Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 8
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, discounting a multitude of votes for the usual reasons. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TerrorStorm
 |
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}} |
A completely non-notable 9/11 (and everything else under the sun) conspiracy theory video. Doesn't even have an IMDB entry. It was released this year, but only seven articles show up in Google news, two of which are brief announcements of screenings and one is a one sentence mention. GabrielF 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Where were those screenings announced? - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- See: [2] for the news coverage. Of the 8 articles one is a blog post, one is a brief announcement of the screening of two films in Alachua FL, one is a brief announcement of the screening of six films in Kansas City, one is a one line mention of the premier of two films in Oregon, one is from something called Free Market News Network Corp, the "Click here for Full Story" link goes directly to Alex Jones' website, another is a one line mention of the film in an article in Orange County Weekly. One is a two paragraph announcement of a screening in Austin (on a city events type website not a newspaper). The last one points to something called Uruknet in Italy but when I click the link I get what I think is an Italian 404 error. GabrielF 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Where were those screenings announced? - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Peephole 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 02:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)- Comment. Very entertaining stuff! Two things could greatly improve this article: 1) Some kind of popularity data indicating that people are actually paying attention to this video. Sales? Downloads? So far all we have are "testimonials" type stuff (referring to Matthew Bellamy and that other guy) which really proves nothing. Admittedly, I don't know where to get this data either, but if someone can show it has a lot of viewers, I'll gladly vote to keep. 2) Maybe it's just me, but the "Contents" section of the article seems jumbled and hard to follow. Anyway, I'd lean toward keeping this article, with a tad more evidence of notability. Of course, I think the ideas in the video are inane, but documenting influential conspiracy theories - no matter how inane - has always struck me as useful. And fun.My Alt Account 02:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- If it's NN, it's not influential.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Duh, but it's not NN and it is influential Mujinga 22:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Jmancuso 08:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- — Possible single purpose account: Jmancuso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Above user's third contribution [3]--Jersey Devil 06:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't be so arrogant Jersey Devil Mujinga 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete More conspiracy theory nonsense.--MONGO 09:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Distributed by By Infowars.com On Google Video. Any notable film would be released by a studio into a cinema or at least have independant new coverage, which I couldn't find. -- Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Mgm. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Keepper 210k google hits. --Striver 13:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)- Comment Just so that others won't be misled, it's actually about 420 unique ghits. zephyr2k 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete you know what? Take and delete this, it will be a nice monument to the biased frenzy that is raveging wikipedia. --Striver 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Mongo. Also it looks to fail WP:NN as Mgm points out. JungleCat talk/contrib 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per MONGO. --Mmx1 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per MONGO. Pseudotumor 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Please keep and enhance this entry. It's most noteworthy for the insight given into propaganda, the mind manipulation with which we are bombarded and saturated. No, it will probably never garner the notoriety of major studio productions, most all of which will be found in this wiki. Please, people, take this film and its message to heart. -- from an erstwhile Fortune 50 ad man. ——Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.45.11 (talk • contribs)
- — Possible single purpose account: 24.163.45.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Comment Or more like a question I know what Fortune-500 is. What is "Fortune 50" ? ;-) JungleCat talk/contrib 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- User's first contribution. GabrielF 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just trying to keep a light humor. - :-) JungleCat talk/contrib 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Humour? What's funny is that bigots want to delete this article Mujinga 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Mujinga, no personal attacks please. I don't think those users whose input is "delete" are just a bunch of bigots as you call them. Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 06:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes apologies, it was not my intention to offend, i should have said "editors who appear to be acting in a bigoted fashion" since there appears to me to be some sort of war going on between a few editors here over various 9/11 pages. I'm not a part of it, I just think that the TerrorStorm page is a worthy addition to Wikipedia project and it frustrates me that some people with a (somewhat) hidden agenda want to delete it Mujinga 12:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Mujinga, no personal attacks please. I don't think those users whose input is "delete" are just a bunch of bigots as you call them. Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 06:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Humour? What's funny is that bigots want to delete this article Mujinga 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just trying to keep a light humor. - :-) JungleCat talk/contrib 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this valuable encyclopedic entry. Check under Wikipedia:Notability (films) and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Mujinga 22:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) (which is a proposed criteria by the way) and you really can't have much of a case if you have to rely on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. GabrielF 23:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oi oi oi. Check your POV GabrielF. And check point 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (films) - "The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers". Mujinga 22:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I fail to see how two paragraphs in "Austin 360" counts as "multiple non-trivial published works" but I guess I must be blinded by my POV. That or maybe you should consider checking your POV. GabrielF 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I believe someone who maintains a page called User:GabrielF/911TMCruft might get a bit befuddled by a certain point of view, but yes, under the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (films) there are requirements for a film and I must admit that so far I haven't found the references for "multiple non-trivial published works" which discuss TerrorStorm. The film is very well discussed on the internet but of course paradoxically those sources are considered trivial by Wikipedia. I still believe that this is a notable film but i appreciate that this needs to be established under wiki guidelines. I dont have time to search for more references, I hope somone else can provide them. Or alternatively, perhaps we can consider the option that this is a notable film precisely becuase it is growing in fame despite having neither an IMDB reference nor a full cinematic release. Mujinga 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I fail to see how two paragraphs in "Austin 360" counts as "multiple non-trivial published works" but I guess I must be blinded by my POV. That or maybe you should consider checking your POV. GabrielF 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oi oi oi. Check your POV GabrielF. And check point 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (films) - "The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers". Mujinga 22:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per various excellent points established by GabrielF. My Alt Account 00:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I was actually going to vote keep, but after reviewing the purposed Wikipedia:Notability (films), there seems to be no doubt that this film doesn't meet purposed notabiliy criteria. Any relevant info can be placed in the Alex Jones page.--Jersey Devil 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep valuable article. Simon 16:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Mongo. More cruft by Striver. --Tbeatty 17:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The film doesn't even have an IMDb entry. This is effectivelly advertizing for a conspiracy nut.--Cúchullain t/c 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete More cruft that needs to go to the abyss. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Was this article meant as a joke?Bagginator 11:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT DELELTE THIS ARTICLE --- IT IS THE TRUTH!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afcb4ever (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: Afcb4ever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete per GabrielF: we don't do truth, we do verifiability. That means that someone else, a reliable third-party source, needs to report on things. In this case that hasn't happened and the film itself misses our proposed guidelines for films by some way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Alex Jones is a outlandish rumor-mongerer claiming to be a serious researcher. He is a conspiracist crackpot. Not notable. Not logical. Not worth an entry.--Cberlet 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Unfeasibly well known film. what is with the sudden nomination of all of Alex Jones works?--Pussy Galore 02:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Because people think the creator of all these articles is trying to promote Jones' works as something notable, regardless of whether or not they actually are.--Cúchullain t/c 05:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Doesn't it seem to be the case that they have been nominated then, without thought as to their notability?--Pussy Galore 11:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's clear that notability has nothing to do with this. It's all a massive conspiracy to hide the truth. My Alt Account 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hello there Pussy Galore you seem to have an interesting view of this project. JungleCat talk/contrib 12:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I'd happily share my viewpoints further, if pressed, sadly however, this article concerns the deletion of the TerrorStorm article, not myself.--Pussy Galore 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hello there Pussy Galore you seem to have an interesting view of this project. JungleCat talk/contrib 12:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's clear that notability has nothing to do with this. It's all a massive conspiracy to hide the truth. My Alt Account 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Doesn't it seem to be the case that they have been nominated then, without thought as to their notability?--Pussy Galore 11:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Because people think the creator of all these articles is trying to promote Jones' works as something notable, regardless of whether or not they actually are.--Cúchullain t/c 05:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm sorry to all those who do not agree with the contents of the film, and/or it's lack of advertising, but it's a well known and controversial film nonetheless. I firmly believe a unbiased synopsis of the film should be availible on Wikipedia. Why don't you people make a discussions page and argue what you disagree with in the film rather than censoring the entire thing? --Smpz 5:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.240.184 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 67.173.240.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Comment the above comment was in fact written by an anonymous user. User Smpz does not seem to exist. Pascal.Tesson 07:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I am an actual person, with an actual opinion. Smpz 05:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nomination. Crockspot 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. (Note that even some "illegal" Star Trek fan films have IMDB entries, so you can't claim the IMDB's failure to include the film is biased.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- ***KEEP!***: very informative to historic events that HAVE HAPPENED! Declassified events now shown to people that have NEVER been before...the media is at fault for not splashing alex jones all over the place...its called tyranny... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.219.233 (talk • contribs)
- User's first edit. GabrielF 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP!: While some may consider this to be the rantings of a crackpot it is widely discussed on the net and therefore deserves to have an unbiased mention. Some of the points raised in this film do also need further investigation and it cant all be dismissed without more careful review —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.237.47.4 (talk • contribs) 13:18, September 12, 2006 (UTC)
- Keep* This article is informative and gives information on a film of great interest to some people, why should it be deleted just because in some opinions it is a conspiracy theory video, have you ever considered that any information is valuable and that we should not delete it when it is of neutral bias and harms no-one to keep it on this website? Jonno123 22:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Jonno123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
- Comment for closing Admin I find it interesting that these possible single purpose accounts find their way to AfD so quick. I suspect that there are dozens of these accounts created. All used by a single person to troll. This person will do several edits using these socks (one here, one there over several days or weeks) to look legit, then use the account as needed. If you question them, they understand Wiki rules fully, or they "cannot recall" past usernames. Hmmm. BTW, I was referring to the true socks, of course. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:34, 12 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tom Flocco
Non notable conspiracy theorist. Fails WP:BIO. Peephole 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. No, unfortunately, he's quite notoriously well-known in the same way that Alex Jones and Richard Hoagland are, and has a devoted fan base. He gets 52,000 Google hits. How does he fail WP:BIO? wikipediatrix 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Blogs and personal websites don't count -- see WP:RS and WP:Verify. Morton devonshire 02:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Alexa ranking for tomflocco.com is 295,671. I can't seem to find any major mainstream mentions of the guy. As the article points out, there's plenty of fringe and minor media coverage, but I doubt this qualifies. Overall I could see this going either way but I probably lean toward delete. Could one of the Keepists maybe provide evidence that he's been featured in a less obscure venue than the ones currently listed in the article? The low Alexa ranking makes me wonder if maybe there are a large number of readers who read his material on other sites. Can we have some evidence of such traffic? My Alt Account 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep: Flocco has a generated a considerable amount of controversy, and along the way has established himself as a recognized figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement. He has clearly achieved notability, in part for being among the first reporters to have the temerity to question the 'official' hijacked plane theory, about the undersized hole in the Pentagon, proffered by government officials. Ombudsman 02:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Show me more of this controversy and I'll add my keep vote. Your vote amounts to saying "I like this guy and I like what he says," which is never going to convince me. My Alt Account 03:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Even nutcases can be notable, and googling him supports both assertions. The article needs cleaning up though. Seaphoto 04:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
*Keep Might be a nut, but notable--MONGO 09:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom and particularly My Alt Account. Vizjim 12:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- keep has over 50,000 google results which makes me think he['s notable. Plus, many of the places he contributed to have their own wiki pages. --mathewguiver 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I've looked through google (albeit not all 50,000 links), and haven't turned up any reliable sources that can be used in this article. I'm only finding sources such as "illuminati-news.com". I'm not sure that he meets WP:BIO criteria: "multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" and "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Unless better, reliable sourcing is provided, I have to say delete on this. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I changed my mind.--MONGO 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per AudeVivere Marcus22 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per wikipediatrix. Out of curiosity, in what way does this fail WP:BIO? RFerreira 20:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep well known quack theorist/journalist. ALKIVAR™
21:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:If he's well known, can you provide us with some reliable sources about his persona? --Peephole 21:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ditto above. Coverage seems to be limited to blogs and fringe sites. Where's the controversy? My Alt Account 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and My Alt Account. --Aaron 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Eusebeus 23:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Appears to be a lack of reliable sources. Resolute 00:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete piece fails two of the three WP:BLP key requirements (WP:V and WP:NOR) and no likelihood that it ever could meet them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep 50000 google hits is enough. Q0 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Tbeatty 17:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO Æon Insanity Now!EA! 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Just another of many non-notable theorists. I don't see mention in mainstream sources. Tom Harrison Talk 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Tremendously well known person--Pussy Galore 04:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete once again, it's important to be careful with the Google numbers. 50K+ hits indeed but in fact 690 unique hits. Among the top hits are articles exposing him as a lunatic [6] [7] (albeit from not so reliable sources) and almost all the references to him are from conspiracy theory blogs. Where are the reliable references on this guy? I think keeping such an article is a mistake for the credibility of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 06:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Aude--Mmx1 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Crockspot 05:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Pascal.Tesson --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- he is notable journalist— Possible single purpose account: J henry waugh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
