Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. From the discussion here it looks like there is some serious skepticism that this can be made into a viable article, but enough people willing to give it some more time to be worked into an encyclopedic article to stay the delete button for now. The current article is already clearly further developed than the previously deleted article. I suspect this article will be back on AfD in the relatively near future if it doesn't progress soon, but for now it gets to stay. —Doug Bell talk 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of physics formulae
- – (View AfD)
Article is marked in-use, but now it got prodded, deprodded by creator, then reprodded, so here we are in AfD. The two prods were "Unmaintainable. What constitutes a "physics" formula? What are the variables used the formulas below? What's their significance? This is just an indiscriminate list. Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." and "How can this ever contain every physics formulae?". I concur: delete as indiscriminate list with no real unifying topic and no context. DMacks 03:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Previous decision: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics equations ~ trialsanderrors 00:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I was the first prod-er. This is not a useful article. eaolson 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a crib sheet. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wait I'm still writing it, it'll be awesome trust me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs).
- Delete. Looks like a study sheet. Wikipedia is not PhysicsFAQs. --- RockMFR 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. How can you have a "list of formulae" as an encyclopaedia article? How would you define a formula as worthy of inclusion anyway? If a+b=c is a formula, is c-b=a a formula too? --Sumple (Talk) 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.
Weak keep.In its current state, the list has some problems.In particular, the second formula directly contradicts the third formula.In principle, however, there's no reason this couldn't work. It would take some careful planning as to what would be in and what would be out. This is not listcruft -- there's almost nothing more fundamental than physics. I'll work on the article a bit; let's see what happens. --N Shar 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC) - Delete. I was the second prod-er. Unmaintainable list with no context. enochlau (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- cmon guys..Yeah, it needs improvement so it's more encyclopedic. However, this article is EXTREMELY useful, and I don't think your reasons are sufficient to delete. Worthiness of inclusion is not the issue, that will be edited over time, and thats what wikipedia is all about. This isn't a study sheet, although it works as one I guess. Why can there be so many lists on this site but not this one? How do you sign your name on this? Im the guy who wrote the thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
- Comment Sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ --N Shar 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Another comment Before you all say "delete," please look at the top of the article. If you still don't like it after my changes, then go ahead and delete, but I think there's a niche for this article. I don't pretend to be doing a perfect job improving it, but I have addressed some of the issues. --N Shar 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- The top of the article states that "Visualizing multiple formulae on one page may be helpful [...] after one has completed at least a basic course in physics.". In other words, this is coursework revision material, suitable for a physics course textbook. That is standard Wikibooks fare, and Wikibooks already has this. Please consider contributing to the right project if you want to write textbook material for physics courses. Uncle G 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep until finished. It makes a good navigation page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I still say this list is unmaintainable, listcruft, and unencyclopedic. What constitutes "physics"? You seem to be including only classical mechanics. Does it include Raoult's Law, which is generally considered part of chemistry? What about Ohm's Law? Quantum mechanics? Fluid mechanics? Bragg's Law? String theory? Astrophysics? You've included things like the ideal gas law without stating it only holds reasonably true for noble gases at low temperatures. eaolson 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. That's cause it's not done yet. I'm sure that eventually it will have to be cut down greatly, to include only the most important equations from each area. As for the ideal gas law, it'll be marked as only holding for ideal gasses when I get to it. --N Shar 04:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I still say this list is unmaintainable, listcruft, and unencyclopedic. What constitutes "physics"? You seem to be including only classical mechanics. Does it include Raoult's Law, which is generally considered part of chemistry? What about Ohm's Law? Quantum mechanics? Fluid mechanics? Bragg's Law? String theory? Astrophysics? You've included things like the ideal gas law without stating it only holds reasonably true for noble gases at low temperatures. eaolson 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as stated by N Shar, I think it could be extremely useful, but not in its current form. Links to existing pages should be used instead of reiterating where applicable. Metao 04:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject matter is ill-defined. Physics isn't that simple. --AtD 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep... for now. As it is, it's a little jumbled and difficult to read, and therefore not a good quick reference. But formatting isn't a reason to delete; let the physics-lovers work on it and if it can't get better, the someone can renominate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
