was needed to identify myself as the poster and creator of the article. I repeat that that does not invalidate my belief that the entry is notable. If that is not decided by users then so be it, but please do forgive my unfamiliarity in the previous post outnow Outnow 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Ian Johnson, Managing Director Out Now. outnow on wikipedia. Now I hope those reading the article will let the content itself determine whether this company's work falls within the AfD guidelines mentioned by me above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outnow (talk • contribs)
Keep if a neutral third party volunteers to rewrite it. The various media mentions might make it notable per WP:CORP, but it's hard to be certain given the source of these claims. The current text of the article in fact is very POV to me (eg. "Out Now Consulting has been frequently covered in other news media in relation to the company's leading role in what is a major new development in marketing"). It needs to be filtered for encyclopedic content that is carefully cited with verifiable info from reliable sources. Willing to consider arelist in 4 weeksif someone volunteers to do this (thankless) task. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)- Delete per Chris Griswold below. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This article is publicity material for this organization, and cannot be reasonably used as the basis of any neutral article on the topic, if the subject even meets the WP:CORP or WP:ORG standards in the first place. Mangojuicetalk 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Mangojuice. --Bigtop 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Wafulz 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, WP:CORP, and WP:V - at first look it seems as if it could be saved, but I've been unable to find if any of the articles listed are about the company (rather than quoting them or their research). Yomanganitalk 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think it advertising. Article just states the fact and also cites a lot of websites. Also per outnow--Ageo020 02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Company with major-media news coverage and that stands out in its industry/segment. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is ordinary, everyday SPAM. --Xrblsnggt 03:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Rule of thumb: If it gets fewer google hits than I do (admittedly some of mine are irrelevant), it's not notable. Morgan Wick 03:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Keep only if a neutral third party volunteers to rewrite it per Kaustuv Chaudhuri.--Chris Griswold 05:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- Speedy Delete - I just took a look to see if I could make something of the article. You'll see what I found useable. Out Now conducted a survey in 2005, and most of the links briefly mention data, which, from my work experience, was sent to them by Out Now in a bid to be mentioned in an article. The article is nothing but PR: It has nothing to do with being created by a new editor, it's a loosely related collection of references to brief mentions of the survey. --Chris Griswold 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please keep
I left this comment days ago when the article was much fuller, there is so little info on gay marketing available, that students like myself previously found this article of great use. It is not SPAM when it helps me do an assignment.
Original comment follows....
Hi There,
I am a mrketing student in the Netherlands, and have found the article on Out Now Consulting to be most helpful and of exceptional interest on the gay marketing phenomenon.
It was quite hard for me as well as other students to find the information that we needed, though there was plenty to say on the subject.
Keep up the good work and it may be worthwhile keeping the article here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.87.154.90 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Recreation of previously deleted content [66] Dlyons493 Talk 12:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The current version is a stub whose history suggests that a great deal of promotional cruft was stripped out of it, and which seems objective and verifiable enough. The niche market this business is in suggests that it may be unusual enough to be more interesting than other firms of similar size; whether being interesting is enough to pass an article that otherwise probably fails WP:CORP is not something I have strong opinions about. Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I have obviously followed the various input with great interest as the author of this article. Some observations. With respect to Morgan Wick, Morgan it is not really so simple as your rule of thumb suggests. For example, if Out Now Consulting gets more Yahoo hits than you yourself do and MSN search which also has far more Out Now entries than Morgan Wick entries verifies this, then that seems to refute your logic for justifying deletion. 'Ask.com' also yields similar results - showing far more listings for Out Now Consulting than for Morgan Wick. Dare I say it, but this would, on your logic therefore seem to turn your 'delete' into a 'keep'. Without being disrespectful Morgan, I suspect that if you try applying that logic to much of what is in Wikipedia you could delete tens of thousands of entries right now. Many of the Morgan Wick entries that do come up actually seem not to relate to you, whereas all of the "Out Now Consulting" ones do seem to relate directly to the subject of this article. Even allowing all the Morgan Wick entries in these three main search engines to tally up towards you - we are left with a tally of just 834 listings for "Morgan Wick" (many of which seem not to actually be you), compared to 1368 web search entries in the four main search engines for "Out Now Consulting". That is just using the US engines. If we play the same game with other countries you see even more marked differences where your entries are much less. For example, in the UK web on Ask, there are no entries for Morgan Wick and 43 entries for Out Now Consulting, including entries from many of Britain's leading publications. For the record and for Chris Griswold too, some media coverage that results in much coverage of any organisation results from media releases put out by the organisation, that is hardly news to anyone. But much of the items deleted by him/her this morning should not have been as they fail to recognise several things. Out Now Consulting was established by Ian Johnson who is also the founder of the parent company Significant Others in Australia. As the firm's own website makes clear, the organisations function in concert and Out Now is a continuation of Significant Others work in non-Australian markets.