- Delete per Aude. Usually, I will give articles the benefit of the doubt. But with all of the "stuff" going around, delete. First, never heard of Flocco. Second,(as Pascal points out) some numbers can be misleading. JungleCat talk/contrib 00:02, 13 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. Yanksox 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Air quality in Oxford
Possible original research. Appears to be too limited in geographic scope for the encyclopedia. Article was previously prodded, but I felt a discussion would be a better idea as the author has raised a dispute on the talk page. — NMChico24 
04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Reads like a report. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is rescuable, with some work. I doubt it's original research -- more likely to be sourced from published local government reports etc. I suggest merging with the UK section in the air pollution article, probably as a new subarticle under a different title. Given that the study of air quality in the UK by Calor (see Guardian article) identifies Oxford as the most polluted city in the UK, a concentration on Oxford seems ok. Trim down, identify sources, and delete anything that can't be referenced. Espresso Addict 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comments from page author:
- Hi thanks Expresso Addict, I entirely agree. Please bare in mind I have only been writing this for a about 8 hours over 4 days. I also wrote the UK section in Air pollution and that was my intent to show how local conditions effect the management of air quality. Oxford is a good case study for many reasons, not least because it is one of the most polluted UK cities. The articles I reference are all local government documents and the reason I copied the Oxford air quality summary reports into wikipedia is because the county council keeps moving them, they are PDFs so difficult to reference precise sections and PDFs are also difficult to search. I don't believe there can be copyright issues because these are public documents that are readily available on the web (am I wrong here?) If I am not wrong on this copyright issue then could you remove the deletion marker on these too please. I'll have to attend to the article in the evenings this week so will need more than 5 days to sort it out. Also I am happy to merge with Air pollution but had the idea that this could be a template for other entries on air quality for different cities. It is very interesting to see how a wide range of parameters effect air quality. Finally, this is not a report it is just me pulling together lots of publicly available information into one place under the heading of air quality in oxford. i still have to put all the references i have used (they are in my 'delicous account' and I am as yet to work out how to reference effectively (i.e. syntax for constructing a citation list). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
- References are very important to Wikipedia, so it's good to put them in first rather than at the end. Don't worry about the syntax, other people can help with that. Re the other articles, I don't know the copyright situation on local government documents in the UK, but I'd suspect they were copyright unless stated otherwise. It might be wisest to take them down and try to contact the council about the copyright situation. Espresso Addict 09:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I will contact the council to ask how I can cite/ reference their reports. I am assuming since they are a government body I will be able to cite them freely. BTW I am getting very confused about this talk page and another that seems to be associated with this article (where I am getting comments from other administrators.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
-
- I have responded on your personal talk page, Hnoble32. Espresso Addict 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I will contact the council to ask how I can cite/ reference their reports. I am assuming since they are a government body I will be able to cite them freely. BTW I am getting very confused about this talk page and another that seems to be associated with this article (where I am getting comments from other administrators.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
- References are very important to Wikipedia, so it's good to put them in first rather than at the end. Don't worry about the syntax, other people can help with that. Re the other articles, I don't know the copyright situation on local government documents in the UK, but I'd suspect they were copyright unless stated otherwise. It might be wisest to take them down and try to contact the council about the copyright situation. Espresso Addict 09:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have been fighting for this article here too. So now I will just write here! In summary. I will tidy this article, clear the copyright with county council, and investigate whether it can be included in either Oxford or Air pollution. My feeling now about merging is that it will be good for wikipedia to have a set of articles on air pollution by city i.e. managing air quality in Oxford is very different to London, Delhi, and any of the top 10 most polluted cities in the world 7 of which are all in China (recent UN report). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
- This article was nominated for deletion by some administrators but other suggested with changes it would be useful. Can I have some comments on the document now as I have dealt to most of the recommendations. hza 11:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi thanks Expresso Addict, I entirely agree. Please bare in mind I have only been writing this for a about 8 hours over 4 days. I also wrote the UK section in Air pollution and that was my intent to show how local conditions effect the management of air quality. Oxford is a good case study for many reasons, not least because it is one of the most polluted UK cities. The articles I reference are all local government documents and the reason I copied the Oxford air quality summary reports into wikipedia is because the county council keeps moving them, they are PDFs so difficult to reference precise sections and PDFs are also difficult to search. I don't believe there can be copyright issues because these are public documents that are readily available on the web (am I wrong here?) If I am not wrong on this copyright issue then could you remove the deletion marker on these too please. I'll have to attend to the article in the evenings this week so will need more than 5 days to sort it out. Also I am happy to merge with Air pollution but had the idea that this could be a template for other entries on air quality for different cities. It is very interesting to see how a wide range of parameters effect air quality. Finally, this is not a report it is just me pulling together lots of publicly available information into one place under the heading of air quality in oxford. i still have to put all the references i have used (they are in my 'delicous account' and I am as yet to work out how to reference effectively (i.e. syntax for constructing a citation list). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
- Weak Keep - I've noticed this article a few times while going through the dead end pages list, and it looks like something that could be useful when it's finished -- particularly given the claims that Oxford is the most polluted city in the UK -- but probably should be more of a summary than a detailed report. Mark Grant 13:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, NMChico24
- Delete per nom.--Peta 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Air quality in Mumbai, Air quality in Sydney, Air quality in Detroit, Air Quality in Dublin, Air Quality in Mexico City. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also original research. --IslaySolomon 02:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this should be a personal web page. Gazpacho 07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as OR research paper written in a very unencylopedic format. However, I wouldn't be oppose to merging what is applicable and salvagable into the UK section of air pollution provided that what is added is sourced. 205.157.110.11 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — I don't think that the air quality of one particular area is important or notable enough for wikipedia. Perhaps having articles on the air quality of a broader geographic scope would be suitable. So, I would merge to a broader page, provided we can get some sources, or just simply delete if there is no useful infomation or sources. This is a fairly large and detialed article, so I think that some of this infomation will be useful in another context. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:10, 8 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 07:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bushism
"Bushism" is indeed exactly a neologism. Where did it come from? Who uses this term? Anyone notable? This article does not specify. The article indeed makes no claims to the notability of this term, whatsoever. It cites no credible references. It is speculative. It does contain a ton of quotes. And a poem. Thus, it's totally unencyclopedic. I suggest we move the quotes not already in Wikiquote to Wikiquote and bag the rest of it. Dwiki 05:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the term Bushism is well know in the United States, regardless of how one feels about it, these things did happen and are a part of U.S. history (such as it is). 64North 07:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as well-known term. The word was used as the title of at least five books (More George W. Bushisms, Still More George W. Bushisms, George W. Bushisms V, etc). Over 800,000 google hits, and numerous google news hits. The good folks at the Language Log have referred to the word 37 times. It has entered the lexicon. That said, the quotes in this article could be pared down a lot. bikeable (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Bikeable (the books have even spawned desktop calendars). The term is well-defined and commonly used. I'd be behind a move to transfer all the "example" quotes after the first section to Wikiquote, leaving the ones in the "background" section there. Not totally sure about the poem. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a perfect example of a notable neologism. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I am sure there's enough bush haters to keep this article alive. But honestly, Dwiki is totally correct. --MarsRover 07:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it's not essential to know where it comes from (probably a NYT columnist) and "who uses" is something Dwiki should have done due diligence on before nominating. Gazpacho 07:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, it's a neologism, and it has very much entered vernacular - but it has gone beyond the state where it's merely a definition. --Dennis The TIger 08:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it's passed the point where it has notablity that it's not just another neoligism. It's been used in the Associated Press[14] along with being used on television. It's not just a small group of people who have adopted the word. - The Bethling(Talk) 09:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable neologism. VegaDark 09:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I think 6 years of very active use in a variety of mediums (the books, the calendars, there is even a couple audio CDs) as well as the press mentions has moved "Bushisms" beyond the realm of being a neologism. And as someone who has voted for him, I don't think this is a matter of Bush-hating. It a matter of a very notable phrase.205.157.110.11 10:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per The Bethling. Used by Associated Press and on television is enough indication for me. - Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as having pretty wide currency, and also as a placeholder for one or two memorable foot-in-mouth moments which would otherwise bulk up Shrub's article. Guy 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per bikeable.--Isotope23 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, for sure. Plenty of reliable sources are available to verify the phrase's use. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as inherently POV, unless there's an article on political gaffes or something like that this can be merged into. Something touching on this topic has a place in an encyclopedia, certainly one that's not paper, but this particular article, by its very nature, is all "look how stupid George W. Bush is."–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree the article needs to be expanded to better answer Dwiki's questions, but the topic is extremely notable and has appeared on TV, in books, and many articles. nadav 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Filled with POV, WP:OR, poorly sourced, unencyclopedic, and probably violates WP:BLP. I'm not opposed to the topic, per se. But this execution is wrong in so many ways. Crockspot 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Five book titles is sufficient for inclusion. Gamaliel 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - A neoligism readily recognized inside and outside the United States. Victoriagirl 20:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Very important (and interesting) topic. The POV and OR issues should not be grounds for deletion, as these can be resolved. Zagalejo 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It may be a neoligism, but is an extremely widespread and notable neologism. RFerreira 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's part of American (and European) pop culture. Many of the above objections ("poorly sourced", "POV", etc) can be fixed. I'm off to do some fixing up right now. Srose (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per RFerreira and others. HGB 22:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a notable, sourceable neologism, but also keep the OR/V tag that is already there. Some of the article is OR and POV but that can be fixed. Pan Dan 02:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How can an article detailing what an idiot a public figure is be made NPOV? "However, Bush has been knbown to say quite clever things as well"? And Crockspot points out that it's a biographical article about a living person, too.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's unwarranted to infer from Bush's misspeakings that he's an idiot. Clumsy speakers aren't necessarily dumb. Personally, I think it's just the folksy way he talks. (But maybe I think that because I'm not a Bush detractor.) Or, maybe because it's actually kind of endearing, he does it on purpose (part of his political strategery). The point is that Bushisms are notable because they have engendered chatter from humorists and speculation from analysts. A balanced article should include comments both from Bush's detractors (like Molly Ivins who is already cited) and his defenders. And of course you're right that sentences like what you quoted are not appropriate. Pan Dan 18:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable and interesting. Kellen T 12:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep savidan(talk) (e@) 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per Bikable. MikeWazowski 17:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Bikable and Bethling Silver95280 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Just as RFerrira wrote, this is a notable neologism. Lazybum 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Per above. This time "NN" means "notable neologism". --Richard 07:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep
widely usedinternationally used neologism. When even the leader of a foreign country makes a wisecrack about bush's use of the english language... ALKIVAR™ 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC) - Keep. Notable. I've seen several books on it in London's main branch of Waterstones and generally Bush is very famous for his political gaffes in terms of grammar. It has been parodied in several TV shows (Dead Ringers, 2DTV and I think there are a couple more). Also, as Srose said it's part of american and European culture. Andrius 19:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:V. There are many verifiable sources for this term, both in the article and above. --Satori Son 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, well-known term that people will look for on Wikipedia. bbx 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Take a look at all the pages that link to "Bushism." Clearly a notable word/phenomenon.
- Keep. A common term with a very specific meaning. Amazon has a large number of books which use this term as it's title. The use of the word in those books is parallel to the way it is described in this article.--Roland Deschain 00:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Violation of the policy on libel against living people. Article very poor, inherently biased, and if kept will probably not be improved. Uncited poems? DELETE. Judgesurreal777 02:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - libel certainly does not figure in here. It's very very difficult to commit defamation against a public figure in the United States. Nothing in the article crosses the line. So let's just take the legal question out of consideration. Second, the article is, for the most part, sourced. Thus these portions of it, including the poem (which is sourced in the reference right above the poem's title), pass muster with WP:BLP. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I suspect a political motivation in this weird attempt to delete a very informative (although probably ephemeral) article. And by the way (see above) ... " [M]aybe because it's actually kind of endearing, he does it on purpose (part of his political strategery)." ... well, er, yes, of course, maybe, eh? Garrick92 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge As mentioned above, if there's a larger article for gaffes of politicians, maybe this could be moved there. It's certainly not a stand-alone article, though, no matter how funny or politically advantageous it may be for those who created the article in the first place. Dubc0724 17:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Whether or not politics played a role in the creation of this term or article is simply not relevant. Shall we now debate whether War on Terror or Axis of Evil should have an entries? The political origins and motivations behind the creation of those two terms is much more clear cut. Again, the fact is that Bushism is a notable neologism used throughout the English-speaking world. In at least one Canadian school Bushisms are used as a tool in teaching English to foreign language students. [15]. Victoriagirl 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep An important, notable and interesting article.AbsenceWiki 21:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is a well known term and often quoted in the media --Barry
talk 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC). - Keep Strategery should be merged in and the Decider should get some mention.Rokor 03:10, 13 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: this is a tricky one. Articles on flash cartoons frequently generate numerous impassioned appeals for keep on the basis that it is 'popular' ('popular' meaning something different to what most people would take it to mean - the man on the Clapham omnibus having heard of this - instead referring to recognition among the geek subculture), with little actual verified evidence for notability. In this case we have much the same, at least for the flash cartoon. However, as has been pointed out, this is not just a flash cartoon but a song, played frequently by a notable DJ and partly created by Neil Cicierega who has enough reliable press coverage to be considered notable himself. Generally, Wikipedia consensus considers artists to confer notability on their work - albums by notable artists are considered notable enough for articles, for example. Individual songs are generally not, but when they attract this sort of attention it becomes more in doubt than your average Flash video.
