Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 14
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] June 14
- 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 905 board
 |
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}} |
Looks like webforum vanity. Original research, doesn't meet WP:WEB, etc etc. Doesn't have its own domain name so an Alexa rank is impossible to determine. —Lamentation :( 01:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The nom says it all (including the etc etc part). -- Kicking222 01:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would just like to note that the 905 board is not only used by members of the immediate music scene in the Southern Ontario area. The board has garnered enough attention that it is frequented by music fans from places all over Canada such as Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal and Halifax. Additionally, users from the UK also make use of the forum.16:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Jeff K
- The site and board have played an important part in the creation of many bands that are important to the post-punk music movement. That movement is an important part of the music scene today, as can be seen by massive record sales by bands such as Fall Out Boy.
- The 905 music scene could be the next Seattle or Orange County as far as popular music is concerned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SnaX (talk • contribs)
- Delete. "Could be" are the key words here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As of today, not notable. Fan1967 01:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand why it is you people think you are capable of deciding what is and is not notable? Are you some kind of masters of the various cultures and movements of the present day? There are millions of people that listen to the bands Silverstein, Alexisonfire and Boys Night Out. Thousands who idolozie them, latch onto the cultures of these bands and consider them a serious part of who they are. Surely as masters of culture you've all been to high schools lately? You've seen the way emo / punk is becoming the mainstream in todays youth? An entire generation is growing up on this new type of music, and a large majority of it is coming from Southern Ontario; specifically, the 905 music scene. But I wouldn't expect you guys to know anything about that. And I'm almost certain you don't.
So what possible reason do you have passing judgement here?24.36.179.32 03:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm from Southern Ontario, I worked in a college radio station, I know many people in the S. Ontario scene, and I vote strong delete. Simply not noteworthy enough. BoojiBoy 04:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Chances are no one from our community would want to listen to your station. That's not meant to discredit you or your station, just a statement of fact pointing out that you live in a different musical world than the community this entry is about SnaX 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've worked with many of the bands you've named and interviewed a member of one of them. I still say delete. BoojiBoy 23:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Chances are no one from our community would want to listen to your station. That's not meant to discredit you or your station, just a statement of fact pointing out that you live in a different musical world than the community this entry is about SnaX 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Jeeeeez why do people need to advertise their stupid forums here. Aplomado talk 01:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Artw 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- this is not vanity or advertising. the 905 board has been(at least in part) the breading ground for some of Canada's largest underground, & mainstream musical acts. To deny the 905 board community's entry into the history books would be an outrage. Besides, isn't the persuit to add point of reference where reference is lacking the whole goal of Wikipedia? Or is "the Man" still writing history? xo Chuck aka "the air of a new age" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.141 (talk • contribs)
- Look, don't complain to us for nominating the article for deletion when there's nothing in the article to suggest that the subject of this article is notable. If it truly is the breeding ground for some of Canada's largest underground and mainstream musical acts, surely you can cite this using reliable third-party sources to prove this. Otherwise, we're just taking the word of an anonymous internet user. Aplomado talk 02:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Did someone post a response to the AfD discussion at the top of this section? That's a violation of Wiki-etiquette. I wish the people behind this board the best of luck, but it is not NOW notable. Interlingua talk 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: I looked at the article and five bands were listed, now I'm not a scenester or anything but in my opinion five bands does not make a "scene" much less a "seattle sound" like phenominon. Deathawk 02:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, wikipedia is not just an American site. In Canada, where the 905 scene and board are located, 5 bands is a lot. we are a country of 30 million, and we consider Canadian success and success in the US very important to our (Canadian) music scene. All of these bands sell well in the US and tour regularly, and more are on the way. just because it's not top-40 spit out by the big record companies to sell pepsi doesn't mean it's not relevant to anyone. There are many people who use wikipedia outside of the people who frequent the "articles for deletion" section. If you want to help us use proper citations and wiki-conduct (or whatever you call it!) to improve the entry, please do.
- I kind of thought the whole point of wikipedia was to be on the cutting edge of pop-culture (as well as academia and other areas)?
- the wiki entry provides new x-linking with all the bands and personalities on wiki already...which is the whole idea behind the internet.
- Tim Berners-Lee is rolling over in his grave somewhere.
SnaX 02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable per WP:WEB. --Starionwolf 03:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:NOR, vanity. --Coredesat 04:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB, WP:VAIN. --Terence Ong (talk | contribs) 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:WEB, insufficient internet profile. Jammo (SM247) 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete... per nom. Why do people do this? It's because Wikipedia content is valuable on google searches, especially since it is mirrored by plenty of other sites... oh and vanity. - Motor (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete bad formatting and grammatical errors. and i think i'll cry 'bloody vanity' as well, per above/nom. --Paaerduag 10:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. Doesn't even have its own domain name! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above reasons. --Xyrael T 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't fulfill WP:WEB currently. Wikipedia would look pretty bad if it had an article on every web forum that exists. Amazinglarry 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm on the fence on this one. I would say keep because it has had an influance, and anything influential is worth knowing about, but it does fail to meet WP:WEB criteria, seeing as it's never (apparently) even had so much as a newspaper article that says, "hey, if you want to know what bands are playing when, check this website" written about it. So, that said, very weak delete ONUnicorn 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the actual helpful advice and comments beyond "delete, breaks infraction code 38240:ALPHA" or something equally insider. The simple answer to the newspaper question is that the board IS a source of information. People don't check newspapers to tell them to check the board...they just...check the board. Like many influential internet sites, it's beyond just one purpose. it's a community, a source of information and more. That said, there have been many articles that talk about bands forming due to the board, shows the board has put on, articles about me (Mark Johnston, the foudner), etc. these were all in local papers, that don't have internet articles, only the physical medium. since we are based in small(er) communities (rather than Toronto for example), we don't have many of those "underground" or subculture media sources. most of our users find us by word-of-mouth or smaller things like zines and band links. SnaX 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Sheesh! This fails on sooo many levels wrt wiki standards. (Aside to Mr SnaX, your report of the death of Tim Berners-Lee is greatly exaggerated!). The article lacks verifiable sources, it fails to establish the notability of its subject other than the conflation in the mind of the article's author. The article also fails to establish the importance of its subject outside a very tight geographical area with a small population. Wikipedia may proclaim itself to be many things but it is not a billboard. Eddie.willers 21:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was just hoping the mention of Berners-Lee would manage to scare off some egg-heads who thought they had easy pickings! The reason we lack verifiable sources is because there aren't any. This is a word-of-mouth and in-cd-booklets and in-a-zine-that-only-400-people-get kind of thing. It doesn't show up in the New York Times or on The Insider. Does that mean it's less important than the new J-Lo album? I'd argue no. So much of what become popular music is from scenes and communities exactly like this one. The relevance can be seen Canada-wide, as shown by this recent post by one of our members. "it just completely blows my mind. i'm 1,900 kilometers away from burlington and some dude comes up the stairs of my work, points and says "HEY! YOU'RE BOOZEY THE CLOWN!" SnaX 23:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- KEEP. When asked about the history of a succesful band like silverstein, one has but to point to the 905 board. This is evident in their DVD and CDs where they thank the 905 board for the formation of their band. Silverstein has had a high degree of success in the US and plays the WARPED TOURS regularly, a concert that goes on in the US every year. Silverstein is just one of many bands that has its history linked to the 905 board. Other bands include Finger 11, TFB, Jersey, etc. The 905 board is a community of people with similar interests. Just in the way that communities and groups have their own post on the wikipedia, does not the 905 board have a right to have a similar post? Our group of members is 3000 strong, a lot bigger than many other groups on this website. -- westpointfan.