The fact that Out Now is the only gay marketing agency with offices in more than one country is a fact unique to the entity and increases the organisation's notability.
The deletions by Chris Griswold did far more than remove entries related to one survey. S/he removed many third party media reports of Out Now Consulting covering a range of issues, some related to Out Now's many different reports, some where the journalist sought Out Now Consulting as a notable source of expertise in its specific area. Given the extent to which s/he removed items and the little time it took for this user to do so I am somewhat concerned that s/he did not have time read through all these removed references sufficiently to see that they were clearly not just "a loosely related collection of references to brief mentions of [a single] survey". 37 minutes were spent deleting over 35 separate news articles, third party references and other citations from a range of sources. The article as left by this user this morning leaves only a single reference - to UK research from 2005 and removed everything else. There was also other research included previously. there was much more than reporting on research. For example, there were third party publications such as the Belgium Marketing Foundation, the Pink Pound Conference (UK), the Dutch marketing textbook "Principes van Marketing" (Principles of Marketing) also removed by this user - none of which was related to the British Gay Times and Diva research as s/he seemed to contend when removing it. On that point, where an esteemed newspaper such as the Sunday Independent - a leading national UK newspaper, devotes a double page spread feature article based primarily on, and extensively quoting research by, Out Now Consulting discussing a major workplace discrimination issue, which is also supported by remarks from other industry groups in the UK unrelated to Out Now Consulting, all commenting on the work of Out Now Consulting - does that not as C.Fred says: show Out Now Consulting to be a "company with major-media news coverage and that stands out in its industry/segment"? That seems to fall squarely within the Wikipedia guidelines as to notability for article's on companies being included.
For that matter, why would Time magazine this week in Europe choose to quote Out Now Consulting's opinion about the state of gay advertising in Europe if the company is not notable for readers of Time? That seems to fall within Wikipedia guidelines. That comment had absolutely nothing to do with the British research mentioned above. We were relied upon by the journalist of Time as a notable authority in the area of gay marketing. The magazine includes a photo of Out Now Consulting's campaign for the German National Tourist Office in their print edition as an example of gay advertising.
I note also that the comment made by the student 86.87.154.90 talk is a relevant one. Each week we usually receive several inquiries from students wanting our help. I agree our article is not SPAM to these students. Just today we received the following email -
"My name is Katharina and I study in Germany and have to write en essay for my university on gay marketing.It would be really helpful for me if you could send me some information, because it is such a new and present topic and I could not find any books so far. I would be really pleased if you could help me. Thank you very much, Katharina"
That sort of thing is fairly common here - if any of the Wikipedia editors wishes to contact me direct I would welcome them doing so to obtain more information about the similar student emails we regularly receive requesting assistance from Out Now Consulting with research about the gay market and other gay social issues. There really is a uniqueness to what we do - which is why media, students and others contact us. It is also why we are noted in such a leading textbook as Kotler's Principles of Marketing textbook in section 4 about niche marketing. That has nothing to do with our research - it features a full page discussion of advertising we created for Lufthansa and South African Tourism in the Dutch market. It also seems to fall squarely within Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion.