Despite the majority for keeping - even discounting single-purpose accounts - this isn't a vote and I'm not going to describe this as a keep result; there are simply too many 'votes' that even when not from single-purpose accounts, are empty assertions of 'this is popular' and 'definitely notable' with no supporting evidence (not even a 'per x'), and on the other hand there are still legitimate concerns about verification (e.g. the reliablility of the Demento chart and the 'passing mention' nature of the Toronto Star article as extensively discussed above). But if in doubt, we keep, and there's definitely enough doubt at the end of this AfD for this to be no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 |
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! |
[edit] Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny
Wikipedia:Notability (web) has a footnote that explicitly states that content hosted on Newgrounds is not made notable by virtue of being distributed by that notable site. Unless this content recieved notable press coverage, I think that it fails all three tests on Wikipedia:Notability (web) and should be deleted, regardless of how cool or interesting it is to the group of people who like it. --Dwiki 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Ultra-strong Keep - non-notable???? This song will more than likely be Dr. Demento's #1 request of 2006 (at 64 chart points, it's 26 points above the #2 song (My Cat is Afraid of the Vacuum Cleaner by Power Salad) right now, and there are only 2.5 months left in the chart period)! Sounds pretty notable to me. -- EmiOfBrie 12:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Since when is Dr.Demento a valid yardstick of notability? wikipediatrix 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since he became the most important DJ in his genre of music. WilyD 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Also since, in the web notability guidelines linked above, item #3 states: 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. Demento certainly qualifies as a well known online (and real world) broadcaster, meeting the requirements for 'notability'. Sparkhead 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since when is Dr.Demento a valid yardstick of notability? wikipediatrix 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - it'd be nice to source the chart, eh? That said, I'm pretty sure this is a far more notable part of web culture than Newgrounds is. WilyD 13:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dr. D has many times told his listeners how he ranks songs, the chart is hosted by a third party, true, but it uses the same rank method Dr. D uses. -- EmiOfBrie 22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable song by notable artists. --Billpg 13:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the sheer number of hits on google should prove its notability. 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Actually, those numbers conk out after 600-or-so. The rest of the hits aren't unique ones. And the vast majority of these hits are from blogs such livejournal, deviantART, tripod, and other less-than-valid sources. wikipediatrix 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- 600 unique hits is actually very, very high. Uniques are just counted out of the first thousand. WilyD 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, those numbers conk out after 600-or-so. The rest of the hits aren't unique ones. And the vast majority of these hits are from blogs such livejournal, deviantART, tripod, and other less-than-valid sources. wikipediatrix 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It is Newgrounds material, yes. But it has more than 7,000,000 views there (and 10,000 reviews I might add), and there are more internet sites, including Albino Blacksheep and Weebl's Stuff, that also host it. Plus Neil Cicierega is a notable figure even before this cartoon was released. Also, the song itself topped Dr. Demento's charts (the Funny 25) as of now. The sourcing of the chart seems necessary. --Wartys Neryon 16:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I don't understand why a few seem to be bent on deleting this entry. Google it (80K hits) and other flash entries. BALEETED! and Marshmallow's_Last_Stand both show fewer hits on Google and nobody's deleting those (and they're both subsets of Homestar_Runner). It's a popular flash that's still popular long after its creation. Notable press coverage? Search google news. Does a mention in the Toronto Star count? Let the entry be. Sparkhead 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn per above. Eusebeus 18:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Given that "above" only establishes it as highly notable, perhaps you can offer some rational for deletion? WilyD 18:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Apparently Dr.Demento and a bunch of "this flash is soooo awesome" mentions on teenage blogs don't impress everyone. wikipediatrix 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fortunately this isn't Collection of things that impress everyone, but an encyclopaedia. It is the case that the vast majority of editors recognise this as a spectacularly obvious keep. The nom only says "It isn't notable for being on Newgrounds" which is clearly true (WTF is Newgrounds?) but it is notable for a host of other reasons, which have been expounded here. Nobody has addressed them (partially because it's impossible, I would guess) and nobody will. Later we can all recall this when someone puts Paraguay up for deletion as non-notable, and laugh at the parallels to this case. WilyD 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh please. Could you get any more hyperbolic? Paraguay has more going for it than Dr.Demento and a bunch of goofy blogs. wikipediatrix 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It's actually pretty reasonable as both are "maximally encyclopaedic" and both have a "zero worthiness for deletion". No editors who's argued for deletion has advanced a single reason that isn't demonstratably false, and it's clearly impossible to do so. The article is verifiable and encyclopaedic. Arguing to delete this is just as absurd as arguing to delete Paraguay. WilyD 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh please. Could you get any more hyperbolic? Paraguay has more going for it than Dr.Demento and a bunch of goofy blogs. wikipediatrix 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fortunately this isn't Collection of things that impress everyone, but an encyclopaedia. It is the case that the vast majority of editors recognise this as a spectacularly obvious keep. The nom only says "It isn't notable for being on Newgrounds" which is clearly true (WTF is Newgrounds?) but it is notable for a host of other reasons, which have been expounded here. Nobody has addressed them (partially because it's impossible, I would guess) and nobody will. Later we can all recall this when someone puts Paraguay up for deletion as non-notable, and laugh at the parallels to this case. WilyD 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Apparently Dr.Demento and a bunch of "this flash is soooo awesome" mentions on teenage blogs don't impress everyone. wikipediatrix 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Fails WP:V and WP:RS[16][17]. Fails WP:WEB. Fails WP:MUSIC. Google hits results are sludgey flood of blog and forum posts which have little or no currency for Wikipedia article verification (and there are plenty of crappy flash animations on the web which get lots of links and ghits). The main claim the article has to legitimacy is that the subject has a "cult following" on the web. But no reliable, verifiable, independent, reputable sources have been offered to prove this. Bwithh 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I inserted the reliable, verifiable, independant, reputable source that had alredy been offered to prove this in as a reference. The articles passes your complaints (except maybe WP:MUSIC). Strong delete is an untenable position, would you consider putting in something more fitting? WilyD 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- No, I don't think Dr. Demento's chart counts. The ranking is mainly based on listener requests (a totally opaque and unreliable sample prone to ballot-stuffing and localized to the subculture of Dr. Demento's audience) plus other influences like "timeliness"(?). Ultimately: "In the end, it is simply Dr. Demento's judgement of the hottest and the coolest, no more, no less."). My Strong Delete vote feels just fine, thanks very much. Bwithh 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I was not refering to the Dr. Demento issue, but the coverage from the largest circulating newspaper in Canada WilyD 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article uses this as a source citation for its claim that USOUD "has gained a largecult following among web enthusiasts", but in fact the article says no such thing. It's an article about "animutation" in general, and only gives USOUD scant passing mentions. wikipediatrix 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure that's a reasonable paraphrase of the online buzz about the music on Ultimate Showdown has generated so many Lemon Demon CD sales that he doesn't have to get a "real job." - nor is scant an adjective that can reasonably be applied here. WilyD 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's not even close to a "reasonable paraphrase". Ask any PR agent, there's a world of difference between a "buzz" and a "large cult following", and you're still mixing up the song (and the CD it's on) with the flash animation anyway, they're two distinctly separate subjects which get rather blurred in this article. Lemon Demon don't even have their own article, so why should the video for one of their songs have one? The logical thing to do is to merge some of this info into the Neil Cicierega article, which already devotes a subsection to USOUD. wikipediatrix 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to reword it to better match the source, feel free. That's not really an AfD issue. Beyond that, presenting the inverse of WP:POKEMON isn't convincing. It is true that merge may be a tenable position (though certainly not needed, nor do I really see a point for it), but delete remains completely unsupportable. WilyD 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's not even close to a "reasonable paraphrase". Ask any PR agent, there's a world of difference between a "buzz" and a "large cult following", and you're still mixing up the song (and the CD it's on) with the flash animation anyway, they're two distinctly separate subjects which get rather blurred in this article. Lemon Demon don't even have their own article, so why should the video for one of their songs have one? The logical thing to do is to merge some of this info into the Neil Cicierega article, which already devotes a subsection to USOUD. wikipediatrix 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure that's a reasonable paraphrase of the online buzz about the music on Ultimate Showdown has generated so many Lemon Demon CD sales that he doesn't have to get a "real job." - nor is scant an adjective that can reasonably be applied here. WilyD 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- On the Dr. Demento issue, and WP:WEB, let me reiterate what you so clearly ignored. From WP:WEB #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. Demento certainly qualifies as a well known online (and real world) broadcaster, meeting the requirements for 'notability'. It isn't about where the item ranks on his charts. It's that fact that he is well known and distributing it, independent of the creators, on his show. Sparkhead 20:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're talking about the SONG. Dr. Demento plays the SONG. This article is about the FLASH VIDEO. wikipediatrix 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- They're beasts of the same spawn. They cannot be seperated. WilyD 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- The article is about both. You might want to read the first few lines. Sparkhead 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Um, no, the intro says "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, often shortened to Ultimate Showdown, is a Flash animation and music video." Period. It goes on to talk about Dr.Demento playing it, of course, which is precisely why I say the article is confused. Is the tail wagging the dog, or vice versa? Scraping together scraps of attempted notability for the song with scraps of attempted notability for the video can't be put together to build a notable Golem out of its parts. wikipediatrix 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you're trying to suggest the music video is disconnected from the song, you'll have to try a little harder. The internet phenomenon originated with a flash animation/music video but spread to other formats (such as radio) To suggest the script Shakespeare wrote for Hamlet is a seperate thing from review of the play based on performances, and that you can't cobble these together to establish a single notability would be just as untenable. WilyD 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your logic gets fuzzier and fuzzier the more you try to stubbornly maintain. Should I bother to explain why "Song is to its Music Video" is not the same as "Script is to its review"? Nah. There's no point. wikipediatrix 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Given that I said Song is to music video as script is to play I'm fairly sure that won't be necessary. WilyD 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I just made the point moot...since apparently the song is more notable than the video, I changes the focus of the article's introduction to the song rather than the video. Hopefully that will stop this particular line of squabbling. -- EmiOfBrie 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Given that I said Song is to music video as script is to play I'm fairly sure that won't be necessary. WilyD 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your logic gets fuzzier and fuzzier the more you try to stubbornly maintain. Should I bother to explain why "Song is to its Music Video" is not the same as "Script is to its review"? Nah. There's no point. wikipediatrix 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you're trying to suggest the music video is disconnected from the song, you'll have to try a little harder. The internet phenomenon originated with a flash animation/music video but spread to other formats (such as radio) To suggest the script Shakespeare wrote for Hamlet is a seperate thing from review of the play based on performances, and that you can't cobble these together to establish a single notability would be just as untenable. WilyD 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Strong Keep - Per above arguments. This is a very notable flash, as can be seen here. --EBCouncil Speak with the Council 20:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Definitely notable. --Sally Dunn 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Note vote was user's 5th edit Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Strong Keep - Worthy to be notable, i'm sure its an intrest to many people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skasian (talk • contribs)
-
-
- Note created in Oct 05 but this vote was user's 11th edit.
-
- Keep per EmiOfBrie main argument and WilyD's defense. Agne 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - YouTube and Newgrounds rankings are not qualifiers for notability, nor is "interesting". MikeWazowski 17:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Stong Keep - It's a major internet phenomenon, worthy of an article in Wiki. Those arguing for deletion severely underestimate the USoUD's popularity. - Alex, 74.133.188.197 21:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Note Anon account but with other AfD votes and edits. Maybe shared. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Super Keep - It's a very popular song. If we delete this song, then we have to comb through every single album ever released that's on here and decider which songs are 'notable' and which aren't - come the fuck on! Any song that at ANY point was considered notable, is notable. youaredj 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC
-
-
- Note Vote was user's 7th edit. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep - It's a very popular video on the internet, and certainly deserves its own entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klosterdev (talk • contribs)
- Strong Kee - There is nothing wrong with it its not offensive or a stub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.225.189 (talk • contribs)
-
-
- Note Anon user's 23rd edit but most other edits were to a page about a HS and user talk pages.