- Strong Keep. It's regional, but I've been hearing about the 905 Board from people around here for years and years. I wouldn't expect anyone to have heard of it outside this geographical region, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. - Rainwarrior 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thread on the board. Can we speedy this? BoojiBoy 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Did you read the thread, or just see it? we're talking about the process, and about wikipedia in general. That's actually what you do on a message board. SnaX 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I read the thread. I think it's interesting that you explicity say that you consider Wikipedia an experiment in democracy, when WP:NOT dedicates a whole paragraph to explaining that "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy". That doesn't indicate that you have a very strong sense of what Wikipedia is all about at all. Why do people show up with a one-day-old account and feel that they know better than everyone else on wikipedia what kinds of articles it should accept? I just don't get the logic there. For what it's worth, some people in the thread do seem to have the right idea, that an article on the music scene the forum covers (rather than the forum itself) would be a far better idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Did you read the thread, or just see it? we're talking about the process, and about wikipedia in general. That's actually what you do on a message board. SnaX 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just slightly curious as to what radio station BoojiBoy works for, because I worked for a radio station in Ottawa, ON, where they not only had a great collection of the indepedently released CDs from many 905 bands, many of the DJs were very familiar with the 905 Board and likened it to their equally influential punkottawa.com.
Boojiboy... what are your reasons for it not passing? you say its not noteworthy... yet you've heard of it. you've yet to address any of the arguments presented for keeping this article. i would be very interested to what your reasons are that it needs to be deleted.
oh and boojiboy if you had really worked with many of the bands that were mentioned, you would know about their strong roots formulated from the 905 board and would have a healthy respect for the community that they are a part of.
- I know about their roots. But let's review WP:WEB, shall we?
- 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. No internet message board can meet this due to the constantly-changing content inherent to a message board.
- 2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. Nope.
- 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Not that either.
That's why I have voted to delete. BoojiBoy 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- To the person who stated it's nothing like the Seattle scene because they only posted 5 bands, I say this: Name more than 5 bands that were huge from Seattle in the early 90's. It was more the huge local scene, the coming together of people and the collaboration of different musical tastes that sparked the scene that eventually created a genre of music known as grunge. The few bands that made it big were just lucky enough to be known as the founders.
Looking at this bit of history it’s apparent that the 905 board is reliving this exact situation. There are plenty of bands that have made international success thanks to the 905 board and the scene here is so tightly knit that new talent is constantly being brought together because of this board, it’s almost an exact repeat of the Seattle scene at the beginning stages. The 905 is the birthplace of the hardcore scene and will be put in history for that in the future and to remove this now is only temporarily silencing the inevitable. Keep this page, its integral to a small part of history. It’s not going to change lives but it’s defiantly made a lot of peoples better. Let the page stay. - --r0ssr0ss 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am blown away by all the "vanity" comments made by wiki users with their own little wiki pages. All of you posting "vanity!!! delete!!!" with your little blue names make me laugh. I love wikipedia, and value your efforts to keep it current and alive, but to suggest that you deserve a wiki entry, when a community of 3000+ who have had an influential hand in guiding the southern Ontario (and Canadian as a whole) music scene makes me throw up my hands in frustration. It seems more like an stuffy old room you'd find hidden away at some university filled with graying academics past their prime, than a relevant new style of encyclopedia and experiment in democracy.
As for the calls of NOR, I find it hard to believe that just because a newspaper or magazine doesn't mention something, it is instantly cited as worthless. All kinds of people list us on their blogs, myspaces, band webpages, zines (that's an independent magazine made by a person or group of people).
This is part of a music subculture, not the mainstream media. Does that mean it's not influential? If you think that, you really are out of the loop. SnaX 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- While the 905 board has spear headed musical movements, most importantly GRADE, these people jsut want proof before ppl site it. Grade DID start Screamo, thats the truth.That is the angle, but out of the 905 there are way more than 5 bands succeeding that use this board right now:
-
- The Reason - Smallman records
- Finger Eleven ( gold record)
- Idle Sons - EMI
- Boys Night Out - Ferret
- Alexisonfire - Distort and affiliates all over the world ( gold records)
- Silverstein - Victory Records
- Tommy Swick - Universal
- The Video Dead - Stereo Dynamite /EMI/Stay Gold/Universal
- The Creepshow - Stereo Dynamite/EMI
- Jersey - EMI/Fueld By Ramen
- The Fullblast - BBR/Universal
- City and Colour (gold records)
- Billy Talent
-In contribution to the argument that the 905 boards appearance on Wikipedia is 'vanity', I'd like to state that as someone who isn't a resident of Southern Ontario, nor Canada but London England that the board itself is nothing but a resource. Its appearance on Wikipedia doesn’t act as only a statement for those engaged in the Southern Ontario scene but countless others. I know a substantial number of fans of the aforementioned bands who have expressed need to know about the 905 scene and the board itself is vital to that knowledge. If the relevance of the bands who have come from this scene are being debated in terms of musical viability the commercial sales of a handful who have been birthed and aided by and from the 905 have surpassed 100,000 records. A number of the bands mentioned above have achieved success and acclaim worldwide and noting the relevance of the 905 board could be compared debating the chronicling and relevance of Malcolm McLarens SEX shop (birth place of the Sex Pistols etc) in terms of genre definition, for infact a genre was undeniable spurned from the area, and has affected the musical world and subsequent generations. In addition to this, as a member of the recording industry and the press, I happen to know several people in England who are also members of the recording industry and the press who have used the board for not only search of new artists, indications as to youth culture interest progressions. The inclusion of the history of the 905 board on Wikipedia can do nothing but aide work of these people, as it is futile to make use of knowledge gained from a subject without knowing its history. Only those who can argue otherwise can deny the fact that as Wikipedia is a resource for cultural and intellectual research the 905 boards appearance on it can afford to go amiss. -Zara
- Delete Advertisement for a non-notable board. Fails to meet the requirements for WP:WEB as well.--Auger Martel 07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Jgamekeeper 11:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Local interest only. No sign of notability. The article doesn't really even claim it. Ace of Sevens 14:28, 18 June 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 of the debate was delete. Sorry, socks! Proto///type 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
[edit] Neotokyo