Any of the above factors taken alone should make you think our firm is notable but when taken in concert, - and in respect of so many third party citations about the company (removed today by Chris Griswold) I believe firmly that such a combination of factors renders this article well worth keeping and Out Now Consulting notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. To delete everything in the previous entries down to just what was left there this morning seems not in keeping with the Wikipedia principles. Finally, just in case you did not pick up on it above I am the author of the article and am the MD of the firm, so you might be tempted to discount all I say trying to believe that our article is SPAM however it is not just me saying it.
The search engines, the students such as 86.87.154.90, users such as C.Fred and Ageo020 and many media publications around the world seem to concur that our business has a unique industry position in a major new development in marketing. I would much prefer that there be restored some of what was deleted this morning from the article with a NPOV, and where third party items where the work of Out Now Consulting is the major aspect of the citation. Ian Johnson -- User:outnow
-
- Comment - To meet the notability criteria the the company should have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. From what I saw yesterday the vast majority, if not all, of the included references were about other subjects with Out Now's research or comments being quoted for information. If there are works in which the company is the subject of the article by all means put them back in to reinforce your claim to notability. Yomanganitalk 14:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The largest piece of the text is "specialised gay marketing services to large companies by researching gay lifestyles and using the information to develop strategies to target gay consumers", which strikes me as a rather obvious or self-affirming statement and sounds like it was lifted directly from a PR or ad copy. Some arguments for keeping an article on this specific company don't compel me: they often speak of interest first in gay marketing not specifically in this company, just that they happen ask this company directly for info about the general field. I see the existing page on the topic does have a section for listing of the major companies (a common and reasonable thing to have in such articles) and that does link to Out Now. DMacks 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was hoax. DS 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Percy Nobby Norton
|
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}} |
This article, I freely admit, is a work of genius. It's funny and creative. Unfortunately, while Percy Nobby Norton does indeed appear to have been an Australian folk singer, he is entirely unnotable, and everything else here is made up. Among many other reasons to believe this are his alleged 1902 publication of "Calvin and Knobes", and the 1923 publication of "Desperate Househusbands". Good joke, but it's gone far enough. DJ Clayworth 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree, this article seems fair enough. Perhaps at least it could be moved to the bad jokes section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.131.33 (talk • contribs)
- Author asserts on their talk page that I can provide more evidence from books, such as poems and songs and mini-biographies, but I do need time and you need to understand that most of the information has been derived by information from interviews with people who knew him.. So Userfy to a subpage in the author's userspace while they work on it - let's see it blossom into a fully-referenced and WP:V article having given the author the time he wants. Tonywalton | Talk 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "Perhaps at least it could be moved to the bad jokes section?" If the author is even thinking about the bad jokes section, it obviously isn't a real article. --Porqin 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Too long and forced for BJAODN. The picture is probably a copyvio... looks like Dominic Keating to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not a particularly good joke. No need to userfy. Dlyons493 Talk 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with violence This is a hoax, nothing more, and damages Wikipedia's reputation every minute it remains. --DarkAudit 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Total farce and even contains some fairly crude material. ju66l3r 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:HOAX, no WP:BJAODN since that would be WP:BEANS. --Kinu t/c 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete, I hate hoaxes, even Australian ones. NawlinWiki 01:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete, I hate bad jokes, especially Australian ones.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.135.238 (talk • contribs)