-
- Keep. It's a pretty popular song, and I've seen several pop culture references to it. bibliomaniac15 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Note User gives conflicting vote below but has not struck out this one. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. I agree with all keep arguments above, and I know that this page is of great intrest and is a good resource to many people, and isnt that what wikipedia is for??? 19:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyatty (talk • contribs)
-
-
- Note vote was users 10th edit
-
- Ultimate Keep. I have never heard of Newsgrounds. This animation is clearly notable for other reasons. It is linked to by several other pages in the Wikipedia. It contains useful detailed content. Deleting this entry would be vandalism.Colonel Warden 22:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Note Vote was user's 4th edit. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Very Strong Keep. We have stated in the article that it has a bit of a cult following and it has obviously a very popular flash video. Deleting this would be like deleting the article on the original YTMND. -Diabolos 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Extreme Keep. This is not just a Random newground's animation. Is it very popular everywhere... Deleting this would be like deleting the Numa Numa dance or deleting the "all your bases are belong to us". -lol man 21:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Note Vote was editor's 10th edit with majority of other edits being to 2 other AfDs
-
- Keep. Pretty well known online animation, seems notable enough to me. orudge 13:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a microcosm of Western pop culture: 3 or so minutes of music and/or video that encapsulates a very large chunk of (mostly) late 20th century pop culture. Even if USoUD turns out to be a flash in the pan and sinks without trace after a few months -- well, 9 months and counting to date -- it is significant for two reasons: firstly, by virtue of having that moment of fame, and secondly, because it reflects so much of pop culture. Limeguin 17:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A useful, informative article and just as important as the many episode summaries for various programmes which can be found on Wikipedia Letstalk 17:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Note Account created in June but this vote was user's 7th edit
-
- comment: I came to this afd intending to close as keep since its rather unanimous, but I'm inclined to suspect that most of the keep votes are single purpose accounts. I recognise none of the usernames from previous afds, and several have a similar signature style. I can't check everybodys contrib history atm though since I'm not on a high speed connection. Could somebody check and tag? Much appreciated. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 03:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- The first afd on this article did have a lot a spa's. This one doesn't. I was actually a bit amused when Bwithh added the sock warning. There's a few, but the majority of the discussion has been with established accounts. Why would you be inclined to suspect differently? After all, it's not a vote anyway, right? If a spa comes in and makes a valid point, it's still a valid point. For the second time this article has passed a deletion nomination, can we stop with the afd's now? Sparkhead 12:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I regard the afdsock warning notice as preemptive - I'll add it to any afd discussion I see which begins to show signs of an influx of anon IPs or single purpose accounts - especially articles likely to have a fan following. Whether or not a large influx emerges or not is immaterial. And the notice is explicitly not intended to dissuade comments from those new users. Bwithh 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Weak Delete- I liked the music video, but this article doesn't fit notability. The Numa Numa is different because it was on the news. bibliomaniac15 04:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Bibliomaniac15, you shouldn't go voting on afd's if you have no idea of the article content or history. If you check the text above and history, you already voted this article a keep last week. Today you voted delete, then changed it to a weak delete. Seems to show that you seem to be voting for the sheer joy of it without knowledge, or you have some sort of split persona. Sparkhead 12:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not that I enjoy changing votes just for the fun of it. I have checked the history and read the article several times. Before, I voted keep because I liked the music video itself, and I didn't check Wikipedia:Notability. Now that I look at it, it fails notability (no news about it), but only because of massive popularity and watches did I change it to a Weak Delete. Although eventually all people and articles run to bias, I strongly suggest that those who vote look at this issue from a neutral point of view, and not because of liking or disliking it. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe no news, but as stated earlier, don't you think that being (so far) Dr. Demento's top request of the year would make it notable? It's not news, but Dr. D's show is featured on numerous mainstream media radio stations. this song has garnered a ton of national exposure in the USA, and possibly worldwide too (I don't know about Dr. D's popularity outside of the USA) -- EmiOfBrie 01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not that I enjoy changing votes just for the fun of it. I have checked the history and read the article several times. Before, I voted keep because I liked the music video itself, and I didn't check Wikipedia:Notability. Now that I look at it, it fails notability (no news about it), but only because of massive popularity and watches did I change it to a Weak Delete. Although eventually all people and articles run to bias, I strongly suggest that those who vote look at this issue from a neutral point of view, and not because of liking or disliking it. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Bibliomaniac15, you shouldn't go voting on afd's if you have no idea of the article content or history. If you check the text above and history, you already voted this article a keep last week. Today you voted delete, then changed it to a weak delete. Seems to show that you seem to be voting for the sheer joy of it without knowledge, or you have some sort of split persona. Sparkhead 12:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep very well-known and notable internet meme.--Jersey Devil 05:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, judging from the comments above it seems to be very notable. bbx 06:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep.--Myles Long 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have went through and tagged any potential SPA. Following that the consenus "vote" goes as 5 solid deletes (counting nom), 16 Keeps from established accounts, 8 Keeps from potential SPA, and 1 editors two conflicting Keep/Delete vote. Hope that helps! Agne 16:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Agne. I apologise for my possible assumption of bad faith. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 19:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- keep please it is extremely popular as a internet meme Yuckfoo 18:44, 17 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abercorn Primary School
Non notable primary school. This comes very close to WP:NOT a directory, and fails WP:SCHOOL (which is only a proposal though). I can't see any argument not to delete these schools apart from "all schools are notable", which I (obviously) disagree with. I'll be AfD'ing here the other eleven primary schools of the same category as well, as they all are similarly basic (one of them has a notable alumnus, but that is a redlink anyway). Nothing against this county specifically, I just happened to come across one of the articles on it when patrolling new pages. Fram 09:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Other nominated schools:
- Annalong Primary School
- Ballydown Primary School
- Brackenagh West Primary School
- Carrick Primary School, Warrenpoint
- Iveagh Primary School
- Loughbrickland Primary School
- St. Colman's Primary School, Dromore
- St. John's Primary School, Newry
- St. Mary's Primary School, Ballyward
- St. Patrick's Primary School, Mayobridge
- Windsor Hill Primary School Fram 09:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - the author (Ardfern) appears to be pursuing a project of documenting NI schools. While the articles in general could do with more content and contextualisation, this is not an unreasonable thing to do. BTLizard 09:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply: if I would start a project of documenting all Belgian bakeries, would that be a reason to have three line articles on each and every bakery? While primary schools are slightly more important than bakeries, I fail to see how having someone who wants to document something is a reason to keep the articles. By that reasoning, every article shoudld be kept (except jokes and attacks), as they all try to document anything. Having a project, a category, ... is only a way of grouping things, but grouping unencyclopedic things does nnot make them any more encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion. Fram 09:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all Jcuk 10:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of primary schools in Northern Ireland. Catchpole 10:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. While I would welcome articles on primary schools, the current write up makes them little more than directory entries instead of articles. I recommend the creator to take a look at WP:BEEFSTEW for an idea on what kind of information should be included in a successful school entry. - Mgm|(talk) 11:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: Please judge these articles on their writing and not their supposed notability or lack thereof. We need to address the claimed directory-ness of the entries. Thank you. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have placed your note here instead of above the nomination, because while you are entitled to your opinion, it should not come before the original nomination, which was both for the notability of these schools and the directory-like entries they have now. Fram 11:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No guidelines or policies are useful here to argue for a deletion. Despite Fram's assertion that being a stub is a criterion for deletion, it ain't. WilyD 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Reply: I don't think that being a stub is a criteriopn for deletion, and I don't believe anything I said here reflects such extreme position. Articles that document subjects without any importance beyond their existence (i.e., they are a school) are directory articles. Nothing more of encyclopedic value can be said about them. Pointing out anything to the contrary (i.e. a reliable, reputable, verifiable source, per WP:V, asserting the importance of this particular school, would be a good argument against deletion. For now, all I have seen is the argument that all schools are inherently encyclopedic, which is equally unuseful to argue for keeping. The article is sourced, but that does not make it encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory, and that's policy. And sourced... well, let's take Carrick Primary School, Warrenpoint: two directories (which Wikiepdia, again, is not), and an article in which it is mentioned in a list of 31 schools. The info given is correct (and I didn't claim otherwise), but of encyclopedic importance? Another one? Iveagh Primary School and St. Mary's Primary School, Ballyward are only sourced by two directories and are nothing more than directory entries themselves. Please, give me arguments to keep them, make it clear to me what importance they have beyond being a school, or else admit that all you have as an argument is that all schools should be kept. But please don't try to keep them by misrepresenting my arguments. Fram 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am representing your argument accurately. To take the top school (why not, since they're listed together) there is some information here beyond a directory - not very much, because the article is a stub. The article does clearly not say "Abercorn Primary School exists, and is a primary school" which might qualify as a directory entry. It refers to published documents on the school, et cetera. When evaluating articles at AfD, it's essentially sufficient to ask Is this article verifiable? and Is it encyclopaedic? - in this case, both answers are yes. While there are exceptions to the evaluation I expounded (i.e. WP:POVFORKs) it's generally accurate. The article is sourced, and its encyclopaedic. No argument has been presented for deletion that isn't false upon its face. Whether or not all schools are encyclopaedic, I have no idea (although obviously certain classes of things are invariably encyclopaedic) - nor is it really relevent here. Rather than say In my opinion, is this important enough to be encyclopaedic? (which almost always results in someone saying Do I personally give a shit about this article? I find it's far more useful to ask Has some other source found it worthy of encyclopaedic type documentation and publishing? which gives a far less biased result, (although it isn't useful for pushing any agenda). Here, the article is verifiable, encyclopaedic, sourced and the claims that they're directory entires (at least in the case of Abercorn) is just plain false. Evidentally someone has found it important enough to publish this kind of information, which I'll take to mean it is important over the dubious unsupported assertions here to the contrary. WilyD 14:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Umm, the sources for Abercorn are not really of encyclopedic value: there is the school website, a directory service, and the school inspection report. So if I can find a bakery with a website, a listing in a directory, and a food inspection report, I can include it here as well? My arguments are not "false upon their face" and my assertions are not "unsupported", thank you. Fram 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what you mean by Sources are of encyclopaedic value - Many, if not most towns and cities have articles that are nothing but regurgitated census data created by a robot ... This seems to be almost identical in "source quality/nature" to the school evaluation reports, for instance. With respect to a bakery there are policies/guidelines that apply (i.e. WP:CORP) where none apply here. The argument you present remains false upon its face, and your assertions on reasons for deletion remain unsupported. Claiming otherwise will not change this. WilyD 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Umm, the sources for Abercorn are not really of encyclopedic value: there is the school website, a directory service, and the school inspection report. So if I can find a bakery with a website, a listing in a directory, and a food inspection report, I can include it here as well? My arguments are not "false upon their face" and my assertions are not "unsupported", thank you. Fram 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am representing your argument accurately. To take the top school (why not, since they're listed together) there is some information here beyond a directory - not very much, because the article is a stub. The article does clearly not say "Abercorn Primary School exists, and is a primary school" which might qualify as a directory entry. It refers to published documents on the school, et cetera. When evaluating articles at AfD, it's essentially sufficient to ask Is this article verifiable? and Is it encyclopaedic? - in this case, both answers are yes. While there are exceptions to the evaluation I expounded (i.e. WP:POVFORKs) it's generally accurate. The article is sourced, and its encyclopaedic. No argument has been presented for deletion that isn't false upon its face. Whether or not all schools are encyclopaedic, I have no idea (although obviously certain classes of things are invariably encyclopaedic) - nor is it really relevent here. Rather than say In my opinion, is this important enough to be encyclopaedic? (which almost always results in someone saying Do I personally give a shit about this article? I find it's far more useful to ask Has some other source found it worthy of encyclopaedic type documentation and publishing? which gives a far less biased result, (although it isn't useful for pushing any agenda). Here, the article is verifiable, encyclopaedic, sourced and the claims that they're directory entires (at least in the case of Abercorn) is just plain false. Evidentally someone has found it important enough to publish this kind of information, which I'll take to mean it is important over the dubious unsupported assertions here to the contrary. WilyD 14:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply: I don't think that being a stub is a criteriopn for deletion, and I don't believe anything I said here reflects such extreme position. Articles that document subjects without any importance beyond their existence (i.e., they are a school) are directory articles. Nothing more of encyclopedic value can be said about them. Pointing out anything to the contrary (i.e. a reliable, reputable, verifiable source, per WP:V, asserting the importance of this particular school, would be a good argument against deletion. For now, all I have seen is the argument that all schools are inherently encyclopedic, which is equally unuseful to argue for keeping. The article is sourced, but that does not make it encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory, and that's policy. And sourced... well, let's take Carrick Primary School, Warrenpoint: two directories (which Wikiepdia, again, is not), and an article in which it is mentioned in a list of 31 schools. The info given is correct (and I didn't claim otherwise), but of encyclopedic importance? Another one? Iveagh Primary School and St. Mary's Primary School, Ballyward are only sourced by two directories and are nothing more than directory entries themselves. Please, give me arguments to keep them, make it clear to me what importance they have beyond being a school, or else admit that all you have as an argument is that all schools should be kept. But please don't try to keep them by misrepresenting my arguments. Fram 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
I take issue with WilyD's assertion that the test In my opinion, is this important enough to be encyclopaedic? "almost always results in someone saying Do I personally give a s**t about this article?." I personally don't give a !@#$ about VINSON, American Idol, or comparative sociology, but I understand that these topics in voice encryption, trends in pop culture, and academic research are all ultimately relevant to everyone, and therefore encyclopedic. But the existence of a school called Abercorn in County Down isn't relevant, or potentially relevant, to anyone outside of County Down. If, for example, some kid at that school discovered a method for cold fusion, then it might be relevant. But no one is making any such claim.
