Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 7
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 redirect, no consensus to delete outright. I cannot merge content back into this article as of present, as it is protected due to a dispute over this very content. An editorial comprimise over what content to readd back into the article (note: the content is still in the history of South Australian general election campaign, 2006, see this), if any, should take place on the talk page of South Australian general election, 2006 and be implemented after disputes are resolved (and protection lifted). I will be protecting the redirect as it is merely a continuation of the dispute at the main election page, which is protected also. Daniel Bryant 06:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Note: I modified this close slightly after more information (mainly, the reason why the main article is protected and why this was forked initially) came to hand.
Note: this close is on deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15 for the review debate. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: DRV endorses the closure as a redirect. Xoloz 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] South Australian general election campaign, 2006
- – (View AfD)
Duplicate of large part of South Australian general election, 2006. Was created outside of consensus on 22 February only 6 weeks after the 2006 election article was made an WP:FA. The change was opposed at the project talk page. DanielT5 03:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The campaign and the election are distinct concepts. Joestella 04:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Content of feature article with *many* contributors, and without any consensus whatsoever, was moved out by User:Joestella on 22 February 2007. Such copy-paste moves create GFDL issues as they do not attribute authorship to the original authors (someone who doesn't know it was a split would attribute the content, some of which I contributed to during the FA improvement drive, to the creating user). The first such article came into existence on 6 February 2007 for an election in New South Wales, also authored by Joestella. The user has also been edit-warring on an infobox that he has created at another article, and moved all Australian election articles to new names in February 2007 against consensus - which is currently leaning to renaming them again. Orderinchaos 04:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Was approved as a Featured Article without joestella's self-imposed concepts. Timeshift 07:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as
duplicatefork.--cj | talk 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge to election article- the election campaign is important, but this was part of a featured article which should not be significantly changed without the consensus of those who edited it. JRG 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)- Note that the content has already been restored to the parent article in full before this AfD was raised - it's a different issue to the WA one. Orderinchaos 03:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok - Strong Delete and Redirect to election article then. JRG 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, as an election and the campaign are distinct events, as well as a hearty non-binding directive to DanielT5 and Joestella to grow up. Lankiveil 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
Delete there seems little value in keeping a partial fork of an FA. --Scott Davis Talk 10:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)- No opinion pending the resolution of discussion in the main article. --Scott Davis Talk 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep if vic and nsw can have campaign articles, so can wa and sa imho. just because an article is fa one time doesn't make it perfect & unchangeable ChampagneComedy 20:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- The changes did nothing to improve the article (actually quite the reverse) and actually caused a potential GFDL copyright issue. By restoring it to its home article, people can see clearly who wrote which bits that got it to featured status to begin with. The way it was done made it look as if Joestella was the sole author of all of the content. Orderinchaos 20:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- This objection could be used to stop any splitting of overlong articles, so I would hope people can see past it. Joestella 11:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- A substantial rewrite of South Australian general election campaign, 2006 is now under discussion, with the breakup of the article a key component of this. Given this discussion, a decision on the deletion of the campaign article would be premature. [8] Joestella 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- The "substantial rewrite" is once again a creation of Joestella and has been attempted without consensus, in an attempt to disrupt this AfD. Joestella's first ever edit to this previously stable page was at 10:56 UTC and was uncontroversial. His third blanked most of the article (which I might note has featured status in its present form), then completely rewrote it. A warning has been placed on his talk page. Orderinchaos 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Users concerned that my rewrite of the SA election article was in less than good faith should read the relevant talk page to see the list of concerns it addresses. Silly turns of phrase like "once again a creation of Joestella" don't move anything forward. My suggestion is judge my changes on their merits, not mine. Joestella 17:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a duplicate fork per CJ. Sarah 07:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the original content was poorly-written and heavily pov. i have made an attempt at improving it. users who want this page deleted should look again. that campaign articles are sometimes warrented is not disputed (see nsw/vic)... that the SA election 06 article needs to be rewritten (maybe split) is not disputed either (see its talk page)... i think a lot of these vots for deletion above are personally motivated in nature. ChampagneComedy 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's still not good enough - why is the entire page now dominated by that "Rann gets results" poster - the older picture