- Strong not delete, Look lets not start getting racist, Percy Norton is a man of kind and understanding, you cannot just start saying that it is wrong and a joke just because it dosn't fit into your fixed ultra-right wing view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpazolli (talk • contribs) (only edits are to the article and here; this user uploaded the photo for the article)
- Strong not delete, Sorry to interfere yet I am a postgraduate student at Monash University in Australia and currently studying Australian and New Zealand Folklore. Last month I completed a reasearch assignment on two ballads called "The Fossicker's Song" and "The Raspberry Picker's Song". As a frequent user of WIKIPEDIA's excellent encyclopedia, I stumbled upon Percy Norton. This article provided me with so much laughs that I had to print it and show it to my Lecturer today! After reading that it would be deleted from WIKIPEDIA I felt quite shocked yet understanding. Perhaps if some explicit passages were ommited and proper facts added, then it would be very amusing yet informative article on a little-known Australian poet. Please keep this article online, I beg you! - AGC Hubert—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doriath (talk • contribs) (only edits are to the article and this AFD)
- Strong not delete, If something is to be considered for deletion, the information provided must be proven wrong. As it stands, neither those who have written the article or those wishing for the article to be deleted have provided evidence. The author has also suggested he will be adding references and citations, as seen in the first paragraph. I therefore suggest caution is the order of the day, and that this article should remain untoucher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HRH MJW (talk • contribs)
- Strong not delete, I have spoken to who I like to call old Nobby and he was so pleased to see that his 'conquests'(obviously talking about his time in the army) had been passed onto a new generation. He decided to start his own blog at nobbynorton.blogspot.com
God Save the Queen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.7.132 (talk • contribs) (this is user's only edit)
-
- This 'blog' was started only after this AFD was started, and looks suspiciously similar to that 'started' by the fictitious author Trevor K Grant the day after there was an AFD on his article. In fact the whole AFD discussion seems strangely familiar. Plus the prose style seems very lively for someone who was already publishing articles in 1902... DJ Clayworth 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- DJ Clayworth seems to have a need to state what I said in my comment. I never made any attempt indeed I stated that the Blog was created after the AFD.--Bpazolli 09:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong not delete, Hello all, as a fellow australian writer I was pleased to see such an informative peice on my favorite writer and a personal inspiration for me. Some say that this article was a bit crude but thats how Nobby Norton's life was. - aDavis(Arthur Hoey Davis)—Preceding unsigned comment added by ADavis (talk • contribs) (user's only edit)
- Delete, ARE YOU CRAZY??? As a Professor I have searched far and wide in this great country of ours, for information on this legend of a writer Percy Nobby Norton. The only disgrace is someone has vandelised this site with bold text, and the boxes at the top are really upsetting, iConner--Professor Ian O'Conner at Griffen University —Preceding unsigned comment added by IConner (talk • contribs) (user's only edit)
- Don't Delete I thought I add a bit of evidence of the creditbility of this article I present The Raspberry Pickers Song
I Came up from Wandin And a girl come up to me Here comes a raspberry picker now won't we have a spree she grabbed me by the collar and she tried to grab my swag so I upped with a stick and knocked here stiff and they all cried out he's a lad Oh give me the wandin life where the raspberry pickers do rome for we are the Carlton Larrikens lad That is what I can remember. I understand that the burden of proof is on me the author not the people wishing for deletion but most of the information was gathered via interviews. WHAT CAN I DO???--Bpazolli 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete The author(s) of this piece need to be given a reasonable amount of time to clean up and provide evidence concerning the allegations made here, many of which seem somewhat artificial. Nevertheless, they may turn out to be true, only time will tell. Perhaps, like the UN Security Council, the author(s) are given one month to tidy this mess up
John Silverthorne 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (user's only edit)
- No delete, As in the family of the B.Elvira, I having good reason to believe that at bit of this information is factel. My Aunt has made many lectures of Nobby, and has told to me how he liked the boys and girls, you know? So some of article is perhaps true? Excuse my bad english.