I also think that it's obvious that the institution of the primary school is important and encyclopedic. But this doesn't imply that every primary school is encyclopedic, any more than the notability of Home and Grocery store implies that my house and the grocery store I go to are encyclopedic. The burden is on the other side to show why Abercorn Primary School et al are distinguishable, and assertions such "Abercorn 'provides a secure and stimulating environment for children ... emphasis is placed on children showing courtesy to classmates, teachers and visitors and all staff endeavour to relate work to the children's interests and daily lives'" just don't cut it.
Finally, proponents of including schools in Wikipedia often cite some characterization or other to the effect that encyclopedias are compendia of knowledge, info about a school is knowledge, therefore schools merit inclusion. To this I would respond that the nominated articles don't impart any meaningful knowledge at all. Everybody knows that there are primary schools in Northern Ireland (if not they could read Education in Northern Ireland), and knowing that one of them is called Abercorn, and it's in County Down, just isn't meaningful. Pan Dan 15:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Take a stroll through AfD and really give it a look and you'll see it to be the case. Notability is used either as a euphanism for SPAM, or to say Well, I don't care about it. - As for the article, it remains sourced, encyclopaedic, verifiable and everything else you could reasonably ask of it. The main thrust of the argument for deletion is it's low information content (because it's a stub) but this isn't a criterion for deletion. WilyD 18:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) Others may use NN interchangeably with SPAM or "I don't care about it," but not me, and all the people voting "delete" in this debate have intelligent arguments that amount to a lot more than "I don't care about it." (2) I agree that the nominees are sourced and verifiable. The question is, are they encyclopedic? I argued above that they are patently unencyclopedic because they have no relevance or even potential relevance to anybody living outside of County Down. Now, can you say why the nominees deserve to exist on Wikipedia, but not the grocery store I go to, which enjoys news coverage from local business papers? Or local bakeries, which as Fram pointed out above, may have websites, and may be listed in directories and food inspection reports? Pan Dan 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure exactly how far the influence of something has to spread before it's "encyclopaedic". I am, however, fairly sure it's not "the whole globe". As for a bakery, a concensus exists with WP:CORP, no such equivilent exists for government institutions. I continued to stand by my position that it is preferable to use the judgement of the government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about whether this school is notable than it is to use my own bias. WilyD 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) By analogy with WP:CORP, which distinguishes notable from NN businesses, I would argue we need to distinguish between notable and NN schools. And whatever criterion consensus would come up with for judging notability of schools, these schools just wouldn't make the cut. (2) I don't think the gov't of the UK has made a judgment that these schools are, or are not, notable. The gov't of the UK accredits, funds, and, I suppose, may run these schools to some degree. That's why they list them in their directory of schools. That has nothing to do with encyclopedic notability. If it did, then my home would be encyclopedic and notable simply by virtue of being listed in my city and/or county register. Pan Dan 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- WP:CORP is a bad analogy because its a specific guideline - generalising from it is not really advisable (because it's a haphazard process of random guesses, essentially). No criterion concensus exists for schools, nor will one exist soon (if you see many schools in AfD, you'll know why), and to try to guess anything about how it'll turn out is simply impossible. The evaluation report is not simply a directory of schools, but a third party publication. At least until a WP:SCHOOLs guideline is set, trying to ram schools through AfD that pass every relevent criterion, policy and guideline is inappropriate. WilyD 19:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- My point was that any nontrivial guideline for schools would have to exclude the nominees at issue. There is simply no distinguishing feature here. If these schools were kept per whatever guideline we eventually adopt for schools, then all schools would be admissible under that guideline. Pan Dan 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- WP:CORP is a bad analogy because its a specific guideline - generalising from it is not really advisable (because it's a haphazard process of random guesses, essentially). No criterion concensus exists for schools, nor will one exist soon (if you see many schools in AfD, you'll know why), and to try to guess anything about how it'll turn out is simply impossible. The evaluation report is not simply a directory of schools, but a third party publication. At least until a WP:SCHOOLs guideline is set, trying to ram schools through AfD that pass every relevent criterion, policy and guideline is inappropriate. WilyD 19:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) By analogy with WP:CORP, which distinguishes notable from NN businesses, I would argue we need to distinguish between notable and NN schools. And whatever criterion consensus would come up with for judging notability of schools, these schools just wouldn't make the cut. (2) I don't think the gov't of the UK has made a judgment that these schools are, or are not, notable. The gov't of the UK accredits, funds, and, I suppose, may run these schools to some degree. That's why they list them in their directory of schools. That has nothing to do with encyclopedic notability. If it did, then my home would be encyclopedic and notable simply by virtue of being listed in my city and/or county register. Pan Dan 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure exactly how far the influence of something has to spread before it's "encyclopaedic". I am, however, fairly sure it's not "the whole globe". As for a bakery, a concensus exists with WP:CORP, no such equivilent exists for government institutions. I continued to stand by my position that it is preferable to use the judgement of the government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about whether this school is notable than it is to use my own bias. WilyD 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- (1) Others may use NN interchangeably with SPAM or "I don't care about it," but not me, and all the people voting "delete" in this debate have intelligent arguments that amount to a lot more than "I don't care about it." (2) I agree that the nominees are sourced and verifiable. The question is, are they encyclopedic? I argued above that they are patently unencyclopedic because they have no relevance or even potential relevance to anybody living outside of County Down. Now, can you say why the nominees deserve to exist on Wikipedia, but not the grocery store I go to, which enjoys news coverage from local business papers? Or local bakeries, which as Fram pointed out above, may have websites, and may be listed in directories and food inspection reports? Pan Dan 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Take a stroll through AfD and really give it a look and you'll see it to be the case. Notability is used either as a euphanism for SPAM, or to say Well, I don't care about it. - As for the article, it remains sourced, encyclopaedic, verifiable and everything else you could reasonably ask of it. The main thrust of the argument for deletion is it's low information content (because it's a stub) but this isn't a criterion for deletion. WilyD 18:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I completely agree with Pan Dan. Wily, my great-grandmother lived in Northern Ireland and some of my cousins go to Brackenagh West Primary School, but I still don't think that Brackenagh - or any of these schools, for that matter, deserve an article. I find myself reading them and asking, "What's important about this school?" My response is, "Nothing." Then I ask myself "What impact has this school had on society as a whole? What's unique about this school as opposed to all other primary schools in the world?" And again, the answer is nothing. We have an article on primary schools that should explain what goes on in these schools quite nicely. It boils down to the fact that there is nothing unique to say about any of these schools, so the entries all amount to, essentially, a directory listing. I'm sure the schools are important to the children that attend them, perhaps even the graduates and certainly the teachers and parents. However, they're not notable (yup, I said it, and what I mean by it in this context is: important) outside of their respective towns. There are a bare minimum of several hundred thousand primary schools in the world. These are just like all the rest. If someone can supply us with a famous alum or notorious incident that occurred at one of the schools, I'd change my "vote" to keep, but just for that one. Srose (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then you're setting your threshold of importance too high. As with almost every AfD where people argue to delete sourced, encyclopaedic content, I have to refer you to Cherry Valley, Arkansas an example of a class of articles that has every problem you accuse this of having, but is one of a class of thousands upon thousands. This is exactly the kind of Wikipedia, she ain't paper, our inclusion criteria ain't gotta be tighter than Britannica failure that's all to common on AfD. WilyD 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Per WP:AFDP (an organized list of precedents), all towns and cities are notable. All high schools and universities are likewise notable. However, middle schools are a gray area, and primary schools are almost never kept. The exceptions are usually when a primary school is the scene of a crime, or has a large number of famous alums. Srose (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure your assertion about primary schools - I've seen some kept, some deleted, but I've never seen one with verifiable third party information deleted. WilyD 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Per WP:AFDP (an organized list of precedents), all towns and cities are notable. All high schools and universities are likewise notable. However, middle schools are a gray area, and primary schools are almost never kept. The exceptions are usually when a primary school is the scene of a crime, or has a large number of famous alums. Srose (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then you're setting your threshold of importance too high. As with almost every AfD where people argue to delete sourced, encyclopaedic content, I have to refer you to Cherry Valley, Arkansas an example of a class of articles that has every problem you accuse this of having, but is one of a class of thousands upon thousands. This is exactly the kind of Wikipedia, she ain't paper, our inclusion criteria ain't gotta be tighter than Britannica failure that's all to common on AfD. WilyD 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all per WP:DP. --Usgnus 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Reply: could you elaborate on this? I can find reasons in Wp:DP for merging ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") or deleting ("Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)", but not directly or obviously for keeping. No one who has voted keep has indicated that any of these articles have potential beyond the current article. Fram 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Even if the article is unexpandable beyond its current form, being a stub is still not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply: could you elaborate on this? I can find reasons in Wp:DP for merging ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") or deleting ("Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)", but not directly or obviously for keeping. No one who has voted keep has indicated that any of these articles have potential beyond the current article. Fram 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all, or merge some of them. Schools are not bakeries. They don't have to be important outside of County Down to be necessary to comprehensive coverage of education within County Down. Information such as enrolment, date of foundation, class size etc is encylopedic because it aids understanding of a topic people care about, i.e. it is knowledge. Kappa 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- First, "Information such as enrolment, date of foundation, class size etc" doesn't need its own article. I suppose I agree with your partial suggestion, Kappa, of merging that info into a more general article. But second, Kappa, I really have to disagree with your assertion that this info "is encylopedic because it aids understanding of a topic people care about, i.e. it is knowledge." People who send their kids to schools in County Down care about it, and that's what local information sources are for. County Down parents aren't gonna come to WP to look for this info, nor should they. Above all, I urge a distinction between knowledge that is ultimately relevant to everybody like the info in the article on general Primary education, vs. knowledge that has no relevance or meaning to anybody living outside of a certain locale. Pan Dan 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- County Down parents should come to wikipedia for encylopedic treatments of local schools, because that's our job - being an encylopedia. By synthesizing multiple sources we can provide a service no-one else can (eventually in some cases) It's reasonable to make a distinction between general-interest knowledge and specialist-interest knowledge, but since we are promising everyone access to the "sum total of human knowledge", destroying all specialist-interest knowledge is the not the way to do it. Personally I am interested in schools in various countries (not include Northern Ireland as it happens) and I would love to be able to read encylopedic treatments of them without having to go there and/or learn the language. Kappa 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you honestly feel that your or anyones interest in schools in various countries can be satisfied by articles like these? It's like reading a telephone book to get to know the people of a country. It learns you nothing about education in the area, or even about the individual schools, except that they exist. I would never AfD an article about the education in a region, but this is not about education at all. Fram 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- If it can't, that's a criterion for expansion, not deletion. The articles are stubs, but that's not important here. WilyD 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Articles which tell me where a school is and how big it is are a start. Articles which tell me the strengths and weaknesses of a school, or when and why it was built, are doing a very good job at satisfying my curiousity. Kappa 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you honestly feel that your or anyones interest in schools in various countries can be satisfied by articles like these? It's like reading a telephone book to get to know the people of a country. It learns you nothing about education in the area, or even about the individual schools, except that they exist. I would never AfD an article about the education in a region, but this is not about education at all. Fram 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- County Down parents should come to wikipedia for encylopedic treatments of local schools, because that's our job - being an encylopedia. By synthesizing multiple sources we can provide a service no-one else can (eventually in some cases) It's reasonable to make a distinction between general-interest knowledge and specialist-interest knowledge, but since we are promising everyone access to the "sum total of human knowledge", destroying all specialist-interest knowledge is the not the way to do it. Personally I am interested in schools in various countries (not include Northern Ireland as it happens) and I would love to be able to read encylopedic treatments of them without having to go there and/or learn the language. Kappa 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- First, "Information such as enrolment, date of foundation, class size etc" doesn't need its own article. I suppose I agree with your partial suggestion, Kappa, of merging that info into a more general article. But second, Kappa, I really have to disagree with your assertion that this info "is encylopedic because it aids understanding of a topic people care about, i.e. it is knowledge." People who send their kids to schools in County Down care about it, and that's what local information sources are for. County Down parents aren't gonna come to WP to look for this info, nor should they. Above all, I urge a distinction between knowledge that is ultimately relevant to everybody like the info in the article on general Primary education, vs. knowledge that has no relevance or meaning to anybody living outside of a certain locale. Pan Dan 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all per Kappa. Mass nominations of this sort are borderline disruptive. RFerreira 20:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Reply: What? In what way is this a disruptive nomination (borderline or not)? These articles are very similar, both in subject and in content. It would be ridiculous to Afd one of them and not the others (even in this AfD, the often misused argument "because unrelated article X is not deleted (yet), this one should stay to" is already used: imagine if the same could be said about a truly similar article!).