had examples of several types of poster (and was a free image, as opposed to a fair use image), for example? And the writing still isn't good. This never needed to be split from the original article. Let's just merge them together, as appears to be the consensus here, so this stupid edit war can cease. JRG 00:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- The changes should be made to the Campaign section of the main article, rather than to the fork article, so that the changes can be appropriately tracked with regards to the largest part of the article. I would have *no* objection, despite my current content objections to the proposed changes, for this article as recently altered (11-12 March) to be pasted over the relevant section in the parent article by the closing admin or another neutral person (it wouldn't be a cut and paste move strictly speaking as the original content originated from here and most of the changes have been by one user - above - who can be appropriately credited), and we can sort out by consensus what happens with it thereafter. This would restore the balance to what it should have been - that the article that should be changed, gets the changes. As JRG said, the current situation is getting ridiculous, and we need to look for small/trivial parts of this where we don't essentially disagree that we can actually get moving, to shrink the size of the potential battleground and limit it to *real* issues, like any point of view or other issues. Orderinchaos 05:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC) - Note that this is now severely tempered by the removal of 36 references, which were nearly all checked individually at FA stage, from the article. I request that this article be userfied or subpaged rather than merged at this stage. Orderinchaos 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- This page now contains substantially different (and I think better) content than the section in South Australian general election, 2006 that it's intended to replace. Deletion would seem to be an inappropriate even for those who oppose the election/campaign article split. Joestella 08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hence my proposed solution above, which would completely accommodate the content of this page (in fact replacing what is there under the main article in the relevant section), while acknowledging the substantial majority wish that these two related topics belong under one article, and allowing for consensus to direct where to proceed from that point. Note that editing on this page only commenced *after* consensus had established the page was redundant as a duplicate/fork of the original, so the edits in question since 11 March should have been made on the main page in appreciation of this. Orderinchaos 10:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting to note that this article keeps getting better while its parent is locked from editing. I note that the FA process failed to detect that most of the references in this piece were partisan, did not refer to events mentioned in the text, or refer to events long before or after the election. Of course, it's got a little way to go yet (an edit to remove/reduce my own POV would be appreciated) but it's much better now. Joestella 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reducing the number of references from 53 to 17 is *not* a good outcome. The "Background" section is now almost completely unreferenced. Large sections of content have been removed which were indeed relevant to the 2006 campaign, despite one person's opinion to the contrary. Nearly all of the previous references were from reliable sources - most were from mainstream media sources, including SA's state newspaper, The Australian and the ABC. Verifiability is a *core policy* of Wikipedia. Please put them back, and stop being disruptive with this. Orderinchaos 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting to note that this article keeps getting better while its parent is locked from editing. I note that the FA process failed to detect that most of the references in this piece were partisan, did not refer to events mentioned in the text, or refer to events long before or after the election. Of course, it's got a little way to go yet (an edit to remove/reduce my own POV would be appreciated) but it's much better now. Joestella 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hence my proposed solution above, which would completely accommodate the content of this page (in fact replacing what is there under the main article in the relevant section), while acknowledging the substantial majority wish that these two related topics belong under one article, and allowing for consensus to direct where to proceed from that point. Note that editing on this page only commenced *after* consensus had established the page was redundant as a duplicate/fork of the original, so the edits in question since 11 March should have been made on the main page in appreciation of this. Orderinchaos 10:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- This page now contains substantially different (and I think better) content than the section in South Australian general election, 2006 that it's intended to replace. Deletion would seem to be an inappropriate even for those who oppose the election/campaign article split. Joestella 08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Strong Delete Per my own nom, CJ and Sarah and also noting that the changes since 11 April to this article have reduced it to an inferior version of what is already at SA General, and have made it effectively the property of a disruptive user who seems bent on "winning" some lame dispute instead of improving the encyclopaedia. Case of WP:POINT in action if I ever saw one. DanielT5 04:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Since Daniel's nomination, the page has changed virtually 100% [9]. That users Timeshift, ChampagneComedy and I have made extensive changes since I created the article does not make it my property – it is not as though I have been reverting changes to it. I spent many hours actually reading the sources and found that some were actually ALP policy announcements, and that many of those from mainstream media sources referred to events long before or after the campaign. That the reflist has fallen so precipitously is neither here nor there; what matters is that the references now included are relevant and non-partisan.