- Comment. This is probably more useful on Wikibooks, as part of a physics textbook, or perhaps on Wiktionary, as an appendix. I just can't see this as being an encyclopedia article. enochlau (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. putting something on wikibooks or wikiwhatever will make it difficult to research. It's a nice convenient, (eventually) organized list, wikipedia accepts lists. Nickmanning214 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rubbish. It's just as easy for researchers to read a Wikibooks page as it is to read a Wikipedia page. The act of reading a web page does not vary from project to project. Uncle G 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. putting something on wikibooks or wikiwhatever will make it difficult to research. It's a nice convenient, (eventually) organized list, wikipedia accepts lists. Nickmanning214 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I know we're not supposed to bring other articles into the discussion, but consider List of formulas involving pi. This is another very broad topic, and one might easily say "Math is not that simple." (I'm a mathie.) But I think it's still a reasonable article. Perhaps not as deadly serious in tone as other articles -- more a collection of interesting, related facts -- but still a decent list. One might say: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," but that article is not indiscriminate, and while this one might be now, it just needs time to be pared down. --N Shar 04:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- comment For a better example of what (I hope) this article may eventually look like, see Trigonometric identities. Obviously, there are an infinite number, but this page handles the issue excellently. --N Shar 05:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom/ above comments. Trigonometric identities are a very specific topic. You wouldn't make a "list of mathematics formulas" page would you? This list is grossly incomplete, has no context, and is useless for people who want to learn physics. However, with a little work, I do agree that it might make a nice appendix in an introductory mechanics textbook on wikibooks. Danski14 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep - I can see this being a good quick reference, although it would need to be cleaned up first - both formatting-wise and have a clear description of what does/doesn't belong in the list. mikmt 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- comment - perhaps this might be a good reference for kids taking the regents exam (even though it doesn't have electricity & magnetism, waves & sound, optics, or modern physics), but are such laundry lists encyclopedic? I agree that this page would be very hard to maintain/ organize and standardize. Should Newton's second law be in differential form? Is "Momentum is the amount of mass moving" a good definition? These issues can be fixed, but there will be more. Even with a lot of work, trying to achieve the goal of "quick reference", will this page ever be useful? For me, if I want to know a formula, I will search for that specific topic, so I can understand the formula, and not just see it. Danski14 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- comment I can't speak to the rest, but the definition of momentum I added is (unfortunately) also the one used in the Momentum article. However, this isn't the place for that kind of dispute. --N Shar 06:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- comment Or the AP and SAT IIs for that matter. mikmt 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- comment - perhaps this might be a good reference for kids taking the regents exam (even though it doesn't have electricity & magnetism, waves & sound, optics, or modern physics), but are such laundry lists encyclopedic? I agree that this page would be very hard to maintain/ organize and standardize. Should Newton's second law be in differential form? Is "Momentum is the amount of mass moving" a good definition? These issues can be fixed, but there will be more. Even with a lot of work, trying to achieve the goal of "quick reference", will this page ever be useful? For me, if I want to know a formula, I will search for that specific topic, so I can understand the formula, and not just see it. Danski14 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Physics formulae are what make the world go round. A list like this is what makes the student get his homework done. The quibbles expressed about a particular formula argue for editing, not deletion. Edison 07:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Educational textbooks for students are basic Wikibooks territory. Uncle G 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- comment on present heading: that's not an introduction to the subject matter, its a justification for the existence of this page: "Visualizing multiple formulae on one page may be helpful in understanding all relationships between the variables, after one has completed at least a basic course in physics." Perhaps this sentence can be reworded or deleted? --Sumple (Talk) 09:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- A "good reference for children taking an examination" is standard Wikibooks territory, and Wikibooks already has several such formulae sheets, such as b:High school physics/Index of physics equations and b:A-level Physics/Forces, Fields and Energy/Appendix of Formulae. There's no reason to believe that the arguments in this discussion will be any different to those for Physics equations (AfD discussion), moreover, which was exactly the same idea, and whose content resembles the content of this article so closely that this article is very close to being a speedy deletion candidate. Uncle G 10:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as a useful page, which puts it in a comically small percentile of pages in wikipedia. Colonel Tom 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. While of course this could use further wikification, and editors may disagree as to which formulas are important enough to feature, this strikes me as a valuable list serving an index function, and the sort of material you'd expect to find in standard reference books like the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. It belongs in the encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. There is a reason that other Wikiprojects exist: Wikipedia does not and should not contain everything, that's not what it was meant for. This is textbook material pure and simple and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Since it is already in the Foundation's book project (Wikibooks) there is no transwiki needed. Slap a few wikibooks templates on the relevant physics articles and you're done. Readers will find the formulae they're looking for. Zunaid©® 15:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
KeepAs-is, this list is reasonably comprehensive and maintainable. To be encyclopedic it must be restricted to important physics formulae and it may even wise to restrict it to important classical physics formulae (or at least keep anything involving relativity and quantum mechanics to the bare bones.) However, this page can get much bigger without being unweildy, and should.