C.Y.Elvira 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (user's only edit)
-
- Note C.Y. Elvira also edited this AFD to delete my vote, above, and to delete all the identifications of single-purpose votes. I have since restored them.NawlinWiki 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- CommentBy single-purpose votes you presumably mean single-user edits? Are you suggesting that these people do not exist, or have been artificially created? If so, I demand you withdraw this comment immediately. It is both insulting and rude to make such an allegation. I apologise on your behalf to the user C.Y.Elvira--Old Smokey 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The article is an obvious hoax. I'd guess the image may be copyvio from an advert somewhere. -Sanbeg 21:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The user above is a smart yet misled man, he is correct in saying that the picture was from an advert, but that advert was first published in 1908 staring Old Nobby he signed over permisson for me to use in this article.--Bpazolli 09:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- From 1908? Featuring a modern safety razor? DJ Clayworth 13:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Simpler than that; the beard is photoshopped/MS Painted on. Also, if there is consent involved then the picture's copyright information is incorrect as it is listed as "public domain". ju66l3r 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- From 1908? Featuring a modern safety razor? DJ Clayworth 13:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- CommentHow about everyone just calms down a little bit. There is no need for constant argument on this forum - just relax, and try not to become too agitated. Let's debate this in a sensible and civilised manner (note that civilised is here spelt properly with an 's', rather than a 'z' (correctly pronounced zed).--Old Smokey 13:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious hoax. --Durin 16:19, 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. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jumba
|
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}} |
Modest, midsize company fails WP:CORP. Take a look at the section on the chronology of their advertising catch phrases. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Xrblsnggt 17:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, because the subject fails wp:corp, as noted above. Picaroon9288|ta co 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 74.119.26.14 20:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of an assertion of reasonable notability. —xyzzyn 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete Aussiepete is not a member of Jumba Staff, neither are any of the other people who have contributed to thos page. More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jumba —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.7.176.133 (talk • contribs) .
- Don't Delete The catch phrases section is there simply for historical reasons. This company has been mentioned in various publications including the Australian Personal Computer magazine (this months issue and last months) under the topic of Joomla!. The jumba community has created this page because we believe that it is an important resource to the whole hosting community.--Ioannisjt 04:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- — Possible single purpose account: Ioannisjt (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. —xyzzyn 10:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete Agree with --Ioannisjt. Jumba does not appear to be advertising any products. --BradyBaldwin 15:01, 04 August 2006 (UTC).
-
- — Possible single purpose account: BradyBaldwin (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. —xyzzyn 10:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete I agree with Ioannisjt also. 59.167.132.247
- Don't Delete, this was written by a community of people who belong to the Jumba forums, there has been a lot of hard work put into this. --GavLewis 07:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- — Possible single purpose account: GavLewis (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. —xyzzyn 10:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Geez, you people make up so many excuses to delete something that you really don't care about do you? --GavLewis 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - insufficient evidence of meeting WP:CORP. BlueValour 04:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please Check the Media release section, I believe that this shall now make this page conform with the WP:CORP rules. --GavLewis 04:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is this article hurting anyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.132.247 (talk • contribs) .
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ava Lowery
|
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}} |
I'm fairly certain this entry was deleted once before on the basis of not meeting WP:Notability. Jinxmchue 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment- Log shows:
- 20:17, 18 July 2006 Haukurth (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ava Lowery" (Copied from http://www.peacetakescourage.com/page-about.htm with no assertion of permission.)
- Yomangani 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as reposted material (I've added speedy tags to the page)Yomangani 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)- Keep - since it apparently isn't a repost. I think it meets notability as Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events Yomangani 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree with the above comment Nick xylas 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - since it apparently isn't a repost. I think it meets notability as Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events Yomangani 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Normal delete per nom. Please note that repost doesn't apply when the new page receives a non-trivial change of content commpared to the deleted page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep-The page was originally a reposted copy of web material. I completely changed it and think that given Lowery was interviewed on CNN and received significant blog mileage because of the death-threats from right-wing emailers, she is worth keeping an entry open for. Richardjames444 23:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Ava Lowery is a relevant topic for an online encyclopedia. She's gained notoriety by being interviewed across the country by various radio and television programs. You can't delete her entry and keep entries for other people who have made the news. Ava has made the national and international news. I don't even understand why anyone should suggest this should be deleted unless they're just mad that Ava has gained notoriety.--Tracker1312 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- — Possible single purpose account: Tracker1312 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep- do it for Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smallbighorn (talk • contribs) .
- — Possible single purpose account: Smallbighorn (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep- Wothwhile article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.168.242 (talk • contribs) .