- While DanielT5 is very good at linking to Wikipedia guidelines, he seems to have overlooked WP:Assume good faith - since when has hours of research and writing by multiple users been anything but improving the encyclopaedia? Joestella 06:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- ffs now you're editing "strong delete" votes to make them "comment" - what next?!?! And telling *me* to assume good faith. I had not actually voted, although it was fair to assume my nom was a delete vote, but I did clearly say "Per my own nom" at the beginning of my vote so it was clear to anyone reading. DanielT5 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note that all of Timeshift's mods were *before* the nomination, and he had integrated all of his changes at the main page. It's also worth noting that he agreed on this page that this article is in fact a duplicate and voted for its deletion, edits starting four days after the Afd commenced by previously uninvolved editors who had already made their minority viewpoint clear on this page notwithstanding. I agree with Daniel that two sections which are still there now are hideously under-referenced as a result of these changes. Orderinchaos 06:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, Joe, I'm with DanielT5 on the quality of the content. The original article is far more detailed and comprehensive now - the issues section especially - the Adelaide Tram extension and Port River Expressway issues, for example, were left out of the issues section on the newer article, whereas they are covered on the original article; the law and order part of the issues segment is much better covered as well; and the pictures that added to the article three days ago were removed for some reason. There are also a lot more references in the original article. Yes, the original article could do with some changes (which Joe's input would help), but the changes in the Campaign fork have been regressive to say the least, and there's no way that a separate article is warranted. I still think a merge of the two articles is the best outcome. JRG 10:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The Adelaide tram extension was approved the previous year, the primary source is the government itself. I could find no reference in the linked sources to the Liberals mentioning it on the campaign trail. The Port Expressway proposal has no source attached to it. Believe me, all the old content that is backed up with sources I kept – there's just not much of it. On Law & Order, the Liberal policy on speed limits isn't sourced, and the stuff about drugs dates from long before and after the election. The only accurate, sourced and relevant information on the subject is "Law and order was another key issue, with Labor promising extra police," but this ignores the opposition's similar promise. I'm not saying this is deliberate POV - it's just poor research. Joestella 11:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why does it need to be sourced back to the Liberal Party (a partisan organisation)? Strange call to make considering you are complaining about POV (accidental or otherwise). If something is approved before and built after an election, it makes logical sense that it will impact on the election in a number of seats which either benefit from or are affected by it. Orderinchaos 11:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and merge content into the main article. The writing in this one is better than the equivalent section in the main piece but there's no need for a separate page on the campaign. Euryalus 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and merge Per cj and sarah. While it may be argued the election and the campaign are seperate, they run at the same time and are closely related to each other (One does not happen without the other). It's simply pointless to have another article documenting something which is related to the core subject. Personally, this AfD has gone on far too long now and should have been resolved days ago. It's only because of people pursuing their own views of issues they are invested in, that one or more users have potentially acting like meatpuppets and changing the comments of others that this has been allowed to continue for as long as it has. Thewinchester (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and merge as above. One of the articles needs to be the feeder, and the other the receiver. The original article which is a feature article I believe should be the receiver. This will be an arduous task, and I believe it was silly to set of and write an entirely new version in the first place. Much more could have been achieved through gradual change.
If there is a silver lining here, its that hopefully these issues can be thrashed out before the Federal election later this year. Recurring dreams 11:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All has been said above already (sometimes civilly and sometimes less so - including, I note, some interesting adjustments to an other editor's vote! what the?)--VS talk 11:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this sort of article is not uncommon. --Duke of Duchess Street 17:36, 14 April 2007 (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. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BAO Team (2nd nomination)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Article about a Filipino hacking group. While the first nomination ended in a withdrawn nomination, I have doubts this group actually meets the notability requirements WP:ORG. Of the articles, only two are from reliable sources, Time-Asia, and those happen to focus on a person that just so happens to be a member of this group, rather than about the group itself. Thus, the article still lacks reliable sources, failing WP:ATT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete just two words: vandalism and pointless DCUnitedFan2011 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hacking again? This is already nominated by one of the administrators as a Start-class article, what's the difference of this article with Razor 1911, Fairlight(group) and Kalisto, these group are all unverifiable. neochaosX please check the other links that are related with this group. Yunaffx 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment They are not aware of fan translation or warez groups, groups like these are legible for wikipedia. This is already the 3rd nomination, the 2nd one realized that everything was appropriate. Wikipedia must form localize groups in every country to verify such claims. DCunitedfan, please search for other hacking and warez groups here in Wiki, so you can see other 'pointless' stuffs. For NeochaosX, please read all the links related with this article. Can you please point out the sections that you think inappropriate. btw this article is nominated for start-class by an administrator that written/edits about 100,000 articles, he's better than us, regulars.
read the details carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BAO_Team
like this one...
- zephyr2k admits that she is "tey" and she's a chatter before with the hackers and carders in IRC. JL99 08:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Guys, read my nomination again. I'm saying this group doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines because there's no non-trivial (read: more than just a single mention in an aritcle about someone) coverage of the group in reliable sources. If you can show to me that this group has been the subject of that kind of coverage, I'll rethink the nomination. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What is notable for you? Please check the external links again. Your notability standards may be too high than wikipedia. *Leader of the group, kamuixtv. Posted a comment regarding Edge-9. http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=177477. JL99 08:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
For your consideration. The notability is limited for reverse-engineering groups and cannot be compared with major companies.
