Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of those who are "far left" according to Bill O'Reilly
Unnecessary list. What possible purpose can listing a pundit's opinion of who he feels are "far left" serve? Carlos M 00:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Don't see how this is neccessary. A sampling of the links could serve as a reference that he uses the term 'far left', but this looks like anotherwise unneccessary list. A list of who's-called-who-what isn't neccessary. Kevin_b_er 00:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep It was cluttering up the article so moved here. I like to see everything on the article page, but people add so much to Bill O'Reilly that now there are at least 3 spin-offs. --Blue Tie 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not necessary and unencyclopedic, pov as to who is "far left".--Shella * 00:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The POV comes in by editors interpreting O'Reilly's remarks, and by selecting O'Reilly's opinions on the matter as listworthy in the first place. Do you support similar lists for Chris Matthews, Larry King, Ann Coulter, Lou Dobbs, and Stephen Colbert? And further lists of their opinions on who is "far right" as well? Where does it end? wikipediatrix 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think quite a few people do not understand the context of how this article was created. It did not just come up out of thin air. It has been in the O'Reilly article for a long time but was quite a long list so I just provided a spin off article. If the Letterman article had a huge list of who he thinks are hot, then someone might end up making that into a separate list (which I'm sure would be afd'd also). I am not trying to proclaim that these lists are worthy of the label "encyclopedic" since so much cruft survives here or seriously fighting for the inclusion of this specific list. I guess I caused quite a stir here by doing this. There was no point I was trying to prove, but this discussion does enlighten as to what is really necessary to put into an article. I would like to invite people who commented here to look at the Bill O'Reilly article itself and see what can be improved. It is "B-class" right now but some imput could make it into a "Good Article." MrMurph101 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- The POV comes in by editors interpreting O'Reilly's remarks, and by selecting O'Reilly's opinions on the matter as listworthy in the first place. Do you support similar lists for Chris Matthews, Larry King, Ann Coulter, Lou Dobbs, and Stephen Colbert? And further lists of their opinions on who is "far right" as well? Where does it end? wikipediatrix 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Weak Keep also. It's just a list but a long one. There are other list articles here that are not as long either. I just created it per article size protocols. Someone could change the article title if the article is kept if they want to. MrMurph101 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Kevin_b_er --NMChico24 00:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete but replace with a category. --Walter Görlitz 00:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- neither encyclopedic nor informative. —Aetheling 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Question It looks to me like people want to delete this list entirely. It previously came from an article. Should it be put back into the article or removed from wikipedia? --Blue Tie 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would say remove it completely. It serves no purpose, and the main article is already long. --NMChico24 01:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, it should be merged back into the article. It does serve an important purpose, in that it exhibits O'Reilly's political leanings. -Hal Raglan 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would say remove it completely. It serves no purpose, and the main article is already long. --NMChico24 01:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It is extremely informative about O.'s positions and therefore his bias. Especiallysince the second adjective in this article is "journalist". If he states he is a neutral commentator but favors one position routinely and to the degree demonstrated by this list - that is crucial and objective information. Until this numerically and objective documentation of imbalance is addressed otherwise in the article- it must be kept. Furthermore - the article has been left totally imbalanced - one wonders why since it is so obvious - with continued listing of people on the a list of right he criticizes. SO Carlos M Carlose should either restore the list or offer wording to make the same point otherwise. Getterstraight 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)getterstraightGetterstraight 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and don't add it to the article. Wikipedia is not Bill O'Reilly's soapbox. --Wafulz 02:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A cool list but wikipedia is not the place for this kind of thing. If the author is that intrested I would recommend thrid party hosting and a ref link off the main O'Reilly article. NeoFreak 03:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, judging from Getterstraight's comment this is a POV fork. Gazpacho 03:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Also, leave it out of the main article. It doesn't need a comprehensive list, just some examples that people have verifiably commented on. Gazpacho 03:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and merge a few back into "Opinions on others politics". There's no need to keep a catalogue of every one of O'Reilly's pronouncements, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An amusing insight into what passes for political commentary in America though. -- IslaySolomon 03:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - minor information that, as pointed out above, would be soapboxing for O'Reilly. No point to it, really. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge back into O'Reilly article — Joshua Johaneman
03:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A cluttered, unencyclopedic mess. Twipie 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. An arbitrary, OR, and indiscrimate collection of someone's opinions. What's next, List of women David Letterman thinks are hot, List of things Lou Dobbs thinks are bad for America, and List of dishes that are bad according to Chairman Kaga? wikipediatrix 04:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with no merge. LC (maybe?) and per kevin_b_er. -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings
- Delete and do not merge, unless maybe a maximum of four entries were put in the main article to serve the purpose of illustrating a point. There is no need for all of this. GassyGuy 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no merge. We really do not need a separate list of the people each and every loudmouth talks about. Yes, it was cluttering up the article. The solution was to remove it from the article as cruft, leaving a few notable examples with some discussion in detail so that readers will understand O'Reilly, which is the purpose of the article. O'Reilly is absolutely not a reliable source for political science, so a list is of no evident merit. Guy 10:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per NeoFreak above. It's fine as a third-party page with a link on his wikipedia article, not so fine as an article of it's own or as clutter on his page -Markeer 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and no merge per NeoFreak. I find it utterly bizarre that anyone is obsessive enough to even be taking the time to keep track of this sort of thing; it certainly serves no purpose on Wikipedia. --Aaron 16:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per zat Guy, do not merge. The article, in some way, seems to exist simply to make a point. Agent 86 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Who cares who this guy thinks (POV) is 'far left'? Marcus22 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (no merge) and I concur with the opinions of JzG and Wafulz. There is no reason to fork off the opinions of any Talking Head into a seperate article... and no reason to retain it in an article about the person for that matter.--Isotope23 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep although the editors who point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information have a very valid point, this list although verifiable does have independant notability issues. To some of the editors voting delete, please remember that AfD is not the proper forum for articles with POV issues, or articles that need improvement. Ramsquire 22:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Actually, that's not true. Articles which are based on an inherently faulty and POV premise from the getgo are indeed fodder for AfD.