On Wikibooks: It seems to me that this material is also amenable to it, bot not in quite the same form. It is interesting to note the this article is already superior to the lists in Wikibooks. --EMS | Talk 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)- That's merely a strong argument for encouraging the editors writing here to go and write textbooks in the correct project. Uncle G 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen lists of equations in print encyclopedias. So it makes some sense to me for this page to exist here. At the least, I find the argument that similar pages exists in Wikibooks to be most inadequate due to those lists being nowhere hear as cmoprehensive as this one already is. IMO, if this page can be referenced from other pages, then it belongs here. --EMS | Talk 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Those lists are almost certainly not the same as this list. Their contents almost certainly have more in common with one another than just being formulae used somewhere in the field of physics. Furthermore: Your reason for finding the argument inadequate is spurious. Firstly, that someone can link to an article is not exclusive to Wikipedia. We have interwiki links in many articles. Indeed, there are two right at the top of this very page, and two more further down. Secondly, as pointed out above, this list isn't comprehensive, contrary to your assertion. A comprehensive list would be so broad as to be useless. The idea that one can keep it to just "important" formulae is founded entirely upon sand, since the only workable definitions of "important" are either "important to physics topic X", in which case the mathematics actually belong in the encyclopaedia article that deals with that physics topic, or "part of the crib sheet in school curriculum Y", in which case they belong in the relevant textbook for that curriculum on Wikibooks. If you think that the textbooks in Wikibooks can be improved, then improve them, and encourage any other editors who want to write textbook content to do the same. Wikibooks is a wiki. Uncle G 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I find the demand that this article contain every physics equation to be both unfair and unrealistic. It seems to me that as this article grows, it can be split itnto sublists as needed, which only the most important entries from the sublist maintained here. IMO, this particular article is off to a very good start, which is why the deletion request is being strongly contested. Given that it seems to be headed in a good direction, I say that we should keep it and see how it develops. --EMS | Talk 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The "demand" is inherent in the list's scope, as given by its title and introduction. You find that scope, when it is pointed out to you, to be "unrealistic". Therefore I suggest that you think about the article again in light of that. As I've already pointed out, any constraints (such as the "importance" criterion that you vaguely mentioned before, but didn't define) to "realistic" lists lead either to content that belongs in an article about a specific physics topic, or in an examination crib sheet. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I find the demand that this article contain every physics equation to be both unfair and unrealistic. It seems to me that as this article grows, it can be split itnto sublists as needed, which only the most important entries from the sublist maintained here. IMO, this particular article is off to a very good start, which is why the deletion request is being strongly contested. Given that it seems to be headed in a good direction, I say that we should keep it and see how it develops. --EMS | Talk 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Those lists are almost certainly not the same as this list. Their contents almost certainly have more in common with one another than just being formulae used somewhere in the field of physics. Furthermore: Your reason for finding the argument inadequate is spurious. Firstly, that someone can link to an article is not exclusive to Wikipedia. We have interwiki links in many articles. Indeed, there are two right at the top of this very page, and two more further down. Secondly, as pointed out above, this list isn't comprehensive, contrary to your assertion. A comprehensive list would be so broad as to be useless. The idea that one can keep it to just "important" formulae is founded entirely upon sand, since the only workable definitions of "important" are either "important to physics topic X", in which case the mathematics actually belong in the encyclopaedia article that deals with that physics topic, or "part of the crib sheet in school curriculum Y", in which case they belong in the relevant textbook for that curriculum on Wikibooks. If you think that the textbooks in Wikibooks can be improved, then improve them, and encourage any other editors who want to write textbook content to do the same. Wikibooks is a wiki. Uncle G 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen lists of equations in print encyclopedias. So it makes some sense to me for this page to exist here. At the least, I find the argument that similar pages exists in Wikibooks to be most inadequate due to those lists being nowhere hear as cmoprehensive as this one already is. IMO, if this page can be referenced from other pages, then it belongs here. --EMS | Talk 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- New opinion - Weak keep if not transwiki. This article has not been improved on in a