- http://rpgd.emulationworld.com/ is a popular website dedicated for console game translation news. The romhacking method was stored here http://rpgd.emulationworld.com/rhdoc/general/x68k.html. There
is also a screenshot of EMIT, if you are not convinced enough download the rom here http://www.geocities.com/drajero/baoimage.htm Stormworld http://us.geocities.com/storm_reaver.geo/Dec1997.htm is also a translation news site in 1997.
- DNML, the official japanese site can be found here http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA015183/, developments and other projects during those times can be found here http://www.geocities.com/yunaffx2001/dnmln.htm/ in English.
- Programs/OS used and still exist like Ezjap, pic2exe and batugan that can be found/download here
http://www.geocities.com/drajero/baoimage.htm
- http://www.geocities.com/hentaihelper/ is a popular hentai game site in the 1990's. He archieved the translation of game, VG on his webpage.
- http://www.infinimana.com/rs3/docs/Credits.htm He credit Evilhero for Romancing Saga 3 see number 11. infinimana is the official site of Romancing Saga 3 Translation.
Minor details
Vincent Ternida is an employee of ABS-CBN Foreign Programs Acquisition Department from 2003 to 2006, he lead the translation of various anime shows to Tagalog. Anime is a foreign show, so the job belongs to them. The only way confirm this is by asking his friends on Friendster and his blog sometime in 2004. http://nacchisento.livejournal.com/2004/12/13/
Ernie Baron's Knowledge Power was a defunct ABS-CBN educational show, the episode regarding "carding" is available hopefully at their vidoe archieves, at this moment I'm looking for a Filipino Wikipedian that may provide an information regarding this matter.
EDIT: Edge-9 DVD copy protection is not commercially available yet. But when kamuixtv posted screenshots, the DVD community was threatened and criticized his work. He is open for demonstration at the expense of those who are interested. Afaik, Future products is also accepted here in wiki (ex. Protein-coated_disc ). Asian-Media is just the another name of BAO Team. Yunaffx 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Geez for the record, 3rd time AfD. Wait, Ezjap belongs to Software Development, still not notable enough? Dark AleX, psp hacker...another reverse-engineering article. Kamuixtv 14:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't matter what individual members have done; this is about the notability of the group here; what individual members have done do not make the group notable by association. Additionally, do you have any reliable sources to prove all of this? Personal and community websites and blogs are not reliable sources; is there any coverage of this group and its activities in major Phillipine or Asian media outlets? I'm still not seeing these sources, which means this article still fails WP:ATT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Those anime translations for ABS-CBN or Hero TV (TV station and cable TV), development of edge-9, game translation and ezjap are all GROUP work with their respective project leader. Cdfreaks is no longer a community website, it's run by Rank One. http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/DVD-Edge9-Copy-Protection.html, http://www.megalab.it/news.php?id=1105 (Italian) Yunaffx 22:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have reliable sources to prove that it's their work, then? Again, all those websites you posted are not reliable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then delete every reverse-engineering related articles here in wiki, because most of them rely on community websites like http://www.nforce.nl EDIT: Please scrutenize the ff. articles RPGe_(translation_group), DeJap_Translations, Fan_translation, ROM_hacking because most of them heavily-rely on community news-based portals. Yunaffx 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yuna, All I can say is they are the same with this article but this is not limited to romhacking or fan translation. For neochaosX: Vincent Ternida's scope of work is not only for anime. When you watch a certain Korean or Mexican drama in ABS-CBN, you can see his name in the ending credits. Can you use that as a proof of notability? JL99 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I note that the only two real references are based upon interviews with a member whom the group disowns in the article. I have removed the list of real names & the photos of the group under BLP, and some obviously copyvio pictures. I would also not be comfortable with the existing articles under real names mentioned here or in the previous AfD without evidence that the subjects wanted to be so identified. DGG 14:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- DGG, you deleted the screenshot of EMIT in Tagalog? Yunaffx 21:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strond delete, and if anyone could help it, can this please be made into a speedy delete? Notability not established even in mainstream or popular Philippine culture. Just because someone affiliated with this group is an employee of ABS-CBN does not add to the notability of the group (in other words, it's not enough). In addition, a great majority of the "references" cited are actually self-published material and cannot be verified outside of these "references". Wikipedia is not, among other things, a fan site, a hobby site or an extension of your warez group's website. This is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. --- Tito Pao 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Tito Pao. Did you read all that I posted? This article can be compared to the following articles: RPGe_(translation_group) DeJap_Translations Fan_translation ROM_hacking Dark AleX