wikipediatrix 02:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'll glady retract my statement and change my vote, if you show me which policy or guideline supports your contention. Please note [4]which states that AfD is not proper forum for POV issues. The better argument for delete is that the list violates WP:NOT as it's most like listcruft and who BO thinks is far left is not notable.Ramsquire 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. This is list is verfiable. Because of the nature of O'Reily's show I think that this article does serve a useful purpose. Verifiable, notable and useful, its a keep to me. AmitDeshwar 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- You might answer my questions I've put forth elsewhere in this AfD, then: do you think similar lists on this and other topics should be started for other celebrities of equal or greater stature (cough) as Bill O'Reilly? Why or why not? wikipediatrix 02:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Possibly the most ridiculous and pointless article I've ever read. No place in an encyclopedia. 83.67.2.61 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JzG, wikipediatrix. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge back into the O'Reilly article. Its an important list within the context of the main article to help demonstrate (without editorializing) O'Reilly's true political leanings; as a separate article it serves little purpose.--Hal Raglan 00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete list of trivial information.--Peta 05:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --TorriTorriTalk to me! 06:29, 30 September 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. (I think there are roughly 6.5 billion people who've never heard of this.) Grandmasterka 21:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Leoville Town Square
Website fails the WP:WEB criteria; Alexa ranking of 240,358 [25]. Possibly also redirect to Leo Laporte instead.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Who hasn't heard of this site before? Alternatively, Merge into Leo Laporte Article. — Joshua Johaneman 03:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep keep or merge per Joshua Johaneman Collaborate 05:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I, for one, had never heard of this web site before. And looking for sources from which an encyclopaedia article can be built, I see that I'm not alone. This web site garners a couple of incidental mentions, such as this, on some web logs, and that's it. It fails to satisfy the WP:WEB criteria, as the nominator says. No-one has actually documented it at all outside of Wikipedia. Documenting it inside Wikipedia would therefore be original research. Delete. Uncle G 09:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
*Merge into Leo Laporte it is his forums afterall. - Mike Beckham 09:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to Delete user keeps adding spam and promotional material from the podcast. Obviously article is just a home for spam now. - Mike Beckham 02:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable website that fails WP:WEB, per nom. As an aside to answer the rhetorical question, I for one haven't heard of this site. That said, it doesn't matter if anyone has or has not heard of it. It matters whether it's encyclopedic, which it's not. Agent 86 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Delete the logo and screenshot images, too. --- RockMFR 20:35, 30 September 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 08:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stormtrooper effect
 |
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}} |
Creating AFD discussion as my prod was disputed. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and that's what this article is. There are no verifiable references to cite. We certainly don't need an article about this. I think its mention in cannon fodder or Redshirt (stock character) is more than enough. Also, it should not be shorted to a simple definition either, wikipedia is not a dictionary. I know it's a cliche in use, but just because something is noteworthy doesn't mean it's appropriate for wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Notability for info on this. Also, one could argue that the stormtrooper effect is a neologism without verifiable sources and thus an innapropriate article. When and if there are good sources to make an article for this phenomenon I'd encourage it, but as it stands this article is not appropriate. See Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms for further info. Crypticgeek 03:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; amusing, but totally original research. Whoever wrote it should save a copy and post it somewhere else. Sdedeo (tips) 04:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge any useful info and Redirect to cannon fodder. EnsRedShirt 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per above. MikeWazowski 04:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge any useful info and Redirect to cannon fodder, per EnsRedShirt. (SEWilco 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC))
- Merge and redirect, per above. FrozenPurpleCube 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per above. T1g4h 09:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- You wikinazis have no sense of humor. Shame on you! This article is a fabulous insertion of intelligent comedy into your otherwise boring and sad worlds. Instead of seeking to maintain the beige tinge of Wikipedia overall, you should embrace professional style attempts to add a little pop to your supposedly "world embracing" online pedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.149.50 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - Yeah, what Wikipedia really needs is more hilarity. -- Plutortalkcontribs 15:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. Not that we don't have a sense of humour, you're just not funny. ColourBurst 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hence why I said to Merge it. I quite liked the article, but can see it fitting in with the cannon fodder article quite well ;) T1g4h 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC
- Delete per WP:NEO and Godwin's Law --Roninbk t c # 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not a neologism that originated here. It seems a highly notable name for an easily verified cultural phenomenon; what is recent is the name. Google says it finds 18,000+ hits. This particular article seems to be well liked by several bloggers.[26][27] This may not be "policy" but it makes me think we should think twice before deleting this article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: whatever the result, please try to keep the cannon fodder article on topic and not overfilled with trivia. Although things like Homer Simpson references may look more important today the article should be rather about the tens of millions who died in wave attacks. Pavel Vozenilek 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced. No reason to merge because it is unsourced. No reason to redirect unless someone can find a reliable source tying this the concept of cannon fodder.--Isotope23 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge: Yes, there is some good idealism here and I like the idea. It seems like an intelligent contribution, for the most part, and has some good info to it. Since there isn't a definite source, I think we should keep the best info and the redirect to a more definite article. (Unregistered user, submitted September 2006)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.21.207 (talk • contribs)
- Merge if you must, but don't delete The phenomenon is well-established and documented, it is only the name that is not. This is a fitting article that documents an archetypical cinematographical tool that has since expanded into video gaming. The tool should not be ignored simply for a lack of taxinomical pedigree. Find a way to keep it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooseblw023 (talk • contribs) user's first edit
- Keep: It's a "good article" candidate, for heaven's sake; see the discussion page. I believe this properly documents an important meme. I also disagree in that it is original research; it cites the use of the stormtrooper effect in creating dramatic irony. I bet if a professional screenwriter cleaned it up a bit, it would regain "good article" in no time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sim (talk • contribs)
- Keep: Seems legitimate to me and describes an important, if humorous, aspect of film and video games. Could certainly use more sources though, this type of thing is well documented given the vast multitude of Star Wars fans. -- gxti 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Nice violation of WP:NOR and a host of other things as well. Whispering(talk/c) 01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The phenomenon exists, and there's no other name for it. Cannon fodder is a different phenomenon altogether. Stormtroopers are bad at offense, whereas redshirts are bad at defense.