week. An energetic and ongoing attempt to catalog the important equations of physics is one thing. The current article as the best that can be created at this time is another. It is a good list, and should at least be transwikied if it is not retained in Wikipedia. I will support keeping the article at this time to permit it to be built up more and prosified somewhat. If nothing of the sort happens soon, then I will support its being tranwikied. --EMS | Talk 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's merely a strong argument for encouraging the editors writing here to go and write textbooks in the correct project. Uncle G 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Didn't we just go through a discussion about deleting Physics equations? I think the arguments made then are just as applicable now. Anville 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (for now) The article has no references, which in and of itself can be sufficient reason to delete. It also appears at the moment to be still ambiguous as to the scope of the "list" and/or if it will even be a list in the long run. My advice is for the article's author to complete his article in user space, not here. Once he has completed his article to his satisfication on his user space, including references to verify the information, then recreate it as a Wiki article. At that point I'll be happy to reconsider the new, complete and referenced article. Dugwiki 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, needs referencing and cleanup. Dugwiki said, The article has no references, which in and of itself can be sufficient reason to delete. But our deletion policy page says Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations) is a problem where deletion may not be needed -- and recommends editors do that footwork first, and failing that, using {{cleanup-verify}}. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- You've missed the forest for the trees. Verifiability is not the sole policy that we have. Wikipedia articles are not textbooks is another. Also see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists for a discussion of lists that are overbroad in scope, such as a list of all of the formulae in physics. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOT a textbook. These formulas belong in the articles about the individual subfields of physics, not all bundled together into one big crib sheet. Argyriou (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, very useful page. Especially if you haven't ever heard of Wikibook. It's just a nice page to have on Wikipedia. I've seen plenty of other lists on Wikipedia, this one being more helpful than any of them.
- Weak keep Lists are pretty common on Wikipedia; what's wrong with another, especially since it's not finished yet and we can't tell how good it'll be. Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Encyclopedic, but not well wikified. TonyTheTiger 00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikibooks and Wikipedia may be separate projects, but they will overlap sometimes. This is one of those times. Raffles mk 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in some Wikimedia project, whether Wikipedia or another. It is useful to have an article (or book or whatever) with a large, useful set of formulas in a consistent notation and with a useful organization. Earlier objections: "Unmaintainable." Why do you say that? What about a list of formulas makes it unmaintainable? There are books with formulas inside their covers; their publishers can and do maintain them, and in fact, little change from edition to edition to edition establishes that nearly no maintaining is needed. "What constitutes a "physics" formula?" The authors are answering that by editing the article, which they could do a lot more efficiently if they didn't have to face two deletion proposals and an Articles for Deletion debate. "What are the variables used the formulas below?" They're explained in the article. "What's their significance?" That's explained in articles to which this list links. "This is just an indiscriminate list." No, it discriminates very carefully: to be an entry in the list, an item must be a physics formula. "Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." Is that policy? Wikipedia is not an article on any topic, so how is this an argument against an article? "How can this ever contain every physics formulae?" Must it? Does or must the article on physics contain every fact about physics? This information belongs in a Wikimedia project. A link to it from Physics, Mechanics, and other major articles will let readers get to it just as easily whether it is on Wikipedia or Wikibooks. The authors are doing good work and I congratulate and encourage them. Fg2 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." Is that policy? — Wikipedia articles are not textbooks is, yes.
it discriminates very carefully: to be an entry in the list, an item must be a physics formula. — That argument is clearly based upon the false premise that there are only a few formulae in physics. That is untrue. There is a large number of such formulae, and many of them have nothing in common apart from being "in physics". "In physics" is almost as indiscriminate a criterion as "written down".
A discriminate criterion would be topic specific. But then the formulae would be (and, indeed, for many topics already are) in the encyclopedia article related to that topic. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." Is that policy? — Wikipedia articles are not textbooks is, yes.