Reads like a user's manual; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. No claims of notability. Morgan Wick 03:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete Not a notable or official game mod for Half-Life 2. --Starionwolf 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Hetar 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep but remove all but the first paragraph. WP:NOT crystal ball or how-to manual. But, if consensus is for delete, I will go along with that. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 04:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Also see No more room in hell. Wickethewok 04:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for crystal-balling and failing Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. --Coredesat 04:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per crystal ball comments. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 04:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GassyGuy 06:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOT, nn. --Terence Ong (talk | contribs | ESP) 08:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, after transferring content to Valve Developer Community wiki if necessary. --HiddenInPlainSight 12:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, naturally. I've removed all information that could be considered indiscriminate, unecessary, unsupportable, or unbiased. In the end, I support the communities decision. 2:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Xiliquiern
- Weak delete per above. --Xyrael T 16:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete article, although I've only seen that word in the tagline of Akira. --Slgrandson 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Article was edited to comply... if it gets deleted now may as well delete all unoffical mods for all games.NitenMuratta 19:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Welcome - to Wikipedia. I for one am fine with deleting all unofficial game mods that don't have any sort of particular notability about them. Wickethewok 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Question For future reference, it would be fantastic if you define exactly how much notability a mod requires to be admitted, and what the guidelines are for determining this "notability." --StukaAce 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- IMO - Probably some proof of substantial usage or press coverage is always good, too. Wickethewok 20:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Question And how would "substantial" be defined? --StukaAce 20:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- IMO - Probably some proof of substantial usage or press coverage is always good, too. Wickethewok 20:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- CommentUser has 5 edits, 4 here and 1 on Neotokyo.--Andeh 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment Neotokyo was recently featured in Computer Gaming World in a full page article (link to a scan http://www.deviantart.com/view/29180173/), and has been in numerous other computer gaming magazines (both in print and on cover discs) in the past (PC Gamer UK, PC Zone etc). NitenMuratta 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - I would ask that many of the first replies be considered null in the face of very heavy article revision. Also, it seems that a crusade against game mods have cropped up in the past few days. I think that, if these articles are not welcome on the basis of notability (Neotokyo, as noted by NitenMuratta, has been featured in magazines, and on many (if not all) mod-related websites) there should be a strict notice concerning game mods or other 'in the works' projects (including those who have released public works before). Applying that same concept outside of gaming would cut down on indie bands who have only released EPs and are not signed, obscure artists whose paintings have never been featured prominently at official institutions, and many other similar circumstances This does not make it noteable outside the field of "gamers", but, as comparison neither are many articles on wikipedia because many people all over the world have varying interests (reference Bowen Bridge). There are literally thousands of articles like that which are important only to the people that are concerned with them. I have no interest in such things (bridges), and would consider them AfD worthy. However, a bridge enthusiast may think otherwise. It is out of respect for other people's interests that I find them to be an integral part of Wikipedia's character. The beauty I find in Wikipedia is that it has a little bit about everything...I'd like to think it would stay that way, even concerning the hobby of gaming and mods. Xiliquiern 12:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment It would be folly to consider the first replies null. I, for one, stand by my vote. GassyGuy 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- As do I. I try not to judge based on what the article is at the time, but whether the subject itself is notable. Thus, any content changes are not entirely relevant to my vote. Wickethewok 03:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The "very heavy article revision" appears to be the addition of more mods "under development". As additional vaporware does not add to notability of the original vaporware, my recommendation remains the same. Tychocat 07:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- per Xiliquiern Noob cannon lol 22:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Xiliquiern brings up an excellent point. --IU2002 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree as well. -Bizarro1
- User has only edited this AfD debate and the No more room in hell debate. Morgan Wick 02:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn game, speculative development mentioned, advertisement for upcoming reputed releases. Tychocat 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I would argue that an official wikipedia banner made especially for games in development would mean that games in development are acceptable material for wikipedia (view the banner below the AfD on the Neotokyo page as reference...or Red Steel, Spore (video game), or Duke Nukem Forever a game that has been in development for almost 10 years. This post was made purely for informational purposes only. Advertisement is out of the question as the material is presented in an unbiased and unforceful manner. Any advertisement is done through a plethora of websites devoted to just that - mod news sites, and gaming magazines. Neotokyo has used both. Xiliquiern 22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- About the first sentence: There's a difference between a brand-new game from a notable company that has been anticipated by the entire gaming community, like the three you linked to, and an unofficial mod by a bunch of friends who got together and decided to hype up and release a mod for a very moddable game. I'm not saying the latter is completely the case for this game, but it's somewhere. Morgan Wick 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I would argue that an official wikipedia banner made especially for games in development would mean that games in development are acceptable material for wikipedia (view the banner below the AfD on the Neotokyo page as reference...or Red Steel, Spore (video game), or Duke Nukem Forever a game that has been in development for almost 10 years. This post was made purely for informational purposes only. Advertisement is out of the question as the material is presented in an unbiased and unforceful manner. Any advertisement is done through a plethora of websites devoted to just that - mod news sites, and gaming magazines. Neotokyo has used both. Xiliquiern 22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems to have had a decent amount of media coverage, and its presence isn't objectionable. Awa64 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable and wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Auger Martel 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Crystal ballism doesn't apply as this is already available for Unreal Tournament 2004. It seems to be notable within that community. Ace of Sevens 14:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - As per Xiliquiern's statements. Mod's are as much of games as commercial games. statements such as "There's a difference between a brand-new game from a notable company...and an unofficial mod by a bunch of friends who got together and decided to hype up and release a mod for a very moddable game" are unsupported. Just because a game is not produced by a large company provided with a large budget doesn't make it different from anything else. Mods are in line with open source software such as unix, and would you even consider unix to be unfit for wikipedia just becasue it is availible at no charge? And if you had any background, or even a smigion of knowledge on the status of current modification communities you would know that a bunch of friends in a garage died many years ago. to get any noteriety a modification must be built by either many skilled people, or one highly trained person. I give you black mesa and Minerva:metastasis as examples. Black mesa consists of a world wide team of skilled users. Metastasis consists of a single person with a talent for story writing and level design. Both have recived more praise and media then a fair amount of published games. Would you think of them as less then games you have to pay for?