- I'm amazed that some supporters of all school articles, no matter how uninformative, uninteresting, and unencyclopedic these articles are (and ever can be), feel the need to try to reason away the AfD by making borderline attacks instead of trying to defend the articles. All the defense we have until now is "the articles are correct" (true, but irrelevant), sourced (true, but irrelevant), and encyclopedic (untrue, but debatable). Most of these articles are only directory entries and thus fail WP:NOT fair and square: the few that have an additional line of info are still utterly irrelevant for anyone outside the village they serve, and would be better as short sections in the articles of those villages. All of them can be deleted by Wp:NOT, which is a policy. No one has explained why we need "comprehensive coverage of education in County Down" to the level of listing the number of students, the address of the school, or the distance between the school and the town centre. Wouldn't it be better if we had an article or even a paragraph discussing "education in County Down" instead of a bunch of extremely similar, uninformative directory listings of all individual schools, if your aim truly was "comprehensive coverage of education in County Down". With the current articles, I know nothing about education there except that there are schools. This is the most obvious and least informative info possible on the subject. Fram 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree it's far less disruptive than nominating them all seperately. I'd hate to have to have this argument a dozen times. WilyD 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- This discussion has played out hundreds if not thousands of times already. In my opinion even a single school nomination of this kind is disruptive. Silensor 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree it's far less disruptive than nominating them all seperately. I'd hate to have to have this argument a dozen times. WilyD 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Supercali-fragile-elastic-wiki-halitosis Keep because you tards just wont get it. Sorta like the concept of AFD. ALKIVAR™ 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Keep all of the above. The nominator appears not to comprehend what the goals of this project are, so please allow me to quote the words of one of our founding fathers, Jimmy Wales: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Schools make up a valuable and important part of this complete sum. Silensor 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It requires quite a literal interpretation of Jimmy Wales's phrase "the sum of all human knowledge," to conclude that articles like the ones being considered for deletion are part of that sum. And a really really literal interpretation of Wales (which I hope is not your interpretation) would flatly contradict WP:NOT, and frankly trivialize Wales's vision.
-
- In the case of the nominees for deletion here, the "knowledge" they provide is meaningless and irrelevant to anyone outside County Down, and for those in County Down, it's directory info. Now, those who seek to learn more about primary schools in Northern Ireland, as Kappa does (and I respect Kappa for that desire, make no mistake), can read the article on Education in Northern Ireland. I fail to understand how Kappa and others' quest is satisfied by reading that there is a school called Abercorn in County Down, 500 students attend it, and it "provides a secure and stimulating environment for children ... emphasis is placed on children showing courtesy to classmates, teachers and visitors and all staff endeavour to relate work to the children's interests and daily lives." And as Fram pointed out, there is no one here who has any ideas on how this article or its fellow nominees can be expanded. Pan Dan 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- A school with 500 students is very different from a school with 100 students. A school which emphasises courtesy is different from a school which emphasizes achievement, or discipline, or independence. These things help readers to understand the school, hence they are encylopedic. What wouldn't help me to understand the school is its telephone number... that's the kind of thing I would look for in a directory. Kappa 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't understand how you can learn anything about the school through that quote (the one about "provides a secure and stimulating environment..."). It sounds like it came from a brochure, and brochures, like advertisements, sometimes lie. In fact it sounds like it could have come from the brochure of any public primary school in the English-speaking world, including those schools of which it's not a true depiction. A definite knowledge of what a school is really like can only come from talking to people actually involved with the school, and as such talk is never published, alas, there's no way for that kind of info to make it onto Wikipedia without violating WP:OR or WP:V. Now, the gossip might get verified and published by reputable newspapers if the school was especially notable for some reason--that's why some of us here keep talking about notability--it really is essential to an encyclopedic article. But for non-notable, run-of-the-mill primary schools like these, there's just no way to get complete, sourced articles, which is sort of the point that Fram has making all along, much more ably than me. Pan Dan 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Even if it could be verified that Abercorn practices the (unremarkable) philosophy espoused in that quote, I fail to see what significance that unremarkable fact can possibly have to anybody outside of County Down. As for the fact that there are 500 students--I fail to see, again, how that bit of trivia can have any meaning at all to anybody other than a County Down parent. What would be notable is an overall assessment of the different philosophies of all the schools in Northern Ireland, and overall statistics on school size in Northern Ireland, but such info belongs in a more general article, such as Education in Northern Ireland. Pan Dan 01:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- If I want know about a school, the first things I want are its size, how long it has been there and its philosophy (assuming philosophy varies by school, as in the UK, instead of by district, as in the US.) For Northern Ireland I'd also like to know its religious profile. If I have these things I feel I understand it, in a basic way. To me these things are knowledge. If you tell me I can't have these things, they are "not knowledge", that I should read education in Kyrgyzstan and draw my own conclusions... well I think that you have denied me something very precious. Kappa 01:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but the point remains that OR/V is impossible for non-notable schools. Pan Dan 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- OR/V is answered by government inspections and coverage in local newspapers and books about local history. These can be already be found online for most of these schools and will be available for all of them sooner or later. Kappa 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but the notability issue persists. The gov't inspections and coverage in local newspapers talk about things that could be said about any school. They don't distinguish the school. And I am not persuaded that if you want to research the religious profile (as you said above) of schools in Northern Ireland, that you would be best served by reading one article for each of the thousands of primary schools in Northern Ireland. Far easier and more reliable would be to read something that discusses primary schools in Northern Ireland in general, for example Education_in_Northern_Ireland#Integrated_Education (which should expanded, by the way). One simply gains no more edification from understanding "in a basic way" a local primary school—one of thousands in Northern Ireland—than from understanding local grocery stores, pubs, or coffee shops. Pan Dan 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- OR/V is answered by government inspections and coverage in local newspapers and books about local history. These can be already be found online for most of these schools and will be available for all of them sooner or later. Kappa 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but the point remains that OR/V is impossible for non-notable schools. Pan Dan 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- A school with 500 students is very different from a school with 100 students. A school which emphasises courtesy is different from a school which emphasizes achievement, or discipline, or independence. These things help readers to understand the school, hence they are encylopedic. What wouldn't help me to understand the school is its telephone number... that's the kind of thing I would look for in a directory. Kappa 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- In the case of the nominees for deletion here, the "knowledge" they provide is meaningless and irrelevant to anyone outside County Down, and for those in County Down, it's directory info. Now, those who seek to learn more about primary schools in Northern Ireland, as Kappa does (and I respect Kappa for that desire, make no mistake), can read the article on Education in Northern Ireland. I fail to understand how Kappa and others' quest is satisfied by reading that there is a school called Abercorn in County Down, 500 students attend it, and it "provides a secure and stimulating environment for children ... emphasis is placed on children showing courtesy to classmates, teachers and visitors and all staff endeavour to relate work to the children's interests and daily lives." And as Fram pointed out, there is no one here who has any ideas on how this article or its fellow nominees can be expanded. Pan Dan 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all. Schools are inherently notable. Also, imo, mass AfD nominations are bad form. --Myles Long 21:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. While mass nominations should be used only in cases where the discussion is the same for each article, I think that's exactly what you have here. What interest would be served by having a separate debate for each one of these articles? Erechtheus 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All, we've established here on Wikipedia that High Schools/Secondary schools are notable, Elementary schools/Primary schools are NOT inherently notable. TJ Spyke 21:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per WP:NOT (as cited by nominator) and lack of encyclopedic value. The "sum of all knowledge" does not mean trivia, indiscriminate, and directory entries. As a comment, "bulk" nominations are not improper (see listing multiple pages for deletion). Agent 86 22:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per WP:NOT and others as above. wikipediatrix 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. per Spyke. Are we going to have to go through this with elementary schools now? Eusebeus 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all - schools are inherently notable, hence my desire to build a comprehensive listing and articles for all schools in Northern Ireland (not just County Down as the originator mistakenly seems to think). Frankly I am appalled at this debate at all - I was following the lead of Schools categories in Australia, Hong Kong and even England - are you suggesting all the primary and preparatory schools articles there should similarly be excised? Primary schools are indeed notable in their communities and in Northern Ireland and are vehicles to attract more readers and contributors to Wikipedia. This has been proved as the lists and my stub articles are now being added to by other new contributors. Most of the articles are stubs to be built upon, or have we lost that concept? I would suggest that schools are more notable than say porn stars, but you are not suggesting excising those articles. Please let me get on with building an encyclopedia relevant to people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Remove this deletion threat please. Ardfern 23:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ardfern, I have sympathy for your project, even though I don't necessarily think it belongs on WP. But even setting that larger argument aside, why don't you list these schools on other pages, such as County Down or Education in Northern Ireland, for example? How do you propose expanding the articles nominated for deletion as they stand? Pan Dan 00:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (for different reasons). School articles are notorious vandal magnets, especially if they're kept unwatched. Ardfern having taken the time to create these will also inevitably keep them on his watclist and be able to revert any vandalism right away. Bastique▼parler voir 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. I don't think we can say every non-secondary school is non-notable by default, but they are also not notable by default as secondary schools are. The secondary school articles represent communities sufficiently, and secondary schools are often more than just schools -- they serve as significant sources of community entertainment and bonding (think high school football). I see no claim of notability in any of these articles. Erechtheus 00:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all as per Myles Long above. Also, the articles are in development and Wikipedia, we are told, is not exactly short on space. --Mal 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all per above; there have been countless school AfDs, and they almost invariably result in a decision to keep or no consensus. I could see a nomination taking place if their existence was unverifiable, but obviously they exist. The fact that we've got an editor who seems to be dedicated to these articles is even better. Catbag 06:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Reply: I have seen school AfD going in all directions, the last one I started was deleted: [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Hills Christian School], and the discussion was very similar to this one. In the end, after the deletion, someone made a redirect to the town of the school, which I obviously have no problems with. To argue that this one should be kept because other ones are kept is thus invalid, as the argument for deletion can be made for that reason as well. Fram 07:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Far more are kept than deleted from what I've seen. Catbag 23:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply: I have seen school AfD going in all directions, the last one I started was deleted: [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Hills Christian School], and the discussion was very similar to this one. In the end, after the deletion, someone made a redirect to the town of the school, which I obviously have no problems with. To argue that this one should be kept because other ones are kept is thus invalid, as the argument for deletion can be made for that reason as well. Fram 07:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all as per Myles Long above.Bagginator 08:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per Mylselong. Primary schools are not notable except under very limited circumstances and none of these meet it. JoshuaZ 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep articles are excellent starting points for each of these schools, and can only improve with addiitonal work and time. Does not meet any criteria for WP:NOT. Alansohn 04:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Reply, actually, they do meet the criteria of WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (and these articles are just that), and Wikipedia is not a directory (and an article like Iveagh Primary School is nothing but a directory entry). Can you give us an idea of what information, specific for any of these schools, would be added later on? You are basically saying that they are notable and interesting, but that that will only become clear when the article is expanded. If you don't have any info that supports that opinion, then it is only wishful thinking. Fram 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply: Since WP:NOT is being used as a justification for deletion, let's do a review of each of the criteria of WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and see if any of the specific examples included fit this article:
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:
- Reply, actually, they do meet the criteria of WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (and these articles are just that), and Wikipedia is not a directory (and an article like Iveagh Primary School is nothing but a directory entry). Can you give us an idea of what information, specific for any of these schools, would be added later on? You are basically saying that they are notable and interesting, but that that will only become clear when the article is expanded. If you don't have any info that supports that opinion, then it is only wishful thinking. Fram 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- 1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Not Applicable
- 2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).No
- 3. Travel guides. Not even close
- 4. Memorials. Nope
- 5. News reports. Not Applicable
- 6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Not
- 7. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. No. This is what was referenced in the vote, but it does NOT apply. This is not a directory; it is an article about a specific school.