I disagree with the term "self-published". From what I've discussed their "reliable" sources (including this article) are from their own community-based portals. Vincent Ternida and the new members, Yaoi Dudes is only a reference and can establish it's own notability when it's needed. It seems reverse-engineering articles are not welcome for you. You can freely put an AfD template on the mentioned articles. This I like to see. This article is not a warez group. try the ff. Razor 1911, Fairlight_(group) and Kalisto. Tito Pao, can you please read from the top? It seems that I re-written all the stuff that I posted. Philippine popular culture is ignorant, "denial" or skeptic when it comes to "local" hacking, that is why it is here to inform users. edit: We should ask the opinion of Jacoplane Yunaffx 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
titopao, please don't take this as a personal attack, you are no expert nor express interest on video games and anime based from your userpage. BAO team is also a video game article and nominated for start-class. There are no 'experts' here not unlike in citizendium. I have seen how you "butchered" local voice actors. It looks like you are inconsiderate and too vigilant plus your knowledge about the topic is maybe less than zero. If you ask some people from the Philippine anime community they might say positive things about the dubbers. See Laura_Bailey_(voice_actress) JL99 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yunafffx and JL99, community-based portals are considered as self-published materials just like blogs and forums ("portal" is just another word for forum, btw), so unless the WP community has changed its position, I will stand by my opinion that it's not suitable a reference on any article. I've removed blogs and forums on many artists' articles and has successfully nominated articles about, among others, a cosplayer's biography (Alodia Almira Gosengfiao), a fan site (Erik Santos Friends Online), a community choir and a couple of Cebu-based bands for this reason. Please see also my comments at the Tambayan regional portal for more on this information. And if you're having a problem with me being "inconsiderate" and "too vigilant" "butchering" other voice actors' articles, wait until you've seen other editors who are much, much more "vigilant" and "inconsiderate" than I (they are, in fact, editors who I respect highly). Anyway, this AfD is not about me and my editing abilities on Wikipedia, but on estalishing the notability of the article (please read the guidelines for more information). In the courtroom, the case is not about the witnesses and the lawyer's reputation, but the facts and evidence that counts; if the evidence is weak, the case will fall, so you'll need strong evidence to build up your case. This is how I see this and other AfDs---you'll need to justify why we should keep an article given WP's guidelines. Just because you are in the know of the group and/or are in one way or another involved with it does not give enough impetus in giving this article a "Keep"; articles on Wikipedia are made much more of other stuff, and there are guidelines for that. In the end, if the BAO team's article can't stand the criteria that were set by the WP community for groups, corporations and organizations, then this one must go. --- Tito Pao 08:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
But do you agree that this article has the same level with the articles that I presented above? The way they cite their sources are very much the same. btw correction, community-NEWS portal is very much different from blogs. community-news portals like: Cdfreaks http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/DVD-Edge9-Copy-Protection.html http://www.megalab.it/news.php?id=1105 http://www.nforce.nl - warez news http://us.geocities.com/storm_reaver.geo/Dec1997.htm - fan translation news http://rpgd.emulationworld.com/ (inactive but they have archieves) and if you read other fan trasnlation articles they always refer to EMUNews. The blog of Vincent Ternida (project leader of all anime translation of the group, Yaoi Dudes (part of BAO) for ABS-CBN/Hero) proves only that he WAS an employee of ABS-CBN. And it is only use as a reference. Yunaffx 09:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank You for your comment in WP:Tambayan but it is parallel to the article. Did you know the Philippines belongs to the top credit card frauders in the world? In 1999 to early 2000's, major online stores like Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Yahoo Acutions, Ebay and a lot more blacklisted the Philippines. If you have a credit card try to online shop now :) That is why the Time-Asia article is cited along the names Alvin Veroy (already deleted) Aka eyestrain, Mark Cacho aka Maku-kurei who even tried to delete his name on this article using his very own WP nick kurenai jiku or in short kurei from the anime flame of recca (I think he's trying to be a comedian by doing that stupid act.), badsektor and of course, Evilhero. See. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BAO_Team Yunaffx 09:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Although a portal is not a blog, it may still be considered as self-published material because anyone can sign up for an account and post content (assuming that the portal's admins provided enough privileges to its users) which, at its very basic, can be verified only by the poster unless proven otherwise. I can sign up on the CDFreaks.com site and post my own article and use this as "reference" on WP---and this is exactly the kind of situation that is frowned upon on WP. (I won't go over with the rest of the sites you mentioned for the same reason.)