M_Gargantua 21:23, 19 June 2006—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.255.222 (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 of the debate was Merge to Raj Comics. It's funny, I've actually closed a lot of Raj-related AfDs (as merges) already. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nageena
Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Raj Comics--TBC
??? ??? ??? 06:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 13:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per TBC. --Xyrael T 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per TBCtake back my vote... far too many of these comic characters floating around -- Lost 12:55, 15 June 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 of the debate was Merge to Raj Comics. It's funny, I've actually closed a lot of Raj-related AfDs (as merges) already. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nagpasha
Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Same as above, merge and redirect to Raj Comics--TBC??? ??? ??? 06:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 13:19, 14 June 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 of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics. It's funny, I've actually closed a lot of Raj-related AfDs (as merges) already. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nagpreti
Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Raj Comics--TBC??? ??? ??? 06:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 13:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete There is no suggestion of notability and I see it has the responsibility of the author to show notability. BlueValour 17:06, 20 June 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 of the debate was no consensus - I think that once the images are deleted for copyright violation, this page will end up sleeping with the fishies anyway, as it'll be empty. Proto///type 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of U.S. state license plates
Just a collection of images and Wikipedia is not a repository for images. Also, most of the images are tagged incorrectly as PD-US or CopyrightFreeUse, whereas the design is probably copyright of the state that issues it. Several images have no source and try to claim fair use. Fair use would not apply for putting the image in a list. Nv8200p talk 13:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep / Cleanup - It definitely needs cleaning, but I would not go as far as to say delete it. --Mhking 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not an image gallery. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of banknotes. Precedence has been set for galleries to exist as forks from proper articles, the main article here is US and Canadian license plates. The page is salvagable, there are some pics there that can be kept even though Nv8200p seemed to indiscriminately tagged every single one of them as Possibly Unfree despite source info and licensing info being there. Several pics seemed to have been uploaded by their creator User:15qdotnet, who appears to be a plate collector, yet still tagged. hateless 16:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- The licensing is wrong for most of them. They are unfree because the images are marked PD-USGov or GFDL-self when the copyright belongs to the state. The plate collectors images are just derivatives of copyrighted works. -Nv8200p talk 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I renominated Gallery of banknotes for deletion. I believe all these are using flimsy excuses to skirt the WP:ISNOT policy -Nv8200p talk 19:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy to me As with the license photos, I think this is the germ of an article, and I hate to see the effort done go to waste. I am still investigating copyright status, but will complete my inquiry before debate ends. Please don't speedy these in the meantime. Xoloz 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete things like this have been left before I believe. --Xyrael T 17:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — The images where the license is questionable could be removed, but I'd like to see a written description with each of these plates describing what they represent and why the style is of particular relevance for the state in question. &c. &c. — RJH (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep if the copyright status is OK. BoojiBoy 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. This is an image gallery, which is specifically called out on WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Compromise-ish This shouldn't be an article, but whoever uploaded this (if copyright allows) should make a gallery. Maybe. ViceroyInterus 00:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Even if this article is image focused, doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic in nature. Images are used in print encyclopedias and on wikipedia to convey what words cannot. In the case of liscence plates no matter how detailed the description it's not as good as having a picture. Also, in the fashion that greek and roman coins have come to be culturally important so are liscence plates, they are a piece of human civilization with extreme longiveity and most definately merits this article. 67.119.124.137 00:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per gallery of banknotes AFD providing proper sourcing and copyright noticing on images. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I thought images created by the state were not subject to copyright rules as they are created with public funds or something to that affect. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. When the images are deleted for being copyvios, this will be a {{db-empty}}. If the images were changed to a fair use tag, the fair use assertion would be invalid, as the license plates aren't described at all. --Rory096 22:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Perhaps the images can be moved elsewhere, but does not justify being an article through images alone.--Auger Martel 08:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the "Wiki is not a repository for images" argument is being misused here. There are a lot of "repositories for images" on Wikipedia (like Flags of the U.S. states, Seals of the U.S. states, etc.) and these lists are certainly encyclopedic. Also, the IS NOT policy states that wiki is not a "Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." (emphasis added) This article has as much text as the flag and seal articles (in fact it has more than the seal article). Sure, I would like to have each license explained (and I'll probably add that when I have time) but not having a thorough explanation is not a valid reason to delete. Now, the matter of copyright is an ENTIRELY different discussion and it should be handled elsewhere and on a per image basis. - Ektar 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a useful resource and not an "image Gallery". Has any attempt been made to identify if any of the states consider their plate designs as being PD, or is there an assumption being made because somebody just wants to see the page terminated?
I question the copyright issue: so long as the plate images are created by the uploader and dont come directly from the DMV's website - i.e. a photograph of a plate in situ etc. (admittedly most of these are not of plates in situ), surely they would be ok? With photos of issued plates the plate itself is going to be copyright, but is an image of it really a violation of that copyright? Is this picture I have included here in violation of copyright? The historical marker is was designed and made by the state, the text is surely copyright, but I took the picture of it and (if I hadnt donated it to this site) would claim full rights... Mickmaguire 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The status of the images is not an issue in keeping this article. If an image has an issue there is a process to have it deleted and it can be replaced by one without problems. Vegaswikian 02:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Rory, it is made up of copyvio images. It would be great if people took their own photos of them so there could be a gallery with free images --Astrokey44 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC) there are some at commons:Category:License plates of the United States but it is incomplete --Astrokey44 03:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. While this may well be a useful resource, that in itself is not a reason for it to be in Wikipedia. There are many types of useful resource which we do not include: telephone directories are useful, but we do not include lists of phone numbers; marriage registers are useful, but we do not list every wedding in the world; dictionaries are very useful, but we do not include mere dictionary definitions. The question is not "is this useful", but "is this an encyclopedia article?" And the answer is, "no, this is not an encyclopedia article, it is a collection of pictures". Therefore, we should not keep it. — Haeleth Talk 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of banknotes. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but try to find free images. Nationalparks 03:03, 21 June 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 of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics. Lucky I've closed a lot of Raj Comics-related AfDs. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Singhnag
Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Raj Comics--TBC??? ??? ??? 06:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. It seems to be a Non-notable minor character and therefore should be merged into a list of characters as per WP:FICT. Perhaps if the Raj Comics site grows, it would then merit its own article. But being interested in WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias: WP:CSB, I'd vote not to just delete. I think it has enough connections with comics and with Hinduism to merit inclusion. Interlingua talk 00:18, 15 June 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 of the debate was delete. Despite the many keep votes, nearly all were from new users. Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SILO
|
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. Advertisement. Not particularly notable. Morgan Wick 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This article is in line with all of the other software articles referenced at 3D computer graphics software. Silo is already referred to near the bottom of that article as Silo(software). This article should perhaps be renamed to Silo(software) to match the other entries. Feed 22:06 17 June 2006 (GMT)
- Originally added by 69.230.57.231 (talk · contribs). Name of user changed from "anonymous" to "feed" by 69.230.74.142 (talk · contribs). "User:Feed" does not exist. IPs should not be allowed to vote in AfD debates. Morgan Wick 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment I should note that I'm a developer of Silo. I did not write the article. I'll be happy to remove my vote if it is against wikipedia's policies. (I admit I am not very familiar with the policies, despite using wikipedia frequently as a reference.) It does seem a little odd for wikipedia to have articles on nearly all of the software with which Silo is commonly associated, and not on Silo or Nevercenter, so I was happy to see somebody make the effort to start one up. Feed
- Keep. This tool is really innovative and the developpers are continuously implementing users requests. As a specialised innovative tool, i don't consider those informations like advertising, it provides knowledge about the state of 3d graphics. I would like to see links articles about model topology and displacement painting being added. janimatic 22:52 17 June 2006 (GMT)
- User's only edit. Morgan Wick 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a fantastic tool and people deserve to know about it, it might be an up and coming app but its earnt a lot of serious interest and respect from many pros RogerKnightly 21:16 17 June 2006 (GMT)
- User has only edited this AfD debate. Morgan Wick 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There are many reviews of Silo in major magazines, it is a legitimate 3d modeling tool. I will edit it to make it less like an advertisement and more factually accurate Tplewe 21:00 17 June 2006 (GMT)
- User has only edited the page under consideration and this AfD debate. (Added after comment below.) Morgan Wick 07:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment This isn't sock puppetry, the people coming here are coming from a forum post saying that Silo was being considered for deletion because it wasn't considered to be notable software, and there are many professionals who disagree and happy to say so. I have no problem with the post being changed to be less ad-like, I didn't make the article and I'm happy for the price info to be removed or other changes, but it was suggested for deletion because it was supposedly not "notable" and that is flatly untrue, and I don't know any other way to prove that than to have people who know about it say so or to state in the article that it is used by many major video game companies. If you're going to change your vote based on getting offended at this, that seems very unprofessional to me. Silo should be held to the same standard as the entries for Zbursh or Modo or other comparable software, so take a look at them and then change Silo's entry to match that. Seriously, I'm not trying to pull anything, please don't attack people who are new to this. Wiklipedia recommendation: don't attack newbies! Every post here is from real people who really are trying to help Tplewe
-
- A forum post directing people here? Sounds like a textbook case of {{afdanons}}! I've added it. Morgan Wick 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Meatpuppet#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets which states that "it is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia."--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Advert. BlueValour 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment - This sock puppetry is a total disgrace. There have only been two legitimate votes - DrunkenSmurf's and mine - both for delete. These guys are having a laugh at us. BlueValour 22:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Week Keep The article does read like an advert but the company IMO does appear to meet WP:CORP as I can find at least three reviews of the product easily with a simple google search. (The Macworld review is also a source link on the article itself and clearly is non-trivial.) Perhaps we can give the the creator of the article some time to make the content less like an advert.Delete DrunkenSmurf 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Due to the clear sockpuppetry going on here I have changed my vote to Delete. If you want people to take your company and product seriously and want support for this article (which I had given) then dont be a jackass and pull stunts like this. DrunkenSmurf 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Silo is definitely a real tool, in a real world, used by real people. JuanManuel
- "User:JuanManuel" does not exist. Above comment added by 201.137.5.120 (talk · contribs). IPs should not vote in AfD debates. Morgan Wick 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I might not exist as a registered user, but as my IP states, I do exist in cyberspace. I am surprised with the negative attitude some people are feeling towards this addition to the Wikipedia. I have contributed on occasion to broadening the information in the wikipedia, without so much ado, and as such I feel somewhat let down that I am considered as nonexistent. Returning to the subject at hand, I sincerely believe that this is no publicity stunt on nevercenter's part. They are too busy to pull something like that. Or by anybody else for that matter. There is in fact a community effort on silo's official forum in order to provide unbiased, solid, neutral, objective information to the Silo entry in the wikipedia. Juan Manuel, the non-existant entity in cyberspace.