Kla'quot 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep.The two main accusations by those who dislike this article is i)it is original research, and ii) that it makes them laugh. Against accusation i this is patently untrue as the "Storm trooper school of marksmanship" has appeared in print form as far back as 1989 and against ii what's wrong with some humour now and again???? KTo288 11:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Per all above. There are a heck of a lot of google hits out there for it, it was a former good article candidate and from a cursory read this article is pretty well-written. True, it is not very well sourced, but sources can be added. Merging is not ideal because this really does desribe something distinct from cannon fodder, which I personally think needs a re-write more badly than this article does. Since sockpupetry seems to be a concern on this discussion, I would like to point out that this nomination was Crypticgeek's 7th edit. Irongargoyle 12:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the information present can be verified, if citations are needed then that should be correct, not deleting the article! It is equivalent to killing a person to cure their hiccups: surely a better solution is available. A ‘citation are needed tag’ and a general effort to find them is all the is required, not deletion. --BerserkerBen 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Merging to cannon fodder is a bad idea, as these are two different phenomenons. Needs sourcing, but it should be verifiable for the most part. BryanG(talk) 04:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article needs clean-up and a few better sources, but it's something that's been talked about elsewhere. Confusing Manifestation 10:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: So we're supposed to keep badly written, unsourced material that consists only of orginal research instead of deleting it or merging it as appropriate? I'm a newbie to wikipedia relatively speaking, but I'd rather have good encyclopedic articles instead of bad ones languishing around waiting for someone to actually source and verify them. Crypticgeek 13:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - WP is a work in progress, which is why anyone can edit and contribute. If we delete this now, and somebody does decide to cleanup & properly source everything, they'll have to start from scratch. Better to have an article tagged as unverified needing cleanup than to force an AfD every time somebody tries to codify a plot device in fiction that may no longer be a neologism. Wl219 20:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge any useful info and Redirect to cannon fodder. Palendrom 01:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it's similar to cannon fodder, but not quite the same. dougmc 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment try to find some sources (for the term in wider use), if they can't be found then merge into various articles as per previous suggestions sheridan 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but trim heavily, and verify if possible. As is, it contains long crufty lists. --tjstrf 19:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but trim and otherwise clean-up. This is a notable and distinct literary concept fully worthy of coverage. This is true even though it's associated with sci fi fandom and hence annoys certain editors. --Saucepan 21:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is clearly not original research. An article which has survived for well over a year, and the basic frame has been there for many months, should not be deleted lightly especially with so many contributors. Mallanox 00:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable nickname for common plot device in movies. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:09, 29 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kacey (porn star)
Non-notable erotic film actress. — Joshua Johaneman 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I see her all over the web and I don't go to "those sites". --Yamla 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for now. The quickest test for notability under WP:PORNBIO is film count: IMDB shows 31 films, IAFD says 36. As well there's no sign of having won an AVN award (nor even so much as a nomination listed on Wikipedia right now) and she's not in the AVN Hall of Fame. So if she's to be kept, someone's going to have to do some fancy footwork to convince me. Tabercil 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I didn't know that convincing Tabercil was the determining factor on whether this article is to be kept. WP:PORNBIO is NOT policy nor even a guideline yet, and I think it's clearly flawed. Kacey is well known in the industry, as any cursory research will show. wikipediatrix 04:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- LOL... it's not. But what I was trying to say is I couldn't find any ready objective reason to keep her, and the basis behind WP:PORNBIO is (as I see it) to try and set some form of clear standards as to who to keep and who not to keep. I pointed out the quickest tests for objectivity weren't met by Kacey, which means the notability criteria will likely be statements such as "I've heard of her" and "she's all over the place". That, to my eyes, seems like a weak argument... but I'm just one voice. Tabercil 11:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- WP:PORNBIO makes a number of false presumptions about the porn industry, including the statement that all porn actresses are spammed across search engines to inflate their ratings. Until someone can verifiably show that most of Kacey's Google hits are "viral marketing spam", I see no reason NOT to include her since passes the Google test and can be shown to have a fan base and a considerable body of work (no pun intended). wikipediatrix 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete She doesn't seem like a notable pron actress. TJ Spyke 05:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is one of those instances where I think that WP:PORNBIO fails to cover enough of the industry. Dismas|(talk) 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- keep - Oh WP:PORNBIO! You have some 'splainin'g to do! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO and isn't even overly notable in her field.--Isotope23 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable as per WP:PORNBIO and WP:BIO, or any other standards of which I am aware. Badbilltucker 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Tabercil. Being well known in an industry doesn't seem like enough to me. -Kubigula (ave) 02:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. IMDB page shows multi-year industry presence in numerous films. Article does good job of explaining Kacey's specific skill set. No reason to delete one of the paving stones on the road to comprehesive encyclopedic coverage of participants in this major industry. --JJay 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. IMHO she perfectly fits in the WP:PORNBIO #7, ("Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche"). I arrived to this article through Reality porn, and think Kacey it's the perfect example. She looks and always has appeared in films like an amateur. (By the way, lots of people know Kacey and other so-called amateur actresses, while don't know even one Playmate of the year...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.57.251.5 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The proposed WP:PORN BIO fails us once again. RFerreira 23:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay, RFerreira, and Reality porn guy. Drjayphd 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per comments made above, this is a fairly notable adult entertainer. Yamaguchi先生 22:20, 29 September 2006
- Keep at least as notable as a pokemon card. ALKIVAR™
02:32, 30 September 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. —freak(talk) 06:09, Sep. 30, 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alison Garrigan
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
non-notable actress who's appearing in a local community theater production of Rocky Horror in Ohio. Fails WP:BIO and reeks of vanity. wikipediatrix 04:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and then burn the remains to ash, per nom. Some of the stuff that makes it here never fails to make me laugh. NeoFreak 05:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete She's the shiznit in the Cleveland theater scene, but hasn't extended outside that. The GHits I find seem to be all the usual local theater Ra! Ra! puffery - Richfife 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Why did she play Dr. Frank-N-Furter? Isn't the whole point of that character that he's a man dressing up as a woman? JIP | Talk 09:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. MER-C 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Leave. You all seem to be getting very hot under the collar about an article - like a group of shiznits. Who cares. There should be better reasons for deletion. It diverted me for a couple of minutes. Soane 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply Are you dissing my shiznittery? - Richfife 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply I guess so. I have now looked up the word. So I would say to you all: relax. Your venom is unbecoming. If each of you is worth a user page AND a talk page here, this person is worth one page. And there are countries smaller than Cleveland (Monaco is half the size of Central Park).Better in than out. Soane 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply I was kidding. On a more serious note, notability requirements on Wikipedia are an important way of keeping it from being completely inundated by random information about all 5 billion plus people on the planet, rendering it completely useless. As it is, "How come I can't have an article when they can!" is a constant refrain from every person that can drink a glass of beer really fast or stand on their head or got straight A's once. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and hubris popping is sometimes part of that. - Richfife 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- LeaveI would leave it. I thought she was interesting and would want to know more. NIghtjar 21:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Leave I'd like to know more too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.14.119 (talk • contribs)