- The community has held for quite some time that "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable", and since the BAO Team appears to be something that a group of classmates made up (but apparently carried on with after school), this puts the burden on you and other interested editors in establishing that this article is about something that many (if not all) readers from the Philippines and elsewhere would want to look up in an encyclopedia, something that a serious journalist would write about for a full-featured article (and not just a mere mention---don't get me started with the Time magazine interview again because they do make mention of other people and place names, not all of them notable...do you think if someone wrote a Letter to the Editor and it get published, the writer becomes instantly "notable"?). This article needs more reliable sources (see this page for examples).
- I tried looking up for "BAO Team" on various search engines and newspaper archives and have failed to find other independent sources that would verify what's written on the article (most of the hits turn up to be Chinese corporations). This is why, as you've mentioned, the Alvin Veroy article was deleted. Convince me why this one shouldn't be.
- And, no, I don't have a credit card because I hate borrowing from other people or buying from credit. I don't trust hackers because I think like one, although it's not like what people would normally think (I didn't say I am one). --- Tito Pao 13:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Cdfreaks doesn't work that way, you can cite something and they will be the one (cdfrekas editors) to write the news. Megalabs is also a news site. You didn't answer my question regarding the similarity with other fan translation articles. I found out that some console emulator articles refers similarity with this article Zsnes, PSX_emulator, French-Bread (DNML-like), most of them rely on emulation/fan translation or doujin-soft communities. Yunaffx 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- "you can cite something and they will be the one (cdfrekas editors) to write the news." That exactly is why I consider it as self-published. How transparent is this website's editorial and content moderation policies? This site is referenced only on other blogs, portals, forums and blog/RSS aggregator sites, but no significant mention of this website appears on other, more established organizations, academic institutions or news agencies. And this discussion is about the BAO team, not the other sites. Besides, the Zsnes and PSX_emulator articles are about open source projects, not about a group of classmates who decided to form their own hacking team. --- Tito Pao 04:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and salt, orgs such as these are nonnotable by default unless they wreck havoc ILOVEYOU style. --Howard the Duck 16:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
tito pao, I'm convinced that Razor 1911 and Fairlight_(group)'s history was a WP:MADEUP. Who the heck is Doctorno and Sector9 anyway. btw the your definition of "notable" is very massive, what if it's only limited in Asia or the Philipppines. Open-source? DNML is also an open-source, you can edit the games that created by others. CDfreaks only covers Edge-9. At first they maybe a group of classmates but later formed as a internet group that is why there's a hacking, translation and DNML sub-groups. Howard the Duck, enough of the flaws read the FACTS. I thought AfD last only for 5 days? Yunaffx 22:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact is this is unnotable, even in the Philippines (I reside in the Philippines my whole life, FYI). If this makes it to the mainstream newspapers then this'll have half a chance. As for AFD, since there is a lengthly discussion about the matter, it also means there'll be a lenghtly time before this is settled, not to mention the backlog of admins around here... --Howard the Duck 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Howard makes a good point in the BAO Team needing a reference on a newspaper to bolster the notability claim, so I won't add anything to that. With regard to other teams, this AfD discussion is about the BAO Team, so I prefer to limit my discussion on this article alone. If you feel that Razor 1911 and Fairlight_(group) should also have been nominated for an AfD, then do so. Or better yet, I will nominate them myself once this AfD discussion has been decided upon by an admin. With regard to the 5-day period, this Afd was relisted (in case you've missed the fine print, it says "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached") because the admin who worked on the previous nomination thought that there was not enough votes and comments to merit a consensus. This is not the only time that it happened on Wikipedia (to the best of my knowledge, it's the 4th time I've seen this in an AfD that I participated in), and it will likely happen again in the future if no consensus can be reached. --- Tito Pao 12:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The article reads like an Uncyclopedia article, complete with gratuitous Photoshopped clip art and penis jokes. Uncyclopedia is thataway. → If there's information on a Filipino cracking group hiding in there somewhere, it's news to me. --Quuxplusone 08:04, 13 April 2007 (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. WjBscribe 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unforgivable Trilogy
- – (View AfD)
|
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}} |
- Delete. Appears to be a film made for Youtube earlier on this year. 2 million hits....no trouble for something vaguely interesting. But is it encyclopedic? I'm inclined to think not. -Splash - tk 22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's unencyclopedic and bordering blatant advertising. Oh and Splash, which template is it that you hate? AfD? If so, yeah using it is a pain, huh? -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 22:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- The stupid {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} that isn't actually useful for anything and adds junk to a) the nomination process, b) the nomination and c) the closure process. Splash - tk 23:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Blatant advertising? Hodge-Stansson has yet to make any money. I don't work for Hodge-Stansson, nobody does. They're aspiring filmmakers who have garnered a lot of attention in varying youth communities. There's been numerous requests for some sort of wikipedia article on Hodge-Stansson and especially the acclaimed Unforgivable Trilogy. Two million hits is not common for any video that is 'vaguely interesting,' that's ludicrous. Can you cut the elitist bullshit and at least give me a chance to flesh out the page with some third-party critical sources, newspaper articles, etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