- Keep I don't see this as advertisement. It's a legible entry for anyone concerned with 3D polygonal/subD modeling. In case there is no ban on software entries I don’t see why this entry should be treated under a different rule. 3dEE
- "User:3dEE" does not exist. Above comment added by 24.43.224.190 (talk · contribs). IPs should not vote in AfD debates. Morgan Wick 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Silo is a legitimate tool that forces a 3d artist to consider there edge loops and general construction plus its user base is strong and well natured.DarthWayne
- User's only edit. Morgan Wick 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete, article is more an advert than legitimate information on what may be an adequate entry-level 3d modeling tool, but in its current form the article appears to be more like ad copy. Mention of the price and comparing it to other higher end products seems irrelevant unless the author's intent is to actively promote this product. The first two links referenced lead to the same corporate website which further damages the impartiality of this article.Neutral MDonfield 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment - Some of my objections to the initial article's wording have been addressed. I also wonder whether the mention of companies using the software really belong in the opening paragraph, and whether saying version 2.0 "is soon to be released" is actually relevant for an introductory article. In Addition, the listing on the disambiguation page refers to the product as "powerful", which again gives the feel of a press release. MDonfield 10:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Due to efforts to bring the article to standards, vote changed to Neutral. MDonfield 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is one of the best subdivision surface modeling tools in existance. Makes me sad to see that this article is seen by some people as advert. This groundbraking tool speaks for itself and needs no adverts to be successful. Facts about it need to remain in wikipedia, period. Kemal 07:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- User has only edited this AfD debate. Please read WP:NPOV. Morgan Wick 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment To those who are familiar with Wikipedia and balloting against this page being up, please look at the article in its current state and, given the facts of respectable magazines having written articles on Silo (Macworld, 3DWorld, etc), plus Nevercenter's site being first on the list when you type Silo in Google, plus Silo being used by major studios, why the page shouldn't be up considering the pages that are up for competing products such as Modo and Zbrush. Feel free to change the page to remove any advertisements. We're all learning about wikipedia, not trying to pull anything, and apologize for any confusion. Please refrain from name calling. Thank you! Tplewe
- Delete - I don't see how this meets software guidelines given this information. Wickethewok 04:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I think the discussion here should center less on accusations (wholly unsubstantiated as far as an observer can tell) of sockpuppetry and such and return to Wikipedia's true interests -- providing factual and impartial info for significant portions of readers. CGSociety (cgsociety.org) regards Silo highly enough to sponsor a forum where its members can specifically discuss Silo, a forum comfortably ensconced between the Luxology Modo forum and the Pixologic ZBrush forum, both of which have entries here, and rightly so since they are of interest to many readers. Surely we must agree that if the foremost internet gathering of computer graphics professionals considers Silo of equally significant importance to their industry then Wikipedia can with confidence take a cue from them. Beginning entry writers and editors, in my opinion, should be given encouragement and specific suggestions for improvement of their entries (ala MDonfield) and never anything resembling scathing, uninformed put-downs. Sarsi 09:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If at one time the Silo article was in violation of policy, it no longer appears to be. A well-intentioned effort has been made to correct the situation. This is as it should be. As such, I am confused by the intent to ‘punish’ Silo’s representation in the Wikipedia due to someone’s post that may well have been guilty only of an ignorance of policy. Where do we stop with this odd effort to remove the current page? Shall we dig up all the info on all those who wish to keep and delete the article and poll the web of connections in pursuit of some private agenda to either ‘character assassinate’ Silo or ‘evangelize’ it? Absurd. As has been stated, Silo is real software in the real world used by real people, and it continues to evolve and therefore is marching into the future with the rest of us (well, most of us, anyway). I fail to see why this article should be stricken from the body of Wikipedia based on issues that no longer hold any water. Further, I believe it would be contrary to the purpose of the Wikipedia. [an unregistered user of the Wikipedia] 65.40.197.173 17:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC) fuzzyEuclid
- Strong delete, non-notable software and an ad. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and being "real" is not part of Wikipedia's criteria for keeping articles. See WP:N#Arguments for deleting non-notable articles for more info.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Tree Biting Conspiracy - you did not address the question of why direct competitor software is allowed to have exactly equivalent pages on here. Please answer this question to add something new to the discussion and to show that you're reading this discussion. Tplewe 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment First of all, I was adressing the user above me, who claimed that the article should be kept simply because it is "real". Also, simply being a competitor of a notable product doesn't make it notable as well (though I do question the notability of the two software titles that you've mentioned above).--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Having waded through the arguments for and against deleting non-notable articles I do think Wikipedia should come to some reasonable sort of resolution to this debate. Not to do so will clearly, in my mind, lead to very many other disenchanted possible future contributors to this resource besides myself. If Tree Biting Conspiracy and others have decided that all CG related software other than perhaps a smallish handful as well as the contents of reputable print and online resources that clarify them for the CG community are non-notable, verification pretty much becomes a farce. And the judgement of the few on-the-scene experienced Wikipedians has thus potentially been enabled to run riot over contributors, especially first time contributors, without actually saying much about anything relevant. Nobody likes a biased encyclopedia -- and limiting bias requires standards clearly stated. Sarsi 07:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well since all external factors - glowing review in Macworld, as well as all other important CG publications, users at many top video game and special effects companies, and inclusion on the top cg internet forums - point to Silo being perfectly equivalent to Modo and Zbrush in every respect, I can't respect your comments until you go to their pages and suggest deletion also. You continue to give no response as to why this should be deleted if those aren't, given the logical obviousness of their equivalence. I am growing soured by my first wikipedia experience and can see why news outlets are starting to report its problems. All I'm asking for is a rational response to my question. How long does this need to keep going on before someone reasonable can make a final decision anyway?Tplewe 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Has been in MacWorld as well as other publications. More than notable in this editors' eyes. Also is not an ad as of latest revision.--IU2002 19:53, 19 June 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 of the debate was Keep, as the nomination was withdrawn by BenBurch.--Chaser T 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Protest_Warrior
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding |
Fails to meet WP:NOT BenBurch 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC) nomination withdrawn BenBurch 21:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
MOVING COMMENTS TO TALK There are relevant comments that I am moving from this page to it's discussion page. I am attempting to be as neutral as possible as I do so. Please leave me a comment on my talk page if you think I unfairly moved something and I will be happy to review it.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm curious which requirement of WP:NOT you feel this organization fails to meet. The external links include articles about the group from MSNBC and the Washington Post, so they seem to be notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Djrobgordon (talk • contribs)
-
- Based on their Alexa ranking, around 164,000. BenBurch 00:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep pending elaboration on deletion rationale.Neutral Morgan Wick 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)- Keep. It seems notable to me with coverage in a number of different state and national newspapers. However, there needs to be more NPOV, both in the writing (there are only a few NPOV mentions) and in the references (I think only indymedia right now is a dissenting voice). Just FYI, I am opposed to the politics described in Protest Warrior but don't think that is any reason for me to vote to delete it (not that I'm implying that its nomination was motivated by political reasons). Interlingua talk 00:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, not a speedy keep candidate, although I question the motives of the nom on this one. Highly notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, while it may get some news mentions in current times, it is not notable enough for an encyclopedia that will hopefully be around for decades or centuries. A previous AfD nomination resulting in "keep" is one of the greatest obstacles to future deletion, so make sure that your nomination is accurate, thorough and persausive. -- Kjkolb 00:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- The same could be said for Ben Burch, his "society" and Democratic Underground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.76.15 (talk • contribs)