- Leave It seems worth keeping to me. There are articles about small towns of interest to a couple of thousand people. I am sure she is of interest to more than that. As a bisexual woman, as a dressmaker, I say let her stay. I don't understand the impulse to kill articles anyway. People should add to articles. RuthieK 20:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per the nominator, she does not yet meet our WP:BIO perhaps later. Yamaguchi先生 22:06, 29 September 2006
- DElete Reasonably NPOV article but simply doesn't demonstrate enough notability. Spartaz 22:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Grand Belial's Key
An obscure black metal band, speedied as A7 but contested. Nothing on allmusic, nothing on Amazon, one former member who was once amember of an even more obscure band. Guy 09:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Thryduulf 09:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - first twenty ghits are basically lists of lyrics. Doesn't meet the requirement of many independant sources verifing notability. MER-C 09:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC with international tours [29], including three concerts just in a small/medium-sized country like Finland [30] concert review, signed to a notable record label, Drakkar Entertainment, released 11 recordings, including three full-lengths, three EPs and a compilation, mentioned as the "fathers of US black metal" [31], Encyclopaedia Metallum page [32] ID is 270 showing the band was among the first ones added to the database, covered in Decibel magazine due to their controversy [33], one band member in Arghoslent and one in Ancient [34], over 1000 listeners on Last.fm [35]. Also, it's not fair to assume that Allmusic.com and Amazon.com want to cover bands associated with nazism. Prolog 12:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am tempted to vote Delete because a lot of those articles either barely mention the band or are from places I would question as good sources. However, my main problem is that, although the article mentions that they are signed with Drakkar Entertainment, I do not see them listed on Drakkar's site - Ektar 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Prolog. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the band gets 37,400 google hits; see metal archives, rockdetector, Belial's Key last.fm, [36], Belial's Key, [37], [38], etc. Also, several wikipedia articles link to it (Black metal, NSBM, Neo-Nazism, list of black metal bands for example). IronChris | (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above --NRS T/M\B 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above Punkmorten 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Prolog and others above. Seems clearly to pass WP:MUSIC. AmitDeshwar 01:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above, they are not on Drakkar Entertainment but instead on DRAKKAR Productions, http://www.drakkar666.com/ which is a label that has been established in the underground for a very long time before DRAKKAR Entertainment came along. Assuming that Amazon.com and Allmusic.com would possibly cover a decent variety of underground artists is laughable. sulphursouls
- Keep. Just becaus ethey aren't on allmusic.com doesnt mean they arent a noteable band. Other bands such as Turisas were't there before as well, until recently. Bloodredchaos 10:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain. I abstain from voting.--83.118.141.133 15:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Due to the controversial nature of their music, it is perfectly understandable why allmusic or amazon might not associate with them. Silensor 17:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per the above, particularly Prolog. --Myles Long 17:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per prolog... I'm the one who speedy undeleted it. ALKIVAR™ 22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Prolog but someone with time should add a section about the controversy to the article. JoshuaZ 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Prolog. Sufficiently notable to meet WP:MUSIC in my opinion. RFerreira 23:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This does not meet my taste in music, but I believe it does agree with the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 09:50, 30 September 2006
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vidya Shilp Academy
Copyright infringement, attacks and nonsense will be deleted without warning. Please check your factual data before posting - Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raveeta (talk • contribs) 09:17, 25 September 2006
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a private school in India. I improved the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Schools are not inherently notable. No sources, no claims of notability. AmitDeshwar 01:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It doesn't matter if it's a private school in Victoria or not - it fails the notability test. Ultra-Loser Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites 09:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Private schools tend to attract students with influential parents. Are we sure this school had no famous alumni? - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's a
primaryschool that was founded less than ten years ago. I can't imagine any reasons for keeping it. Aside: the "famous alumni" criterion for the newly proposed WP:SCHOOLS is idiotic. Because Omarosa went to some elementary school, that school deserves an article? -- Kicking222 14:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)- Comment Truthbringer accurately alerted me to the fact that this is not merely a primary school. Taking that into consideration, I stand by my previous opinions. -- Kicking222 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It is an all-grades school, not a primary school. "Vidyashilp Academy is ... committed to providing primary and secondary school education in the global context." Since it includes secondary grades, it is therefore notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom --Bill.matthews 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable to the community of Bangalore, India. And TruthbringerToronto has done excellent work refactoring this article. bbx 23:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per bbx and TruthbringerToronto. --Myles Long 23:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per bbx. ALKIVAR™ 00:03, 1 October 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. After discounting all the new users and sockpuppets, I found approximately 50-50 consensus to delete the article (I won't go into exact numbers), which is insufficient for deletion. Relisting this AfD won't work, because of the sheer number of !votes made by all the new users and sockpuppets, so any further AfD (to gauge a more accurate consensus) would have to start from scratch. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dark Throne
|
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}} |
Still in beta testing. No claims of notability. No sign of third-party references. (Fairly well-written, though.) —Wrathchild (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: {{notability}} removed from the article on August 18 without comment. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If pages for other online games (runescape, WOW, etc) are on Wikipedia I see no reason why this page should be deleted. It may need to be edited some, but not deleted.
-
- Do you really need to have it explained to you why Dark Throne is not in the same league as Runescape?? wikipediatrix 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really think that has anything to do with the page being deleted. It is still a very large game and if other online games are included then there is no reason for Dark Throne to be removed. It would be one thing if the Dark Throne page was just advertising the game, but it isn't, it explains the game and how it works.
- Look at all the games of this type on Wikipedia. Not all of them are as big as runescape or Dark Throne, yet they're still on Wikipedia. If you remove Dark Throne all of them should be removed too. (or at least games around the same size as Dark Throne if you're using the size of the game as your reason for the page getting deleted) List of MMORPGs --Jowan2005
- Dude. Dark Throne is still in beta testing. Game over. (Tell me some of the other articles you're talking about, because they probably do indeed need to be deleted also.) wikipediatrix 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is there some rule that says no beta-tested games can be on Wikipedia? Like I said before, look at List of MMORPGs I'm sure you will find a lot of things you would want to delete (although I don't think they should be deleted)--Jowan2005
- I'm sure there are, but this is a discussion about this one. The others will be found and handled in due course. —Wrathchild (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh OK, and while you're at it might as well get rid of all other pages on betas since that is your main reason for wanting to delete the Dark Throne page. Lets just get rid of Gmail, Writley, Windows Vista, anything talking about IE7, etc... --Jowan2005
- I agree. If the only logical reason you can come up with is that it is in Beta testing, then there are probably 1000 articles that should be deleted. Dark Throne is a very popular MMORPG. And if it is proof you need that there are 300,000+ players, then i submit this pice as evidence. The below information is on the lowest ranking account in the game: "sirmendez is a level 1 Human Assassin Overall Rank: 342,689." (i did delete the extra space) This proves thus that are are over 342,000 players in this game, way more than a lot of text-based MMORPG's, and as mentioned above, way more than many of those that are directly competing with Dark Throne, for players, ads, and more. Also, one question comes to mind reading these arguements. If the best two reasons that you can come up with are that the game is in Beta testing, and that the game when Googled can only come up with a handful of sites, then why do you even argue? — Possible single purpose account: Phoenix2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Oh OK, and while you're at it might as well get rid of all other pages on betas since that is your main reason for wanting to delete the Dark Throne page. Lets just get rid of Gmail, Writley, Windows Vista, anything talking about IE7, etc... --Jowan2005