- 8. Instruction manuals - Not Applicable
- 9. Internet guides - No
- 10. Textbooks and annotated texts - Not a chance
- 11. Plot summaries - Nope
-
-
-
- I sincerely hope that we can get clarification as to which specific aspect of WP:NOT is being violated by this specific article. Otherwise, WP:NOT does NOT apply. Alansohn 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply. The answer is...#7. As Fram has repeatedly and reasonably pointed out, these are stubs, the info in them is directory info, and nobody voting "keep" has explained how to expand them into compelling encyclopedia articles. Pan Dan 14:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply: like Pan Dan said (thank you)/ Take Iveagh Primary School: the complete article comes from the link "Schools Web Directory", except the age of the pupils and the number of them (a whopping 50, or some 6 per year...). That info comes from the other link, the Good Schools Guide, which is nothing but a directory (the information you getr when you follow the link at least). This article is nothing but directory information. It contains no info on what makes this school notable, how it would be interesting to anyone outside Rathfriland, how the educational system of County Down works, etcetera. The only reason anyone can give to have this article is that for them, all schools are notable, even if there is no info available except the address and number of pupils. I don't have anything against that position, although I heavily disagree with it, but I don't get why most people seem so anxious to admit that that is their criterion, and try to find other reasons, or try to make this AfD look negative on principle. But since this AfD seems at first glance to be going to a no consensus, I suppose we'll have to see in a year or so if a) these articles are indeed vandal magnets (a primary school with 50 pupils? I would be surprised), and b) if they indeed will have improved in a year time. Fram 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply. The answer is...#7. As Fram has repeatedly and reasonably pointed out, these are stubs, the info in them is directory info, and nobody voting "keep" has explained how to expand them into compelling encyclopedia articles. Pan Dan 14:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope that we can get clarification as to which specific aspect of WP:NOT is being violated by this specific article. Otherwise, WP:NOT does NOT apply. Alansohn 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep all As per Alansohn and Myles Long. The chance of these articles getting expanded, in my experience, is much greater now that they have been created. I also think that mass nominations are not good for the project. Keithology Talk! 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- And I think that very long signatures are bad for easy editing, but I don't complain about them ;-) Seriously, I don't understand the problem with mass nominations, as long as the articles are more or less comparable. Do you think there was anything wrong with e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Willy Peter's Madhouse, and would you propose that I had made twenty different nominations (no wait, that's still a mass nomination: I should have made 20 consecutive AfD's over twenty weeks, I suppose)? Mass nominations are a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with comparable articles with comparable delete and keep arguments. Fram 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, touché, you should be pleased, used to have picture there as well! Fair point, on the mass-deletions, I’m not really a deletionist at all anyway. I’m more of a merge and redirect kinda guy. I have to agree with Ardfern (below) if a kid finds their old/present school here, they might add to it and find another article to add too and so Wikipedia grows. It's how I started and I am sure there are many more like me. Keithology Talk! 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- And I think that very long signatures are bad for easy editing, but I don't complain about them ;-) Seriously, I don't understand the problem with mass nominations, as long as the articles are more or less comparable. Do you think there was anything wrong with e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Willy Peter's Madhouse, and would you propose that I had made twenty different nominations (no wait, that's still a mass nomination: I should have made 20 consecutive AfD's over twenty weeks, I suppose)? Mass nominations are a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with comparable articles with comparable delete and keep arguments. Fram 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all based on precedent for schools. No real policy reason is given. Its not enough to name a policy page (like WP:NOT), but one must explain how it applies. As shown above, nothing in the articles goes against that (or any other) policy. This is no more a directory, than would be euqally tiny stubs on equally small townships. --Rob 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Reply to earlier comments ::In the context of these articles, the concept of stubs seems to have been dismissed or forgotten by Fram and Pan Dan. I added the articles (specifically as stubs) to encourage other users (educationalists and professionals, not just school kids) to start to contribute and enter more information, particularly where I haven't been able to find a mass of starting information. Schools are a very good starting point to drive up interest in WP (surely one of the goals??) I thought WP was meant to be a collaborative effort and not about only adding fully and finally researched and completed articles - hence stubs - of which there is a vast volume in WP (and rightly so). Myself and other contributors will add more to the articles in time in the way that WP is supposed to be built up. Could we please be allowed to get on with important work for WP in Northern Ireland and draw this to a close. Ardfern 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply: No, I have not dismùissed or forgotten the concept of stubs. I refer here to the WP:DP, which talks about stubs (with potential), which should get expanded, not deleted. I considered these stubs as stubs without potential: you can write more about them (and it may be verifiable and sourced), but in my opinion, it would still be an example of indiscriminate, unimportant information. I come back to my bakery example: you can write a stub about a bakery, and probably someone can come along and write something more, with info out a local newspaper, a food inspection report, ... This would still be a perfect object for deletion via AfD, as the consensus (WP:CORP) is that these are not important enough to list. The problem is that no guideline on schools has been agreed on, so that we have to rely on our feeling of what is and what isn't notable enough. Being a stub that may be expandable is not an argument against deletion per se: if the expansion would not make the stub any more notable, then it would still be fit for deletion, unless you feel that all schools are per se notable. The arguments about them being stubs is a non-issue. Either they are stubs, in wich case I can't delete them because they will be expanded, or they are full articles, in which case I can't delete them because they contain lots of info and work. This is of course false: the real choice is that either they are about notable subjects (keep), or they are about non-notable subjects (delete). While for some of the articles more info has been added after the AfD started (which is good), none of them has made the school any more notable. Fram 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Above the case was made on the basis these articles violated the deletion policy by containing only "directory information". Now you are saying they contain only "non-notable" information because any information about a non-notable school is inherently non-notable. This is now an argument based on assertion and not any kind of policy. Kappa 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply: No, I have not dismùissed or forgotten the concept of stubs. I refer here to the WP:DP, which talks about stubs (with potential), which should get expanded, not deleted. I considered these stubs as stubs without potential: you can write more about them (and it may be verifiable and sourced), but in my opinion, it would still be an example of indiscriminate, unimportant information. I come back to my bakery example: you can write a stub about a bakery, and probably someone can come along and write something more, with info out a local newspaper, a food inspection report, ... This would still be a perfect object for deletion via AfD, as the consensus (WP:CORP) is that these are not important enough to list. The problem is that no guideline on schools has been agreed on, so that we have to rely on our feeling of what is and what isn't notable enough. Being a stub that may be expandable is not an argument against deletion per se: if the expansion would not make the stub any more notable, then it would still be fit for deletion, unless you feel that all schools are per se notable. The arguments about them being stubs is a non-issue. Either they are stubs, in wich case I can't delete them because they will be expanded, or they are full articles, in which case I can't delete them because they contain lots of info and work. This is of course false: the real choice is that either they are about notable subjects (keep), or they are about non-notable subjects (delete). While for some of the articles more info has been added after the AfD started (which is good), none of them has made the school any more notable. Fram 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to earlier comments ::In the context of these articles, the concept of stubs seems to have been dismissed or forgotten by Fram and Pan Dan. I added the articles (specifically as stubs) to encourage other users (educationalists and professionals, not just school kids) to start to contribute and enter more information, particularly where I haven't been able to find a mass of starting information. Schools are a very good starting point to drive up interest in WP (surely one of the goals??) I thought WP was meant to be a collaborative effort and not about only adding fully and finally researched and completed articles - hence stubs - of which there is a vast volume in WP (and rightly so). Myself and other contributors will add more to the articles in time in the way that WP is supposed to be built up. Could we please be allowed to get on with important work for WP in Northern Ireland and draw this to a close. Ardfern 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- keep all of these please per precedent they are notable verifiable and important to their communities too Yuckfoo 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Excuse me? There is no magic precedent about keeping primary schools. In fact, none of your comment has any relevancy to the matter at hand. There is no evidence that any of these are in any way "important" to their communities and even if they were, so are a lot of little restaurants and hardware stores. We don't have articles on those. JoshuaZ 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Reply to Fram - Your references to both WP:DP and WP:CORP earlier are entirely spurious and indeed unreferenced from both areas. A reading of WP:DP shows that it makes no reference to "stubs (with potential)" or otherwise, and Primary schools articles have lots of potential if you choose to see it. WP:CORP makes no mention at all that "the consensus is that these are not important enough to list". Both statements are entirely unsourced and seem to be merely one person's opinion. I would be happy to see the quoted references. Comparing bakeries to Primary schools is also illogical and spurious, how can educational establishments not be notable. Obviously Wikipedians in Australia and Hong Kong didn't find primary schools non-notable and set a valid and important precedent - you will have an interesting time suggesting deletion of all those articles (which of course would be consistent with your view). You also didn't answer my question posed so long ago about whether porn stars are more notable than Primary schools - yet WP is stuffed full of porn star articles. Let's get rid of them. What about all those airline stub articles for airlines with one plane - let's get rid of them, or what about comics, why are they more notable. This sort of argument is the road to making this an entirely non-encyclopedic encyclopedia. Ardfern 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment Slippery slope is a fallacy, and yes contrary to your above comment if one does judge them by WP:COR they wouldn't make it and many users would be in favor of getting rid of porn-cruft and comic-cruft. As to your comment about Australia and Hong Kong, could you expand on what you mean there? JoshuaZ 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Reply to JoshuaZ. Could you please quote the relevant part from WP:CORP to which you are referring - your point is again an unsubstantiated opinion. The references to Australia and Hong Kong were, I thought, pretty self-evident - both countries have many lists and articles referring to Primary schools, which they clearly see as notable - hence the precedent. See: Primary schools in Hong Kong, List of primary schools in Hong Kong, List of schools in Tasmania etc, Also: Schools in Belize, Primary schools in Singapore, Elementary schools in the United States. I think I rest my case, unless all of us in all those countries are misguided. Can I get on with the job now?? Please. Ardfern 22:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Reply to "reply to user Fram", a few posts above: in the "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed" of WP:DP, there is an ecplicit reference to "stubs but with potential", which should not get deleted. I agree;, being a stub is not a reason for deletion per se, and contrary to what people seem to have read in my posts, I don't think I have ever used it. I have used two main arguments for deletion: some of the articles are nothing but directory articles, and all of the articles are about non notable subjects. The first is a policy, the second is a general way of looking at what should be included and what not, again in the spirit of WP:NOT, the general rule that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no notability guideline for schools, and that is a pity, but if you put your standard for inclusion higher than "all schools are notable" (which, I repeat it, is in itself a debatable and valid position), then many primary schools, for example the ones up for AfD here, would be the first to go. I hope we can all agree on that? Now, when you try to find comparable guidelines and situations, one you easily find is WP:CORP, which I used not to show that schools should be deleted (as WP:CORP does not address schools), but that the arguments used that an article should not and can not be deleted because it is sourced and verifiable are invalid. A sourced and verifiable band, corporation, person, game, ... can all be deleted if they fail to reach the minimum standard for notability. Since there is no fixed minimum standard for schools, it is up to us, every AfD again, to decide individually what our standard is, and it is the right of the defenders of the articles to give as much information and sources as possible to make the articles pass the standards of more people. I hope that still everyone agrees? Now, the debate is about what your individual standard is, and if any of the articlss have given any info that would make them acceptable to more people than just those who think that all schools are notable. For me, none of the articls have done that, and as my standard is that a school is not notable for being a school, they all should be deleted. Fram 07:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment Some of those schools in those categories look like they should be AfDed also while others actually have minimal claims of notability (and no, no matter how many times the claim is made, existence is not grounds for notability by itself). As to WP:CORP - the point is that if we did use that standard they wouldn't meet it (simply go through the list of criteria there). JoshuaZ 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Merge into articles about corresponding villages/towns. If high schools are notable then so are primary schools in my opinion. Just because the kids are younger and take fewer drugs shouldn't affect that criterion. However, I don't think that means there should be atomic articles for each primary school. Much more useful to have the primary school discussed in the context of it's village and general population IN the article about the village/town. Support redirects to the village articles from these. — Donama 00:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is a reasonable solution. JoshuaZ 00:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. You know, I have read, somewhere in Wikipedia space, how the encyclopedia is not limited on space. I suspect that many rules (regarding WP:NOT etc) were written at a time when space was a premium. Wikipedia has existed for a good number of years now (I remember when it was text-only), and start at a time when hard drive space was comparitively small and costly. Today one can buy a gigabyte of storage space on a handy USB keyring device quite cheaply. Hard drives cost less than 50p (Sterling) per Gigabyte. More importantly though, the size of hard discs is increasing almost exponentially. The first hard drive I bought was 20 Mb. My current memory is 50 times bigger! The current average hard drive storage space is over 4,000 times bigger. The current article about Abercorn Primary School looks to me to be about 1 kb. Two hundred of similar such articles would therefore take up 200k - less than 0.00025% of the average currently sold hard disc.. in total.
I personally don't see the reason why Wikipedia cannot be an encyclopedia on everything: we are not confined by shelving space, portability or storage space.