- So because it reaches basic notability guidelines for a group here on Wikipedia, you don't think it belongs here in the future? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Is this in reference to my comment? I don't think that they are notable enough for an article now, either. Perhaps the confusion is my saying "news mentions". I don't think that groups that get news mentions are necessarily notable enough for an article, now or in the future. News mentions are part of some guidelines (like WP:BIO), but the guidelines also say that there is disagreement about the guidelines themselves and that meeting one or more of the criteria does not necessarily mean that the article should be kept. A lot of things are temporarily famous but are quickly forgotten and have no significant impact on history. -- Kjkolb 07:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I forgot to answer the other comment. Yes, I would apply the same standards to other organizations, regardless of their politics. There's a lot of stuff from the right, left and center that should be deleted, in my opinion. -- Kjkolb 07:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, all of sites media mentions are from 2003, when this group was getting large pushes from mostly right wing commentators. There are hardly any recent media mentions, nor any citations of this organization in any sort of academic paper which shows this groups historical relevance as not lasting the test of time. This page seems to be created out of vanity by a users of this site's forum. --70.157.35.245 02:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- IP's sole contribution. It's worth noting, regardless, that there haven't been much in the way of worthwhile protests to be covered lately, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per Nom. No recent media activity, terrible Alexa rankings for its web site, appears to be a group that has come and gone and nothing it did is worthy of more than a footnote in an encyclopedia.Weak Keep BenBurch 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)- So now media activity has to be recent to make it worthwhile? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above Bwithh 02:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Article meets notability criteria. AfD likely to be ideologically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.75.92 (talk • contribs)
- First edit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is more relevant than Democratic Underground. If they deserve an entry, PW deserves an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.76.15 (talk • contribs)
- Third edit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per above. --James Bond 02:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above 69.149.102.130 03:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- IP's sole contribution.--James Bond 06:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable organization. Use of Alexa is misguided in this case. Protest Warrior has a web site but that doesn't mean it is a web site; WP:WEB doesn't apply here. Rather, the group is known for its organization of counterdemonstrations in real life, as discussed in the sources cited in the article. The group is still active and continues to be mentioned in news coverage of events where it engages in counterprotests [48]. --Metropolitan90 03:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons mentioned above. It is a global organization which receives moderate media attention and is active in many protests. Also, as a side note, Ben Burch seems to think that media attention is necessary for a Wikipedia organization article, although a Google News Search returns 1 result for "White Rose Society", and it has a page on Wikipedia, and also WhiteRoseSociety.org 's Alexa traffic report is hardly better than ProtestWarrior.com. Hypocrisy at its finest. Jdh 24 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
comment (24.22.103.188 05:44, 15 June 2006) moved to talk--Chaser T 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It is atleast as relevant as a certain democratic underground website. -- 05:58, 15 June 2006 64.219.31.247
- Delete Protest Warrior consists of very few people whatsoever. It claims to be global but offers no proof. Furthermore, it has videos on display with CLEARLY illustrate that it can mount counter-protests no larger than two dozen people. It is not global and it might have a few hundred people in it AT BEST. The forums are also incredibly small, with only a half dozen users on at any given time. It is NOT comparable to Free Republic or Democratic Underground forums. It's not worthy of anything, half the people ranting "keep" apparently are members and want attention. For God's sake, they managed to round up less than 30 people for a counter-protest at the Sept 24 March on Washington. How is it even an organization? My local PTA could put them to shame in comparable numbers. The attention mongers don't really deserve an article.--Grebrook 06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Lots of rhetorical fallacies, here.--James Bond 06:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Grebrook obviously thinks the site is important as he trolled the forums a while back. Jdh 24 06:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Most users ever online was 324 on Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:44 pm" You were saying? Furthermore, Protest Warrior is an organization active outside the Internet, so WP:WEB's standards do not apply. Rogue 9 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep informative and interesting article. --Facto 06:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
comment (unsigned 72.68.177.238) moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Facto abakharev 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
miscellaneous comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Irrelevant, no activity, no organization at all but internet forum only. The only ones that want to keep the article are Protestwarriors (also calling for vandalism): [49] --Tennik 09:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Actually, more than a few that said Keep on this page are not listed as Protest Warriors, so I don't know where you're coming from on that one, and the organization has gotten activity in the past year. Jdh 24 13:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm nota Protest Warrior, and I resent being rolled into the actions of an unfortunate few. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ATTN
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.--James Bond 07:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because it has turned into a competition between a bunch of lame libertarian losers who want to establish PW as their stomping ground and therefore feel they are entitled to change the Wikipedia article as they please. It is not a debate forum, but a peice of information. This goes for all the communist, socialists, etc who are making it an agenda. C & D - Andishouldabeengone
comment (72.68.177.238 08:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)) moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, mentioned in both MSNBC and The Washington Post, definitely notable. The extremely vague, tersely-worded nomination doesn't help either, and is probably the worst AfD nomination I've seen so far this year. Kimchi.sg 10:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep meets notability requirements per Kimchi.sg. Plus an organized right wing protest group is notable because of its rarity and the fact that it hasn't managed to achieve large scale support. It tells us a lot about the political culture in the USA at this time that there are "left wing" protest organization that can get hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets, but the "right wing" cannot. That alone makes this notable and encyclopedic, regardless of your political viewpoint. Gwernol 11:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to note that of course the left wing will have more protestors, it is not in power Jdh 24 13:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:WEB Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)No Vote not a WP:WEBsite, sorry. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)- It's not a website, it's a grassroots organization. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep lots of media attention. WP:WEB is not relevant, as they're not primarily a web site. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. As for all these claims that recent media attention is required, 1.) such exists, as linked above, and 2.) do you now propose deleting, say, the article on the American Civil War? Last I checked, it hadn't gotten media coverage in over 140 years. :p Rogue 9 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems notable enough. Ted 15:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Protest Warrior is notable for actions and not the web site. PW shows the interesting phenomenon of counter protesting in the USA, France, Netherlands, and other countries.Jukin 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- User's first two edits --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, though I must strongly condemn the sockflood caused by a thread on their forums where they screech about Wikipedia being full of liberals and communists. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- And that tidbit of info is significant.... how? VoiceOfReason 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's useful to the closing admin. Newly registered users who contribute overwhelmingly to AFDs are often discounted as being possible sockpuppets or meatpuppets brought in by an off-site page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- And that tidbit of info is significant.... how? VoiceOfReason 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Bad faith nomination. Group in question is certainly notable, more notable than the nominator, or his organization, who both have articles on Wiki. This is a big waste of time, thanks to BenBurch. Crockspot 16:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