- I'm sure there are, but this is a discussion about this one. The others will be found and handled in due course. —Wrathchild (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is there some rule that says no beta-tested games can be on Wikipedia? Like I said before, look at List of MMORPGs I'm sure you will find a lot of things you would want to delete (although I don't think they should be deleted)--Jowan2005
- Dude. Dark Throne is still in beta testing. Game over. (Tell me some of the other articles you're talking about, because they probably do indeed need to be deleted also.) wikipediatrix 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you really need to have it explained to you why Dark Throne is not in the same league as Runescape?? wikipediatrix 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Because it fails WP:WEB, something you've chosen to ignore. The article (in terms of describing the game not the band) has existed for 18 months yet not a shred of notability has been established. The amount of subscribers is completely irrelevant, even more so as Dark Throne is free to play - if it didn't have a lot of subscribers it would have been AFD'd on sight long ago. A lot of the beta products mentioned above are some of the most widely reported on software packages in the world, which is why they're different. Being in beta stage is not the issue, being in beta stage whilst using Wikipedia as an advertising medium is. I would be delighted to change my vote if someone somewhere could come up with some verified information on this game, but so far there's been nothing but fluff about Dark Throne somehow being able to dodge WP's rules 'just cos', which is no reason for keeping the article. QuagmireDog 23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep Outwar , Kings of Chaos , and Earth 2025 are all similar games to Dark Throne, except for the fact that Dark Throne has a larger userbase than all of them combined. Unless planning to delete the other three, that are Dark Throne competitors, do not delete this entry. Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased. Don't compare it to other games like WoW or Runescape. Compare it against games and listings for similar games on wikipedia. All three games above are listed with no notice of deletion. Just because the "Beta" tag is on Dark Throne, doesn't mean its less finished or important than the others. Only asking for fair treatment here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.251.11 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 68.185.251.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Earth 2025 has been awarded a Webby award, meaning it's established notability. Kings of Chaos is tagged as not citing its references, it may be sat on at a later date. Outwar doesn't appear to establish notability and could also find itself in trouble. Thanks for the heads-up. QuagmireDog 08:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- If the user base is so large, why isn't that information in the article? Can it be verified? Where are the cites to write-ups about the game from other sources? Outwar and Kings of Chaos at least have been running for years. To me, however, they're much more notorious for the amount of spam their users generate in looking for inbound links. Remember: Wikipedia is not a primary source. This game has to establish notability in the world to get an article here. I wish you luck with that. If it happens, we will gladly have an article about it. —Wrathchild (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Why should Beta be a notation of Wikipedia worthiness? There are many products and websites that are in Beta but don't publically announce it. This seems like a strong handed draconian judgement coming down on site that deserves a place on Wikipedia just as much as the next guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.40.193 (talk • contribs)
- Delete, no notability established, game still in beta stage yet no sign of any non-trivial coverage. Google search for "Dark Throne" and Lazarus produces nothing but the main site, some links from free online game sites (you know, the advert funnels) and of course the Wikipedia entry. I can understand fans of the game wanting this article here, but until some notability is established it is just advertising. Regardless, hope Lazarus make a go of it. QuagmireDog 08:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment in addition to above vote, fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 4,353 (very good), but WP appears as one of the first links and after trawling through several pages I could only find links from blogs, forums, message-boards etc. Dark Throne players have waged a very successful advertising campaign for this game, something Lazarus is probably grateful for, but that's all the WP article seems to be. I will keep trying to find some reviews via the Alexa 'linked-from' list but if there is any non-trivial coverage it should have been linked before now. QuagmireDog 00:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to closing admin This: [62] has come to light. Now in the case of a lot of these webgames etc. we aren't talking about the designer/publisher providing the information - it's the game's fans. The result however is fairly similar - articles being used as adverts, a lot of noise and bluster without any hint of WP's policies and guidelines being satisfied etc. Please look at the nature of DT (it's a game laid atop a system of using the gamers as advertisers to draw in traffic) when considering the Alexa rank and then take a look at the total lack of citations in both the article and this AFD. I feel very strongly that the spirit of WP has had no look-in on this article and that it is advertising for a game which is, at its roots, advertising. QuagmireDog 17:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Searched first 100 of 405 sites linking-in to darkthrone.com, except for 3 different-language versions of WP I found nothing except a handful of link-farms (Google has it listed for instance) and a mass of messageboard/blog pages. QuagmireDog 00:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I used wholinkstome.com and without any effort I found Dark Throne on a list of top online games, so you must not be doing a good job at your little search. Anyway, it does not matter. The game has had millions of players and belongs on Wikipedia for reasons stated on other parts of this page. --Jowan2005
- Provide the link to this site then so it can be shown that it is considered non-trivial. My 'little search' was an attempt to find some evidence of notability, yet instead of providing the link and perhaps helping to keep the article you've instead come back with a snotty remark and zero evidence. QuagmireDog 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Other assertions on this page do not demonstrate this article meets WP:WEB, as of yet not a single argument has provided any evidence of this. As soon as they do I'll change my vote (as indicated before) and other viewers will doubtless vote keep. So, the task in hand.. QuagmireDog 01:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's http://mmreviews.com/ If you want to search for more sites try using http://wholinkstome.com/?url=darkthrone.com--Jowan2005
- Other assertions on this page do not demonstrate this article meets WP:WEB, as of yet not a single argument has provided any evidence of this. As soon as they do I'll change my vote (as indicated before) and other viewers will doubtless vote keep. So, the task in hand.. QuagmireDog 01:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Provide the link to this site then so it can be shown that it is considered non-trivial. My 'little search' was an attempt to find some evidence of notability, yet instead of providing the link and perhaps helping to keep the article you've instead come back with a snotty remark and zero evidence. QuagmireDog 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I used wholinkstome.com and without any effort I found Dark Throne on a list of top online games, so you must not be doing a good job at your little search. Anyway, it does not matter. The game has had millions of players and belongs on Wikipedia for reasons stated on other parts of this page. --Jowan2005
- Thanks. I had a look on that site but couldn't find a direct reference to the game (I searched Dark Throne in the box but it didn't come back with a Dark Throne piece, so perhaps the link-to was from an article within the website posted by a user? I'm not sure even if it did that mmreviews.com would be considered non-trivial. Ideally a review from a good MMOG site would be a good start. I'll have another go with wholinkstome at some point to see if I can find one. In the meantime, other Wikipedians can add to this debate (and might be able to shed some light/point to some potential sources). QuagmireDog 02:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed about keeping this page. As already mentioned, the game has over 300,000 members actively playing, and over a million users who have played at some point before. It IS popular, and just because it's in a testing stage does not qualify the article for deletion. The article is very-well written, and the full, nontesting version of the game comes out "soon". Would we just REDO the page then? Honestly, I see no reason to delete this. --NecroWraith 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Darkthrone is an amazing game so keep this page !! Jonsi88 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jonsi88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep -- Why should it not be kept because it is in its Beta stage? Should the article on Cold Fusion not be kept because it does not exist yet? Should the article of Rush Hour 3 not be kept because it isn't made yet? The Big Bang is only a theory, I guess it should be gone too, because it's all 'fluff' and has no actual evidence.