There are plenty of articles that exist already which are arguably less 'notable' than primary schools in a given region of the world. If an editor wishes to start an article on Navel lint, I don't see why this should be prevented. In fact that particular article's existance could be defended as being 'notable' as most people of the Western World have been 'victim' to it! In summary, at the minute, I feel like we have plenty to be getting on with, and we don't appear to be running out of space in the forseeable future. The rules, which I assume were written some time ago now, are possibly out-dated (in relation to the reasons for their creation). --Mal 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Naw, WP:NOT (as with the rest) are basically This is an encyclopaedia. For other uses, please go somewhere - which is a perfectly reasonable statement. That's basically all WP:NOT says. That some editors insist that this is a directory entry (which any closing Admin can verify is false) is a seperate issue. Don't let people misusing policies lead you to make judgements on the policies. WilyD 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all. Schools are institutional and a school might affect thousands of people every day in a year. It constitutes the collective memory from generation to generation. Unlike shops, companies or houses, schools are heavily regulated by government authority with special regulation. It is difficult to establish a regular school comparing to bakery.
The very first line of WP:NOT is "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". It can accept those topics not in paper wikipedia. While iterating through the arguments, "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" are repeatedly used but I cannot find anything relevant to the details of two clauses.
Can anyone clearly point out what it exactly violates?
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
- Lists of Frequently Asked Questions.
- Travel guides
- Memorials
- Instruction manuals
- Internet guides
- Textbooks and annotated texts
- Plot summaries
- Wikipedia is not a directory
- Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics
- Genealogical entries or phonebook entries
- Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business
Someone says that it violates the last statement. But, it doesn't. It does not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, etc.
— HenryLi (Talk) 16:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- You're correct. The claim (repeated more than once) that this is a directory entry is flat-out wrong. WilyD 17:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Repeating your denial doesn't make it anymore true. I have given this example article many times without getting a reply: in what way is Iveagh Primary School not a directory entry? For crying out loud, the only sources are two directories... Fram 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I had been looking mostly at Abercorn, which is obviously not a directory entry. Admittedly, Iveagh is a pretty poor article - but the "sources are only two directories" is a really weak argument. Apart from which, none of the implications of WP:NOT seem to indicate it is a directory or directory entry anyways, as opposed to a stub. At some level they may look similar, but they're really not quite the same. WilyD 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Repeating your denial doesn't make it anymore true. I have given this example article many times without getting a reply: in what way is Iveagh Primary School not a directory entry? For crying out loud, the only sources are two directories... Fram 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- In the article Iveagh Primary School, it does not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, etc. as stated in the WP:NOT. It is not a directory at all. Its reference is a directory does not mean the article is a directory, but verifiable. — HenryLi (Talk) 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. It contains more information than would be able to described with a generic description of a school - hence, it will be valuable for posterity, keep. John Riemann Soong 17:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to Fram again. I notice you completely ignored my reference above to the primary school articles in many other countries which set the precedent for these articles. Delete these articles and these others surely have to go too - hardly acceptable or sensible. As an experienced Wiki-contributor I researched this before I started on primary schools articles for Northern Ireland. Perhaps some similar research on the part of others would have prevented this whole argument. I reiterate they are stubs and will be further developed. They are all linked to the towns/villages they refer to, but as these often have multiple schools merging the articles would not seem sensible. Ardfern 18:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Please note that contributors have begun to expand some of the "offending" NI primary school articles already - hence proving the value of adding stubs in the first place and confirming the collaborative nature of our efforts to be encyclopedic. Ardfern 18:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)Can you point me to all those articles on primary schools that have survived an AfD? I'll help you and give articles that don't have subarticles for every primary school, like Beaverton School District. In fact, none of the articles in Category:School districts in Oregon have links to articles about elementary schools (and hardly any middle schools): only high schools get articles. One other random example? Category:School districts in Indiana: many high schools linked, a few middle schools, not one elementary school. There are of course articles about primary schools (sadly), just like there are many, many other articles that have no place on an encyclopedia. I already get nasty remarks about nominating twelve related ones at once, so you can hardly expect me to nominate them all at once... But there aren't that many as you may think: 17 for the whole of Australia (Category:Primary schools in Australia), or 1 for Lancastershire (Category:Primary schools in Lancashire). There is also 1 in Cork (Category:Primary schools in Cork), which if kept is in need of a serious rewrite (even more than many other school articles is this just an advertisement, not an encyclopedic article at all). The content of many of these articles is depressing from an encyclopedic view (Millfields Primary School, Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Suria, Mearns Primary School (yeah, you can go shopping at lunchtime...)). In the few instances that many articles are created (Category:Primary Schools in Buckinghamshire), they have been left as stubs for almost a year now, with virtually interchangeable contents. Or can you tell the difference between Grendon Underwood Combined School, Steeple Claydon School, Whaddon Church of England School, and Long Crendon School. It's the proliferation of those non-articles (who by the way do not show any sign of being "vandal magnets", as was said above as a reason for keeping (in some twisted way)) that I want to stop. They are uninteresting, interchangeable stubs because they are uninteresting, interchangeable schools. Just like the twelve schools up for deletion here... Fram 19:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to myself. I got a bit carried away, I hope I don't come across to harsh or aggressive here. If any of my comments were offensive, just drop me a note and I'll remove them. I don't want to turn this discussion into a battle, but I suppose most of you know the feeling of frustration when your arguments don't sway your opponents, and you just can't understand how they can have a different opinion on something so simple (well, obviously it isn't simple). I'll step back a bit now and let the discussion finish... Fram 19:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)Can you point me to all those articles on primary schools that have survived an AfD? I'll help you and give articles that don't have subarticles for every primary school, like Beaverton School District. In fact, none of the articles in Category:School districts in Oregon have links to articles about elementary schools (and hardly any middle schools): only high schools get articles. One other random example? Category:School districts in Indiana: many high schools linked, a few middle schools, not one elementary school. There are of course articles about primary schools (sadly), just like there are many, many other articles that have no place on an encyclopedia. I already get nasty remarks about nominating twelve related ones at once, so you can hardly expect me to nominate them all at once... But there aren't that many as you may think: 17 for the whole of Australia (Category:Primary schools in Australia), or 1 for Lancastershire (Category:Primary schools in Lancashire). There is also 1 in Cork (Category:Primary schools in Cork), which if kept is in need of a serious rewrite (even more than many other school articles is this just an advertisement, not an encyclopedic article at all). The content of many of these articles is depressing from an encyclopedic view (Millfields Primary School, Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Suria, Mearns Primary School (yeah, you can go shopping at lunchtime...)). In the few instances that many articles are created (Category:Primary Schools in Buckinghamshire), they have been left as stubs for almost a year now, with virtually interchangeable contents. Or can you tell the difference between Grendon Underwood Combined School, Steeple Claydon School, Whaddon Church of England School, and Long Crendon School. It's the proliferation of those non-articles (who by the way do not show any sign of being "vandal magnets", as was said above as a reason for keeping (in some twisted way)) that I want to stop. They are uninteresting, interchangeable stubs because they are uninteresting, interchangeable schools. Just like the twelve schools up for deletion here... Fram 19:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please note that contributors have begun to expand some of the "offending" NI primary school articles already - hence proving the value of adding stubs in the first place and confirming the collaborative nature of our efforts to be encyclopedic. Ardfern 18:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all, because schools are notable, atleast locally. bbx 18:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment and so are restaurants and hardware stores and small town parks and lots of other things. Local notability does not imply notability. JoshuaZ 19:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "Uninteresting, interchangeable schools" - nice - people in Northern Ireland and in those communities would be so delighted to hear this, just as much as this author is delighted to hear it and authors in USA, Singapore etc etc etc will be delighted to hear it. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I do have a problem when it is hampering work many of us feel is important however. As a result the frustration of Fram is, of course, nothing compared to my own. I prefer writing articles and building the encyclopedia rather than Wiki-navel gazing. This has taken up so much time and life is too short .... I agree with Fram, let the discussion finish and let us get on with the work. Ardfern 20:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Notability itself is not a policy (WP:N) because it is too hard to draw a line. Neither do WP:Schools. It is a trap to compare a school other things. Its nature is simply different. Another can compare it with the states and counties in the United States. You might never know what Valley County, Nebraska is. Why keep the county article if it is only locally notable? Gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid is only notable to a small community. Why keep the article? — HenryLi (Talk) 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 16:07, 12 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, since the content is already in Wikibooks. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] B-52 (cocktail)
Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, no references. Prod removed by an anon. Even if a reliable source could be provided for its recipe, a recipe alone isn't encyclopedic. Quale 09:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. However, this is a real cocktail so it merits being a redirect the main Cocktail page as B-52 cocktail without the parenthesis and maybe a mention on List of cocktails but it really is a minor variety. No prejudice for later recreation for a non-recipe article with some history and sources. 205.157.110.11 09:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to the Wikibooks Cookbook. A cursory Google search provided ample reliable sources for the recipe. - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per 205.157.110.11. Already exists in Wikibooks Bartending - Yomanganitalk 13:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per 205.157.110.11. - Qball6 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Actually I think this cocktail is notable (at least where I come from). Google returns several reliable sources for its recipe. I don't see any real reason for deletion just because a majority doesn't know it. Sloan21 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not a cookbook. No evidence of notability. Mukadderat 00:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- keep please it is a notable cocktail 234,000 googl hits [19] source is the classic 1000 cocktail recipes by robert cross Yuckfoo 07:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment that the cocktail is found in a recipe book is a poor argument for keeping the article, and the fact that the recipe book contains 1000 recipes makes it even worse. That's an argument for adding 1000 or more cocktail recipes to wikipedia, and I think that's simply a bad idea. Wikipedia in general has rejected the idea that every recipe deserves an article. Quale 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this cocktail was/is very popular in Scandinavia. I could imagine myself looking it up on Wikipedia. So lets keep it. bbx 06:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to the wikibooks bartending guide. ALKIVAR™ 18:56, 17 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 after discounting IP addresses and single-purpose accounts which failed to explain how the supposed notability of this term is verifiable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Leg! Fashion
|
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}} |
Prodded as an advertisement, tag removed by anon IP without explanation so bringing it here as per policy. Company appears to be relatively new, no opinon from me. DrunkenSmurf 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete, I agree, the word itself is becoming increasingly popular - i have heard it from complete srangers personally - so i think this 'cult' is certainly worthy of a page Fillup 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC) -- note: this is the creator of the article DrunkenSmurf 14:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete, Company does not seem to be selling anything, more of a slang term becoming popular in New Zealand. Stunt sausage 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC) note: users only edits are to this AfD -- DrunkenSmurf 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-- note: I have only recently started wiki, have made several edits since then Stunt sausage 11:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as spam. I'm sure they're nice people though. Jefffire 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not at all notable, even in the fashion industry. Akradecki 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete, Extremely popular slang term, used by the majority of Auckland University Students. heather 23:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC) note: users only edit is to this AfD -- DrunkenSmurf 13:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The company itself does not yet appear to meet the requirements of WP:CORP, and the section on "Popular usage" is completely unsourced and thus fail WP:V. --Satori Son 14:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete I came here from trademe looking for a definition of the word-i couldn't find it elsewhere so i turned to my favourite knowledgebase! Perhaps the company info should be removed, and the word itself preserved? 203.109.223.97 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete I am now using this word in everyday spoken text and the fact that other likeminded people understand it surely means that it is becoming more than just slang.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durley F.C.
- 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 19:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zadok Inc
|
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! |
A truly hideuous article about a website which offers no credible evidence of meeting WP:WEB, deleted (but not by AfD) and re-created, so strictly a contested deletion and needs AfD. Although to be honest I was tempted just to be a bit WP:ROUGE and nuke the sucker. Guy 22:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no hope of meeting WP:WEB. Valrith 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. VegaDark 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete its a good article and has good content (BTW it was orignally deleted when it had 3 words and i was typing)Evilflip 00:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilflip (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 September 2006
- Delete per nom. Unless they agree to make me a mod on their forums, in which case, expand. My Alt Account 06:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it's a bad article and has no content. Danny Lilithborne 00:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete It's up for improvement, i say he has the room to improve it under the sole pretenses that no one else will want the section Zadok Inc, and therefore gives him the right to it until a more popular candidate requests it. Soda-Sama 18:43, 10 September 2006 (CST)
-
- Note: Previous vote was signed with an invalid user name by 68.63.39.115 (talk · contribs)
- Don't Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.218.214 (talk • contribs)
- Its an alright article, could use some TLC but just give it a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingleboy (talk • contribs)
- Don't Delete It is part of the worlds history and IT is a website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.207.140 (talk • contribs)
- Don't Delete the web sites ok and the article needs some work, but this could be a great article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.252.163 (talk • contribs)
- Don't Delete Contains suitable material and is subject to improvement. Could be great, let it live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.23.143 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 00:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Ogdred 03:23, 13 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. W. Watkins