- — Possible single purpose account: 12.217.168.242 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep, as she is a notable blogger who's been featured in national news media. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As per Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Ava and her contributions are not widely recognized and she has not received significant press coverage. She's been interviewed a couple times and that's it. Her appeal is limited and temporary. A Wiki entry would only serve as a Wikipedia:Vanity_page. Jinxmchue 14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability_(people). I also have a problem with the factual accuracy of the article itself, and the use of WP to try to lend credibility to a likely false claim. I already added a dispute tag, and created a talk page with evidence. Crockspot 17:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Further comment - Richardjames444 and I have hashed out the problems I had with the factual accuracy of the article, but this leads me to point out something. What small bit of notability Ava may have I believe is due mainly to the "controversial reaction" to her animation, rather than because of her animation work itself. As the article now properly points out, this "reaction" was overblown, and in the worst case, not even related to the piece in question. I believe the confusion over this "reaction" was used to increase her exposure. Crockspot 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The article lacks citations to multiple independent, reliable sources to establish any assertion of notability or to be verifiable. The "CNN interview" in Other Resources is a link to youtube. CNN would be a reliable source, youtube is not, and the citation is to youtube, not to CNN. (CNN does have a website, so if she was really covered in any significant way by CNN, there ought to be something on their web pages.) I don't know if Progressive magazine counts as a reliable source (how good are they at fact checking? some partisan magazines are good, some don't try, some are in between), but it is the best presently in the article. The only other source is a blog entry, so clearly not a reliable source. It is also at a site with "STUFF FOR PROGRESSIVES, FROM PROGRESSIVES", so does not help generate the sourcing needed to write a neutral, encyclopedic article. GRBerry 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
KeepComment: Sorry that I haven't made any other comments. I often visit Wikipedia and read things. This is the first time that I have seen something that was up for deletion that I didn't think should be deleted so that's why I left a comment. Basically at least some of the people urging to delete this post are against what Ava stands for and it has nothing to do with whether or not she has received adaquate press coverage. For example, Jinxmchue who urges for deletion has been cited for vandalism on the Democratic Underground entry and personal attacks on their talk page. Crockspot has also been cited for vandalizing the Democratic Underground page. The fact that people across the planet have heard of Ava, that she is doing something political (her blog/forum) and artistic (her animations) at such a young age, and that she has been interviewed by multiple news sources should be enough that she have an entry on Wiki.--Tracker1312 05:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Before personally attacking other editors, I would think that one would have noticed that those warnings were deemed to be, and indeed were, unfounded, and made in bad faith. The warning editor was himself warned for posting those warnings. Crockspot 17:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Crockspot. These accusations of vandalism to the DU page were made in bad faith by the same person and were never justified. As far as any personal attacks, I apologized for the ones I made and agreed to refrain from any more. I have stuck to that agreement despite other people not making the same agreement and continuing on in their personal attacks. Finally, there is no "fact that people across the planet have heard of Ava." That's a completely unprovable non-NPOV that would never be allowed to remain if it were put into the Wiki entry. I know of many children younger, more talented, more artistic and more publicly active than Ava and they don't have their own Wiki vanity pages. "Ava Lowery" is not a household name like "Cindy Sheehan" and the few media blurbs she's gotten hardly justify a Wiki entry. If she were to somehow keep her name in the "mainstream" news week after week, then perhaps you'd have some justification. Jinxmchue 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
please take into account the POV issues of some of the deletionists when deciding what happens to this page. Let's have this page stand or fall on its own merits or lack of them, rather than having it be a victim of broader ongoing conflicts not related to Wikipedia Richardjames444 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)My apologies. Let's remember to assume good faith Richardjames444 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- That said, I would like to thank Crockspot for our succesful negotiations on how to incorporate the alleged death threat issue. He was willing to compromise in a way that makes me think that his input here is genuine. Richardjames444 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep: I can imagine someone looking her up, we might as well have an article that tries to be accurate and balanced, probably there won't be a lot of those on her. - Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 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.