Ha. CrazyCasey 01:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Darkthrone has an established and large userbase. A large reason that it lacks coverage or reviews by third-party sites is that there are very few sites that cover browser-based MMOG's.--kenobi.zero 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Then if it's not getting a mention even on those, then how is it notable? —Wrathchild (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- What are you talking about, it is! There are over 2000 links to it that I found using MSN (use wholinkstome.com if you really want to see). Right on the first page there were links from those types of sites. --Jowan2005
- "there are very few sites that cover browser-based MMOG's". Okay. Where is the coverage of the game on those sites? I don't expect it to be covered by the New York Times or USA Today, but a notable site in that niche writing about the game would indicate notability. That's what I'm talking about. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- What are you talking about, it is! There are over 2000 links to it that I found using MSN (use wholinkstome.com if you really want to see). Right on the first page there were links from those types of sites. --Jowan2005
- Comment. Then if it's not getting a mention even on those, then how is it notable? —Wrathchild (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
KeepNOTABILITY INCLUDED-- Here is a case study that was done and published in regards to Dark Throne- "Dark Throne: A Case-Study of Gender Relations in a Created Online Society" http://ambershadows.net/hosted/dtstudy/darkthrone.doc This is a 30 page case study that you can verify with the University listed. -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 68.185.251.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.- Comment I have struck through this vote since each user can only vote on the topic once QuagmireDog 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Why is it on a cheesy gamer fansite, and not hosted by the University itself? wikipediatrix 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- There could be many reasons for them not hosting it anymore. Maybe they don't have a lot of room for hosting? Maybe they take down papers after a set amount of time? It does not matter where it's hosted. The source is still the same. (the University is still the source)--Jowan2005
- I'm sorry, but it does indeed matter where it is hosted. Please study WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, then I will just host it on my college's server and everything will be fine. --Jowan2005
- I'm sorry, but it does indeed matter where it is hosted. Please study WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- There could be many reasons for them not hosting it anymore. Maybe they don't have a lot of room for hosting? Maybe they take down papers after a set amount of time? It does not matter where it's hosted. The source is still the same. (the University is still the source)--Jowan2005
- Comment I'm just not happy with the general attitude of some of these replies. "Cheesy gamer fansite" Looking at the article itself, you can see it is a well thought out, well written case study on Dark Throne and relationships in an Online society. The author could have written about any online, but picked Dark Throne. You guys asked for notability and here it is. As for questioning the link, it was primarily published and read offline. Just because its primary audience viewed it offline doesn't make it any less note worthy. Not all of the entries on wikipedia can only be verified online. -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- A fan site for a gamer's clan is not a valid source for Wikipedia, as per WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- The article does not represent a good article, at all. Much information on the game is missing (such as the actual meaning of the powered-up versions of soldiers, how many citizens are created through houses etc.), yet there's plenty of needless details about the website and the IRC channel, a plug about charitable donations without any evidence at all etc. etc. That document has not been shown to be 'published' by the University, just that the writer is a student or affiliate of that university. That the writer of the case study chose Dark Throne most likely because they are a Dark Throne player - this is not some stamp of notability but a 'cushy number', nice for them to be able to write about one of their hobbies, no use as notability. QuagmireDog 21:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- So then you agree with me when I said 'It may need to be edited some, but not deleted.' in my first comment. --Jowan2005
- Quite the opposite, the reasons for this AFD are stated by the contributor who listed, my reasons for supporting the deletion have already been stated (repeatedly). Clean-up is a seperate issue. If the article is kept, then clean-up can and will be happening anyway - I've already started. That doesn't mean that the article passes WP:WEB, that anything resembling notability is presented in the article or has been presented here on the AFD or that I've changed my vote. The offer has always been there that I'd back keeping the article, but neither you or I have managed to find anything that meets the criteria. QuagmireDog 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are not making sense. What 'vote' are you talking about? "this is not a vote". Dark Throne has been played by millions of people, ran a charity to help sick kids, had an article written about it by a college, is bigger than most other games of its type on Wikipedia, and you think it should be deleted? I don't understand what more you need. You ask for something, we show it to you, you say it's not good enough. If the Dark Throne pages is deleted then there are hundreds (if not thousands) of other pages that would need to be deleted as well. The only thing that needs to happen is the page be changed a little to include information about its size, the charity, and more explaining about the game with less out-of-game information (IRC channel info and some other things) --Jowan2005
- Though this isn't a vote, in terms of counting hands, my own judgement means that I 'vote' for the topic to be deleted. WP:WEB, WP:V, there in black and white, if you cannot or will not attempt to work through this by addressing the problem then I cannot do anything more. QuagmireDog 09:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- sigh*. Reading again I can see why you think I'm being needlessly obstinate, let's go through this again.. That document has not been published by a university, it was found on a forum site. It was written by a student, an undergraduate. It's research. It's research that has not been given a critical review by a university or journal or anything else, it is original research, IE speculation. It is not profesionally published, it is trivial and offers a POV about the subject that hasn't been stamped by what would be considered an objective organization. Adding content from that, no matter how much time the writer put into creating it, is no different than writing "according to Stanley, my elderly neighbour...". It isn't usable, it's no good, it's not what we've been looking for, it isn't even directly about the subject, it uses DT as a case study to evaluate something else. This isn't about "your efforts aren't good enough!", this is about all the pages given thus far not being up to the standards laid down in the guidelines and policies, which are quoted about this discussion like confetti. I feel more than a natch deflated that after all this discussion you seem to feel that I'm just trying to get in the way for the hell of it. All I have ever been interested in is that DT's article can stand up to the same scrutiny that every article on the WP has to or will have to in the fullness of time - 18 months is plenty long enough to find something. QuagmireDog 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Though this isn't a vote, in terms of counting hands, my own judgement means that I 'vote' for the topic to be deleted. WP:WEB, WP:V, there in black and white, if you cannot or will not attempt to work through this by addressing the problem then I cannot do anything more. QuagmireDog 09:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are not making sense. What 'vote' are you talking about? "this is not a vote". Dark Throne has been played by millions of people, ran a charity to help sick kids, had an article written about it by a college, is bigger than most other games of its type on Wikipedia, and you think it should be deleted? I don't understand what more you need. You ask for something, we show it to you, you say it's not good enough. If the Dark Throne pages is deleted then there are hundreds (if not thousands) of other pages that would need to be deleted as well. The only thing that needs to happen is the page be changed a little to include information about its size, the charity, and more explaining about the game with less out-of-game information (IRC channel info and some other things) --Jowan2005
- Quite the opposite, the reasons for this AFD are stated by the contributor who listed, my reasons for supporting the deletion have already been stated (repeatedly). Clean-up is a seperate issue. If the article is kept, then clean-up can and will be happening anyway - I've already started. That doesn't mean that the article passes WP:WEB, that anything resembling notability is presented in the article or has been presented here on the AFD or that I've changed my vote. The offer has always been there that I'd back keeping the article, but neither you or I have managed to find anything that meets the criteria. QuagmireDog 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- So then you agree with me when I said 'It may need to be edited some, but not deleted.' in my first comment. --Jowan2005