responsed moved to talk as "Extended argument about voters with few edits".--Chaser T 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Ideologically-motivated nomination; this article meets WP:NOT as well or better than many others. To all sides of the political debate, could you maybe keep your squabbles to your own forums and leave Wikipedia out of it? VoiceOfReason 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Seconded. Strongly seconded. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. He has admitted as much on the forum Democratic Underground about his previous deletion crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.137.194 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 June 2006
- In light of this comment and a little research into the backstory of the nominator, I am changing my vote to keep. Politically motivated action of this kind has no place in the encyclopedia, and is inherently divisive and inflammatory. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A sourced article with plenty of detail. -Robmods 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep sufficient external coverage to allow neutrality to be verified. Just zis Guy you know? 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Failure by nominator to sufficiently explain and justify nom. PW has ongoing activities (such as their continuous vigil outside Walter Reed) and news coverage. A short lull in news coverage does not warrant deletion. Jinxmchue 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per numerous press citations that would seem to establish a minimal level of notability for inclusion. Also, my condolences and pity upon the admin who had to cull through the meatpuppetfest this AfD has turned into... though dropping anything from an IP would be a good start...--Isotope23 20:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
comment (72.68.181.68 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)) moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Any article causeing this much debate has the notoriety and the substance to keep a place on this site. If it hadnt the effect it does, we wouldnt be haveing this convorsation. TunnelRat 21:35, 18 June 2006 (KW)
- Actually User:195.229.13.114, and it's the anon's second edit, first in nearly 3 months. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is a ridiculous politically motivated nomination. Neverborn 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
DELETE-- No recent PW activity of note. No counter protests to May 1 protests nor the last Anti War protests. "Chapters' such as the Los Angeles PW Chapter have more cancelled 'operations' than successful ones. There are college republican groups with members numbering in the thousands in L.A, and PW is shunned by them for their extremist Neonazi views and tactics. Counter protest activity in most chapters is dormant. Look at PW 'operations' http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewforum.php?f=4 and other events where PW were no shows, like operation Defend the White House. PW is deader than Ronald Reagan. NBGPWS 00:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Slanderous, offensive, and full of lies. Jdh 24 01:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's been shown that ProtestWarrior is a notable enough organization to be on Wikipedia.--Donbert 02:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I've been following PW on the net for months. I admit it is a small group, but it is still pretty notable. V. Joe 02:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
DELETE! A PW even asked to have the entry deleted from Wiki in 'discussion' They know they're NOT WORTHY!'
On second thought they can stay if the name is changed to their REAL name, PRETEND WARRIOR! NBGPWS 02:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:VANITY, fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank has actually gone down lately; how is this possible with a link from Wikipedia? j/k. It just doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 04:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
| This has already been addressed. On Wikipedia itself, no less.
Alexa rankings are not dispositive, and the ranking of Burch's low-traffic website is a tenth of the one that he is responsible for deleting. 72.82.111.224 04:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I've already made numerous cititations in reference to articles in widely-read national publications, wire services, extremely popular talk radio shows, and popular weblogs. Kfir has been interviewed by Michael Savage-the third most listened-to host in the nation-and Rush Limbaugh, the most popular talk radio host in the nation. 72.82.111.224 04:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
- Comment Can a senior editor please clean this page up? It's degraded into a troll/flame war. Jinxmchue 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete irrelevant, no activity, no organization at all but internet forum only.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.136.151 (talk • contribs)
That baseless accusation has been refuted repeatedly.
We've already demonstrated their activity, in multiple cities, multiple countries, and multiple continents.
The Internet component of PW is subsidiary to the broader organization.
Please read through the entire discussion before making unsubstantiated allegations, otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that your motives for making that recommendation are not pure.
Not in good faith.
71.125.253.62 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP Protest Warrior, like the Ku Klux Klan it shares many opinions with, needs to be on Wikipedia to warn people about its evil. 213.27.254.134 21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- More rhetorical fallacies & IP's sole contribution.--James Bond 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The person motioning for deletion has a personal vendetta against anything conservative. I find this to be a tasteless attempt at stalin like censorship. 24.166.11.4 22:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. The only contributions the pro-censorship, leftbot jihadists have made to this discussion. The fact that this entry is even being considered for deletion speaks poorly to Wiki's quality control standards, IMHO. 71.125.247.127 23:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |}
Strong keep. --TJive 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The notability of the article's subject is sufficient in my opinion to warrant it's entry. --Wisden17 00:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, anyone who wanted to advance the argument that anon IP shouldn't be allowed to edit should take note of this AfD...--Isotope23 04:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. The article has been greatly vandalized by activists on both sides, but mostly by members of PW. One small, obscure activist group does not constitute "encyclopedic" material. 71.246.245.50 06:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
moved to talk as "BenBurch and IP's argument about notability.--Chaser T 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
72.68.163.158's comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep The group seems to be just over the threshold for notability (because of the national media coverage). The article itself though is too partisan and contains too much irrevelent material, which needs to be reworked if it's going to be kept. Makgraf 06:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
A. What constitutes "vandalization?"
B. Do you have any substantive, confirmatory evidence that would suggest PWers are "vandalizing" this entry, or that they have created more mischief than those who are antagonistic towards PW?
72.68.163.158 06:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, the assertion that this entry is biased in favor of Protest Warrior is demonstrably false, as anyone who gave even a cursory glance to the links section would realize.
There is the direct link to protestwarrior.com-as is customary with these entries-an article/interview from a mainstream cable news network, a balanced piece by a well-known, reputable conservative newspaper, followed by three extremely tendentious, critical opinion pieces, from various leftist sources.
72.68.163.158 06:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I looked up some records and not even a week ago BenBurch Nominated and deleted a wiki entry for a site called Conservative Underground. This is a another politically motivated nomination. And most of those saying delete are not citing wiki law but rather personal hatred for the group. 74.132.204.152 15:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- That's an outright lie. BenBurch 23:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ben made the nomination for the first AfD and the community could not form a consensus. During the second AfD, in which Ben didn't participate, the community decided to delete. This AfD has gotten quite testy, so please get your facts straight if you're going to accuse people of things.--Chaser T 23:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Per above. 72.68.172.20 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Legends in their own minds only, this group might rate a footnote in the entry on Fascism, but not its own article. 61.0.39.6 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Another anonymous, uninformed-bereft of factual, empirical data-smear job from one of Ben Burch's online stormtroopers.