- Comment. You've already been given time. Splash was good enough to make this an AfD instead of a speedy delete. So in theory you have until this discussion reaches a consensus. AfD's take a little time usually, so you should have enough time to improve the article if possible. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 23:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable movie. ArchStanton 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Briefly, what constitutes a notable movie? Will the release of the DVD appease you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
- I'm trying to get the rights to a State University of New York article printed on the forthcoming DVD release. Will this help? I'm new to Wikipedia, I'm just trying to legitamize this article. You guys don't seem to realize how many people want to read this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
- Why would you delete it? It obviously impacts a large number of people and they can relate to the artistic apeals and interests of the artists herein. The deletion of this page is unnecessary seeing as it provides information on artists that provide entertainment and inspiration for millions, it is clear they are on the verge of something meaningful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.243.148 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - no references to establish notability. -- Whpq 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete along with Hodge-Stansson Productions -- There are no reliable source citations to establish the notability of either, and as for it's potential notability, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it the place to "legitamize" (sic) anything ... anyone can put their wedding video on YouTube and then sell DVDs, but that does not make it worthy of an article here, unless more than one reliable publication (i.e., not just blogs) reports on it as being newsworthy for the sheer number of sales ... see Wikipedia:Attribution. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Congratulations, Akeelah, you found a spelling error! I said I was looking to legitimize the article, not the concept itself. Thanks for the helpful advice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-10T23:04:12
- A State University of New York article is soon to be published (to my knowledge, it's not yet been published) on the Trilogy, HSP, and the forthcoming DVD. That's a notable source, and to my understanding I would generally need at least one more in addition to the SUNY interview? Is this correct?
-
-
- Comment. Not sure at the moment what kind of University publication it is. Just curious, do you guys write much? Or generally just delete other people's articles? And what do you do vocationally?
-
- I'll be the first to admit I'm a bit deletionist. Lately I have been trying to do more monitoring of new articles, but I have created about 20 articles and massively contributed/revamped another dozen articles or so. I'm also an engineer. IMHO, we're not trying to be difficult. However, I think most of us would like Wikipedia to be a comprehensive, proper encyclopedia and as such don't think every POV and idea need be represented. The notability guidelines and neutral point of view policy are good methods of measuring and deciding what should be here. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Would you prefer Wikipedia to be in congruence with actual scholarly encyclopedias (ie. Britannica)? What advantages, if any, do you see in a online, public encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
-
- Delete as per comments from 68.239.79.97 above. AfD makes no comment about whether the video is "good" or not, or how legitimate it is. It purely looks at WP:NOTABLE and I find that based on what has been said here and my own looking around, it fails this criterion. AfD should not look at how well the article is written, either - this is purely about whether or not the subject should have a WP article. Right now, I do not think it is notable enough, and WP is not a crystal ball. If it becomes notable in future, then an article could be developed. (It would help if you signed your comments using ~~~~ at the end.) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP. If you believe this article to not meet encyclopedic standards then EDIT it!!! There is absolutely no reason to delete it, as the Trilogy has recently had a HUGE impact and following among American youth. Why delete information pertaining to its existence? Wikipedia is a place where ALL types of information are shared, not a HAND PICKED selection of human knowledge, as is found in Encyclopaedia Brittanica. If this article is poorly written, then edit it. That's the concept of Wikipedia, and deleting this article is doing no good for anyone, except saving a few KB's on a server. 142.157.201.134 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Neoelitism 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: is now blocked for excessive vandalism. Part Deux 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- The issue for this AfD is not whether the article is written well, but instead whether the subject is notable or not. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information the subject of articles have to meet certain criteria, one of which is WP:NOT. Notability requires more than claiming that "lots of people know about it" - it has to meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements, including A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability. That is what I have as yet seen no evidence of. If such evidence can be shown, I am willing to change my vote. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. He is aware of WP:NOTABILITY and what it generally implies, as am I now similarly informed. It's been posted in almost every previous "delete" vote, and there's no need to repeat it four hundred times; your vote will do, thanks. I think what 142.157.201.134 is having trouble with, as am I, is that essentially you are admitting that as the series is popular, and has developed a cult following, a significant amount of individuals would find this article particularly interesting. And I (and him as well, I'm sure) am almost disturbed that, as such, you still defer to the archaic Wikipedia Guidelines. I don't even think you would argue that there are really no construable advantages to the deletion of this thread, or at least no substantial advantages. Do you want to save a couple KB's webspace? Do you want to prevent others from taking inspiration and writing articles about their four-million-times-viewed cult phenomena? Or are you just petty sticklers who need rigid guidelines in every aspect of your lives? Jamesowen237 06:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I repeated it because it seemed that the poster appeared confused about what criteria we are supposed to use to discuss this and wanted to try to clarify. As for the "my vote will do" comment, I would appreciate the opportunity to take part in the discussion, as are you. I am not saying whether or not the series is popular or not - I am saying that there is no evidence brought forth here that satisfies WP's requirements for Notability. I'm sorry you find the Guidelines we use "archaic", but that is what we are told as editors to use. If you need changes to the guidelines, then please go ahead with the discussion on the Talk page for those guidelines. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Sorry about the "vote will do" comment, it just aggravates me that anyone can possibly defer to the Wiki guidelines knowing that an informative, interesting article (for fans of the series) will probably be deleted. In my opinion, there's a time to ignore stale guideline principals and get practical. I'm not saying 'look the other way,' I'm just insinuating that maybe the Wiki guidelines, and what they imply, are not always benevolent to Wikipedia users in general. Do you always do what you're told in real life, as well? Do you not agree that there's a time to break the rules? I'm not arguing in regards to this thread, but in general principal-- it's like you guys worship the rules here. I feel like you're not even considering the implications of this article and its deletion except through the lens of Wikipedia's own beaurocratic stipulations. Have you ever read Kafka's Castle? Jamesowen237 20:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete, Notability is not popularity, it is source availability, and that doesn't seem to happen here. Internet memes are not notable just because a lot of people view them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP. - This article should be kept; however, it requires significant cleanup. It also would sound more professional and encyclopedic to remove many of the vulgar quotes that take away from the formal tone.
More notably in the past couple of months, this video has indeed gained widespread popularity and is becoming a significant underground icon. If detailed articles on other Youtube sensations such as "Numa Numa" and "The Juggernaut Bitch!!" are allowed on Wikipedia, why should this entry be disregarded and deleted? Bonhamfreak48 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)- Comment - The problem is WP:A ... note that both Numa Numa and The Juggernaut Bitch!! cite sources, like a New York Times article ... so far, all of the claims of "widespread popularity" are merely unsubstatiated rumors ... if there were any WP:RS citations, we probably would not be having this discussion ... finding and adding some will be the only thing that can save this article from deletion. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 08:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The Juggernaut Bitch!! cites a blog and a false MTV link. The article was deleted and then restored. Currently, it has no actual sources and is not an AfD. Will your efforts to rid this article (as it now stands) be without avail? Jamesowen237 08:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - As of now I believe there are no scholarly resources, and, as such, 'finding and adding some' is currently impossible. I understand the article does not, and even cannot, satisfy Wikipedia's various criteria. Personally, and particularly in relation to this article, I do not believe that the Wikipedia guidelines are always, or even essentially, benevolent. As such, I certainly won't delete the article (but I'm sure someone else will). If you've taken an interest in Hodge-Stansson or this particular article, worry not; I've saved an up-to-date copy and will repost as soon as scholarly sources are availible (which, by all estimations, should be soon). As far as omitting expletives, I would definitely opose that. You'll notice that I maintained a scholarly vernacular and tone throughout the article except when quoting Ricky. His vocabulary is crucial to the humor; in fact, it drives it. I believe that these expletives are similarly crucial to any serious discussion of the series. Jamesowen237 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also: Bonhamfreak48, as far as besides your said desire to remove expletives, what "significant cleanup" do you believe is "require[d]" ? Jamesowen237 08:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The problem is WP:A ... note that both Numa Numa and The Juggernaut Bitch!! cite sources, like a New York Times article ... so far, all of the claims of "widespread popularity" are merely unsubstatiated rumors ... if there were any WP:RS citations, we probably would not be having this discussion ... finding and adding some will be the only thing that can save this article from deletion. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 08:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Delete it now. - Ctbolt 09:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The above comment/vote by Ctbolt should be discarded. It is childish, unscholarly and not a valid POV. You can't label something "not notable" just because you've never heard of it. Neoelitism 15:27, 14 April 2007 (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.
I think the fact that I found this page whilst searching for a Wikipedia write-up on The Unforgivable series is pretty good evidence that you shouldn't have deleted it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.240.82 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
![[34]](http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Priznanja/Nagrada19.JPG){kind=link}
![[35]](http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Priznanja/SAIN.jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Priznanja/SAIN_povelja.jpg){kind=link}