- The article does not represent a good article, at all. Much information on the game is missing (such as the actual meaning of the powered-up versions of soldiers, how many citizens are created through houses etc.), yet there's plenty of needless details about the website and the IRC channel, a plug about charitable donations without any evidence at all etc. etc. That document has not been shown to be 'published' by the University, just that the writer is a student or affiliate of that university. That the writer of the case study chose Dark Throne most likely because they are a Dark Throne player - this is not some stamp of notability but a 'cushy number', nice for them to be able to write about one of their hobbies, no use as notability. QuagmireDog 21:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- A fan site for a gamer's clan is not a valid source for Wikipedia, as per WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thats not what I'm saying. I am saying that if this article was submitted to, used by, read by, and published offline by the University, that it has established notability. You could verify it with them if you really wanted to. Additionally is there anything we can get Lazarus Software to verify, so this page can be kept? -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why all the circumspection? "The University" Can you not name the institution? More importantly, why aren't these claims of notability in the article? —Wrathchild (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it on a cheesy gamer fansite, and not hosted by the University itself? wikipediatrix 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment I'm really trying to be reasonable and calm here, but you are sending me very unprofessional replies. The institution is listed right on the document, and I could easily type Southeastern Oklahoma State University. I didn't think the university I was referring to was in question. Anyone reading it knows that I was referring to the University listed on the article, so please do not be condescending. I am not giving you a hard time, and I am not causing problems. I am following your steps to try to keep this article up. I asked another question which was still not answered: "Additionally is there anything we can get Lazarus Software to verify, so this page can be kept?" I will also be more than happy to put up a section in regards to this article and case study on the Dark Throne article in the next 24 hrs. -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't download Word documents from unknown sources. —Wrathchild (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm really trying to be reasonable and calm here, but you are sending me very unprofessional replies. The institution is listed right on the document, and I could easily type Southeastern Oklahoma State University. I didn't think the university I was referring to was in question. Anyone reading it knows that I was referring to the University listed on the article, so please do not be condescending. I am not giving you a hard time, and I am not causing problems. I am following your steps to try to keep this article up. I asked another question which was still not answered: "Additionally is there anything we can get Lazarus Software to verify, so this page can be kept?" I will also be more than happy to put up a section in regards to this article and case study on the Dark Throne article in the next 24 hrs. -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Kind of puts a bind on all of this discussion, doesn't it? Still did't answer question I asked twice before, so we can try to get Lazarus Software to help. Is there anything that they can do or verify so this page can be kept? -- Jason 68.185.251.11 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the document, it hasn't been shown that it is published in a journal etc. and thus regarded as something which can be regarded as non-trivial. It is a case-study, part of a student's workload, rather than something that has been held up to scrutiny in terms of being published. As it stands it is WP:OR which is completely unusable. To put it another way, if I lifted parts of that document and inserted them into the article, particularly about the DT community's belief and acceptance that widespread cheating happens, I would be challenged. Contributors to that article would ask exactly where the information came from and (rightly) rip it to bits and label it as an attempt, by me, to attack Lazarus and to show DT in a dim light. Due to Lazarus trying to pull in the punters with promises of 'prizes', such accusations (if shown to be substantiated) could be extremely damaging. Now whilst it is quite fair that such things shouldn't be used to push an agenda, by the same token they are not usable to establish notability.
-
- With Lazarus providing info, there lies the rub. We're a tertiary source, taking our information from secondary sources. General information about the game could (and IMO should) be able to come from the primary source, but the whole point of establishing notability is that 'non-trivial' sources have provided information/opinion about the subject from which we can make an article. I have been looking around some more, trying to find a site which says something, anything about the game rather than just providing a link. Up till now, all MMOG sites I've found via Alexa or the site provided by Jowan have been nothing more than message board posts pointing to the site (of no encyclopedic content whatsoever) or simple links from MMOG funnel-sites, perhaps with a few lines of text giving viewers an idea of what DT actually is (again, non-notable source which doesn't even offer any context regarding the game's qualities or attempt to offer anything other than another gateway for their users). So far I found one site which actually talked about the game here: [63] Notice the asterisk at the bottom of the page - the first glimmer of hope I get and it's taking info from WP -.- .
-
- I haven't stopped looking for info on this game yet and I'm just as happy to argue for the article being kept if some decent info can be found, but I must admit I'm struggling to find any mention of DT at all on many MMOG funnel-sites, which is even more surprising considering DT's high Alexa rank. I'm left with the distinct impression that Lazarus have done extremely well out of WP, but I'm curious as to why it's taken over a year and a half for this article to even come under the microscope. This issue with MMOGs/Flashgames etc. and notability should be hammered out somewhere, it's a hell of a lot larger than we can discuss here. Oh, dang nearly forgot, does anyone have a link to info about the charity donations Lazarus drummed up/donated? I don't think there was one but such info deserves to be on their article. QuagmireDog 07:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Taken from the source of the paper on DT:
"We are a website community devoted to literature, Role-playing, and general chat amongst a lively community of friendly people. All are welcome at Amber: writers, gamers, quiz freaks and spammers alike. We also play host to Heaven's Gates : Darkthrone's first clan, who have their own section of the forums."
It's a forum site. There is no evidence that this piece has been published by the university, this site hosts a DT clan. Just because it exists and has been submitted as part of a course doesn't mean that it's anything other than WP:OR.
Even after looking myself and everyone's had time to do the same, not a single piece of anything even remotely connected to establishing notability has surface, despite it repeatedly being said that there has.
Every time I try to look something up on Google I get WP on top of the results. This article claims that Lazarus has done these charity runs - where is the evidence? I'm not seeing any (and I've tried). Where is Lazarus' homepage? There's none listed, again I've looked for it, nothing there. There are plenty of things need verifying, yet precious little to verify them with. It was given a 'please add citations' tag nearly over two months ago, there's a message on the talk page asking for some cites dated the 1st of August. If those actually tending the article can't find anything it's hardly surprising that nothing's come up during the AFD.
The article reads like an advert, even giving details of the IRC, how to log in etc., the web address stuck in amongst the text at the top, plug for Lazarus' charity work in the DT article instead of in the Lazarus article (not that there's any evidence of Lazarus existing beyond DT). There is something VERY wrong with the DT article and the Lazarus article accompanying it, I'm no longer giving it the benefit of the doubt. QuagmireDog 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I believe [64] is the charity mentioned, also uses the term 'run', the NY Children's Hospital is listed there and it is focussed on gamers and game companies helping kids with donations - I like it. Whilst there is no mention of Lazarus on there, it fits the bill (though some confirmation of this fact sure as heck wouldn't hurt). With all due respect to the article's editors, if this is the right charity, why on earth has it taken me to find it, after this information was added to the article on 19 October 2005? After issues with cites were brought up 2 months ago? Come on guys, these things need backing-up with evidence and unsubstantiated claims shouldn't be lying around for months on end. QuagmireDog 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- That charity has a WP article here, the above link to the website includes a raft of press coverage about the charity, there -might- even be a reference to Lazarus there somewhere. QuagmireDog 07:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing that I can see. It's a pity that the contributor who inserted the text didn't add the name of the charity concerned, nobody's confirmed that this is the right charity (though it appears extremely unlikely that it could be another). QuagmireDog 15:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- That charity has a WP article here, the above link to the website includes a raft of press coverage about the charity, there -might- even be a reference to Lazarus there somewhere. QuagmireDog 07:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR 66.246.72.108 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - No reliable sources found in the article or through Googling. Most G-hits are forums and whatnot. Wickethewok 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Found in the News Archives of Dark Throne, for the Community Update #2, about a year ago, found at: http://www.darkthrone.com/communityupdate2.dt?mode=communityupdate it states the following:
We are pleased to announce that, once again, we will be holding a charity drive to support Children's Hospital. Last year we thought it would be a great idea to hold a charity drive and raise money to help those who are sick and less fortunate over the holiday season. Players managed to raise over $10,000.00 for Children's Hospital in New York.