Unsupported, unsubstantiated calumnies.
That's the only thing that you losers-in real life as well as online-can contribute to this debate.
That's the best the DUmmies can offer.
72.68.187.150 01:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have not asked ANYBODY to come to this discussion, and I will thank you not to say so again. If somebody came here to leave an opinion, they more than likely found out about it on the PW message board or on CU where trolling WAS solicited. Did you think that only right-wingers read your sites? BenBurch 04:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't accused him of anything of which he is not guilty.
Are you denying that this-as well as the CU afd nomination-were motivated by base political animosities-and had no basis in fact?
He lied about a CU user creating his vanity White Rose advert.
He lied about LGF mentioning him and his website by name.
He lied about trolling for votes in leftist hives, e.g. DU.
Nothing he says or does has even a shred of credibility, IMHO.
72.68.187.150 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Another outright lie. A CU member created the entry for Ben_Burch. That was Sammy the Squid Boy who did that. I never said that a CU user created the White Rose page, only that I never did. I never said that LGF mentioned my website by name. I said that LGF's page covered the same incident. I never trolled for votes on ether of these present issues, and the CU deletion that succeeded was not even a matter I was aware of. I see what you are doing here as defamatory under Wikipedia guidelines. BenBurch 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Point well-taken.
I'll reserve this debate for "talk."
72.68.187.150 01:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE because of the childish meatpuppetry and vandalism. Sad. 213.59.99.178 02:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- * Might as well delete the entire Wikipedia site if that is the case for deletion Jdh 24 02:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep: This nomination reeks of bad faith. The organization has had significant media coverage and there are enough reliable sources for an article. --Hetar 05:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Obvious biased attempt at tilting Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeedaGlock (talk • contribs) 05:58, 18 June 2006
Weak keep The Protestwarrior website might be notable but nothing else. The article needs to be entirely rewritten and shortened in order to be kept.Protestwarrior is an internet forum but no organization, it's neither international nor an activist group.Delete Protest Warrior is calling for vandalism of the AFD page and the White Rose article, they have nominated the White Rose article for deletion in bad faith, they are asking others to remove the delete tag from the Protest Warrior article, risking the chance to get banned and they are using lots of sock puppets right here. Some of the Protest Warriors involved: James Bond, Wrathbone (IP 72.68.1xx.xxx) and Jdh_24, --Toicap 08:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- You'll notice that I never called for anything. In fact, I told others to not vandalize Ben Burch's page. Oh, and who nominated the White Rose article for deletion? Oh, that's right, not a Protest Warrior. You'll also notice that there are not very many anonymous contributors to this page. Distort the facts elsewhere please. Jdh 24 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This AfD and the parallel AfD for White Rose Society eloquently make the case for revisiting WP:WEB and WP:NOT. I realize I'm a relative newcomer, but I'm no meatpuppet, and it seems to me that there should be a strong bias towards keep in any case. If an article with marginal notability remains in the encyclopedia, what is the harm? Surely the damage done by keeping an article that is arguably non-notable is much less than the damage done by deleting an article that is arguably notable. Setting a high bar for inclusion invites this sort of bad faith nomination, especially for articles on politically-charged topics. Keep this article, keep the article on the White Rose Society, keep the article on Ben Burch, and keep political debates where they belong... i.e. not here. VoiceOfReason 08:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Ignoring all the politics, they have gotten significant national coverage. The fact the haven't done much in the last year or so doesn't make them stop being notable. If this were a requirement, there wouldn't be any articles on dead people. Ace of Sevens 14:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Toicap, your assertions have already been amply refuted.
It is a worldwide organization, as has been proven-repeatedly-throughout this afd discussion.
Please read through the entire discussion-with accompanying links-before making baseless assertions.
72.68.187.222 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, let it be noted that Ben Burch has voted himself to "delete" on the WRS afd.
He has also said that he did not believe he deserved his own Wikipedia entry.
No one from Protest Warrior-except for NCB and Grebok, who are not actual PWers-has voted to delete this entry.
Plus, many who are not from PW-in fact, many who are very liberal-have voted to "keep" this article.
72.68.187.222 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Edit to previous comment: The links can be found on the "discussion" page.
Why the links to those relevant documents were moved there is beyond me.
Please give a at least a cursory review to that page before making unfounded assertions.
72.68.187.222 15:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Minor musicians are kept, even if their notability wasn't very high and they have faded from the scene. So are their CD's. So are many other not-really-meaningful-today "things from the past," such as my boyhood favorite Hop Harrigan. Also, the length and intensity of this discussion presents some pretty strong evidence of notability. Lou Sander 19:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that a few politicly-motivated Individuals are trying to delete sites based on Leftist preference. So much for that Democratic Principle of "Free" speech, eh??
NOBODY hates the ideas of free speech and the free exchange of ideas more than a leftist, ESPECIALLY ben burch. Liberalism simply can no longer survive in the Arena of Free IDeas and Discussion, hence the Deletion of a political enemy
Toicap lies again.
James Bond has not been involved in any "vandalism," nor has he invoked any "sock puppets," however you choose to define that very subjective term.
He merely alerted CU and PW users-as is his right-to the bad faith afd nomination of perpetual partisan hit-man Ben Burch.
You have no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that sock puppets-which you have yet to define-are being used to skew the results of this discussion, or that multiple Protest Warriors have "vandalized" this page, not that you have defined that term either.
71.125.240.18 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the person who nominated the WRS for afd was not a Protest Warrior.
Please retract that allegation, as it has already been disproved elsewhere.
71.125.240.18 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Nearly fifty votes, as well as numerous comments that fill two entire pages.
Tell me again why Protest Warrior is not notable...?
71.125.240.18 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
STRONGLY KEEP 20:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT - Looks like you had it right, Toicap, somebody just vandalized the PW page and removed the header. Comment on the history; "18 June 2006 168.243.45.100 (Striking a blow for Freedom! Protest Warrior Forever!)" Having said that, I am changing my vote after some research. PW is marginally notable. Andf as somebody observed above, we need to keep track of these crypto-Klansmen somehow. BenBurch 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment
Is Ben Burch's "delete" going to be taken into consideration during final deliberations on this entry, considering the fact that this is his afd nomination?
I see that as a distinct conflict of interest.
71.125.240.18 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"Crypto-Klansman."
Flagrantly false personal attack, which does not belong here.
I'm politely requesting that a Wiki editor with purview over this page either delete or move it.
71.125.240.18 20:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that this is the latest-but certainly not the first-personal, derogatory attack that Mr. Burch has initiated.
71.125.240.18 20:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Did you bother reading the vote I cast? I just changed it to weak keep. Next lie, please? BenBurch 20:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Which I read after I had already posted my comment; edit conflict.
As prescient as I am I can't predict what someone else is going to say or write before the next minute elapses.
71.125.240.18 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- It could hardly be otherwise as you edit this entry about every three minutes. Usually with a personal attack about somebody. BenBurch 20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
For someone who evinces so much concern for the Wiki process you don't seem to care much for adhering to its rules, do you?
71.125.240.18 21:02, 18 June 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.