Like last year, players will have the ability to donate via paypal or the mail, and everyone who donates will receive one of three new charity medals that will appear on your profile page. Players will also have the ability to win a variety of prizes which will range from game testing, to console games, dvd's, and more.
To help us announce this year's charity drive, we got Cash Cunningham, the Board Chairman of Children's Hospital to thank players who donated last year and tell you a little about this year's charity drive:
Dear “Dark Throne Players”:
On behalf of the Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo, please accept our heartfelt thanks to all of you who went online and made a donation in last year’s charity drive to benefit the hospital. As a group you successful raised $10,363; a portion of which we gave to the Child Life Department to use for the purchase of toys for patients spending their holiday in the hospital. The remainder of your donation went to the help the Hematology/Oncology Unit; a unit which cares for 98% of the patients under the age of four diagnosed with some form of cancer or blood disorder.
We are most appreciative of your efforts on behalf of the young patients we serve and would like to thank you in advance for participation in this year’s charity drive. Please know that by supporting Lazarus Software in their benefit for the hospital you are enabling our doctors, nurses and health care professionals to provide the very best care for the more than 45,000 patients who are treated here each year.
On behalf of the staff at the Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo Foundation and our Board of Directors a most heartfelt thank you.
Very truly yours,
Cash Cunningham Board Chairman Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo Foundation
For more information about this Hospital and the foundation, please visit http://foundation.wchob.org and look for our official Charity Drive page to go up on Dark Throne very soon. On this page we will be including all of the important information such as mailing addresses, contact information for the hospital, and specifics about how to donate online.
anymore credibility needed to that fact? if so, i am sure a little digging in the archives can bring up some more info. I belive that in the 2005 Charity Drive, a little over $12,500 was raised, but don't hold me to that amount. Phoenix2009 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Phoenix200 DT Supporter
- It's still sourced from DT as opposed to outside, but thankyou for providing the link - should the article be kept then it will make a great starting point to verifying the info. It illustrates why those adding this kind of information should provide the cites themselves, rather than giving everyone else legwork. QuagmireDog 10:25, 3 October 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lapal primary school
A primary school is never notable just by reason of existing, nor even by being verifiable. It must be notable of itself and that notability must be asserted in the article. Every school is not sacred. UK primary schools are ten a penny. This article is linked to by no real article, and has no real content. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no sources referenced. Note that Oftsed, if cited later as a source, has little relevance, because every UK state sector school has an Ofsted reference. I prodded it. Ironic was the statement when deprodding deprod obviously notable school, since the article has this simple line in it: Lapal Primary School is a primary school which situated in Halesowen, West Midlands, England. That is it. There is no notability. The school just exists. Period. Fiddle Faddle 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This school, like all schools, is notable. Current policy is to keep all notable schools. Allow for organic growth and expansion. --ForbiddenWord 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There are so many problems with the above I don't know where to begin. I see at least three issues. First the matter of a questionable premise - the repeated assertion that all schools are notable even though most people don't think that. Two the irrelevant tautology- obviously everyone agrees that verifiable sourced notable schools should be kept but to claim that is a policy is simply wrong (in fact, if something were agreed to be notable but not meet WP:V it would be removed. WP:V overides pretty much everything). Third, this once again has the usual buzzwords about organic growth which I have yet to see a defintion. What does this mean? How is organic adding anything to the phrase, and how is this somehow relevant? JoshuaZ 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete article does not meet criteria at WP:Schools Catchpole 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not all schools are notable, and primary schools in particular are hard to establish as noteworthy since they lack the signficant extracurriculars of higher institutions. —dustmite 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. As the nom points out, there's really no information here at all. Unlike colleges and (to some degree) high schools, primary schools have a rather significant hurdle of notability which they must meet before an article really makes sense, as there is generally very little variation in curriculum and teaching style. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per others. Punkmorten 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The nom says it all. -- Kicking222 09:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Halesowen — The same information is on the Halesowen page, and a redirect is cheap. — RJH (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The school not only exists, it is ranked in the 98th percentile in Science according to a 2004 study by BBC News. The criteria proposed by WP:SCHOOLS have now been met, three independent sources have been cited. Silensor 02:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Two of those sources are trivial - one Ofsted report and one demographic directory style listing from DFES. My delete vote stands. Catchpole 10:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Any claim that the Ofsted report is trivial cannot be based upon actually having read it. It is 16 pages long, and contains a lot of detail, ranging from local historians visiting classes to parents' dissatisfaction with notices of closure. For comparison, this is what a trivial published work actually looks like. It contains a name, address, and 1 sentence of description. It's a directory entry. The triviality restriction in the PNC is aimed directly at excluding such directory entries, raising the notability bar such that it must be shown that there is more than a simple directory entry's worth of source material available. Uncle G 22:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Ofted is trivial. Look at how the triviality condition is used for WP:CORP to understand what trivial means. It excludes things which are standard or expected for something in that category. If trivial meant what you thought it meant, almost any corporation would have an article and many humans (including me) would fit WP:BIO who very obviously don't. JoshuaZ 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Any claim that the Ofsted report is trivial cannot be based upon actually having read it. It is 16 pages long, and contains a lot of detail, ranging from local historians visiting classes to parents' dissatisfaction with notices of closure. For comparison, this is what a trivial published work actually looks like. It contains a name, address, and 1 sentence of description. It's a directory entry. The triviality restriction in the PNC is aimed directly at excluding such directory entries, raising the notability bar such that it must be shown that there is more than a simple directory entry's worth of source material available. Uncle G 22:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Two of those sources are trivial - one Ofsted report and one demographic directory style listing from DFES. My delete vote stands. Catchpole 10:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 02:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep until Notability becomes policy... which it ISNT... our standard will be verifiability which IS policy. The school verifiably exists, and should be kept. Silensor also makes some very good points. ALKIVAR™ 04:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Verifiable and significant. Piccadilly 22:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Assertions are not arguments.
- Weak delete By and large not notable but he science percentile may be a plausible argument for keeping. JoshuaZ 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. For all of the past reasons. It is not written anywhere that all schools are notable. Vegaswikian 05:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, most schools are notable, atleast to local people, as is this, 300 pupils is enough. bbx 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Uncle G, this article complies with proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 22:16, 29 September 2006
- 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.