- Delete, unmaintainable list of indiscrimate, random formulas. linas 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep What could be more important? --Michael C. Price talk 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Let it develop and see what it looks like. Give the editor a chance, good heavens. --Filll 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Physics equations developed for 2 months. It looked little different to this. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This could potentially contain every equation ever written in a physics book. It is not maintainable in the long term, as endless numbers of equations from every subfield of physics can be added. The arguments about usefulness will no longer be valid if this simply becomes a gigantic, unreadable list of every physics equation that someone found "useful". If desired, the individual sections should be turned into individual articles (like Maxwell's equations). This article should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep AFD is not cleanup crew, nor is it for deleting articles that aren't even finished. Calm down. -Ryanbomber 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics is the cleanup crew, and has a hell of a time trying to straighten out the crud, half-baked ideas, basic misunderstandings and raw untruths contained in the elementary/introductory/pop physics articles on WP. The best way to not have to clean up a mess is to keep one from happening, which is why this artcle should be nuked. linas 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- As said, calm down. --Michael C. Price talk 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seriously, you're acting like I just shot your dog. It's text on the internet. Consider calming down a bit. -Ryanbomber 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics is the cleanup crew, and has a hell of a time trying to straighten out the crud, half-baked ideas, basic misunderstandings and raw untruths contained in the elementary/introductory/pop physics articles on WP. The best way to not have to clean up a mess is to keep one from happening, which is why this artcle should be nuked. linas 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is Wikibooks material. Flyingtoaster1337 05:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- And optionally soft redirect to Wikibooks wikibooks:High school physics/Index of physics equations because something like this already went through AfD, so we can gently tell students to look in the correct places for this material in future. Flyingtoaster1337 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Several problems here. Foremost, as noted above, this is Wikibooks material, and already exists there (at least in some form). Wikipedia is not the CRC Handbook (we also don't keep trig tables, for example). Second, it lacks limitations that are not going to be easily resolved. There are entire textbooks about the math behind fluid dynamics, for example, not to mention quantum physics or anything more esoteric. What about derived forms? Variants with differing sets of assumptions? This article does not set boundaries, and efforts to ascribe limitations after the fact strike of original research. Similarly, third, we cannot "wait for it to be finished". In a very real sense, Wikipedia articles are never finished ... especially those that approach limitlessness. Finally, I'm not sure exactly what the content of the previously deleted article was, but haven't we had this discussion before? Serpent's Choice 09:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Perhaps you should see Trigonometry#Common_formulae and reconsider what you have to say about trig tables. As for this list: It is already far superior to anything in Wikibooks. Maybe this article should be transwikied. Maybe it should be "prosified" a ways and made into a genuine Wikipedia article. Maybe it should be allowed to be the main file of a tree of such lists (possible in addition to one of the other two possibilities). However, it should not be unceremoniously deleted! This list is an asset, and it should be present somewhere. --EMS | Talk 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- The advent of calculators has rendered the trig table a rarity. Our article discusses trigonometric functions and their interrelationships. This on the other hand, is a trig table. I view a long list of formulae without context to be more like the latter than the former. As a possible suggestion, however, a list of formulae by name that provides some context for each and that links to the articles in which they are discussed might be of value as a navigation tool (assuming no such list exists at current). Serpent's Choice 04:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - As I mentioned above, trigonometric identities are a very specific topic, but still there is a huge page dealing with them. (List of trigonometric identities) But, you wouldn't make a page called "List of mathematics equations" would you? That is basically what this page is like right now. A better title for this page would be "physics equations in elementary Newtonian mechanics" (basically regents and AP level). The only use for this page is as a crib sheet, and it isn't even very good for that, as it has numerous technical difficulties and does not include Electricity & Magnetism, waves, optics, or any modern physics (which is most of physics). Over all, it has no context, little or no educational value or practical use. When people forget an equation and need to look it up, they will search for that specific topic. When people want to learn about an equation, they need something that relates it to nature; something with context and an explanation of the conceptual ideas involved and how the equation is used, etc. Just having the equation thrown out there leads one to a "plug and chug" mentality which gives little understanding of the underlying physical phenomena. Currently, I see two possible futures for this page: 1. delete it and merge into wikibooks or 2. Somehow reduce this page in it's size and scope (perhaps to elementary Newtonian mechanics?), and then assuming there are people who know physics willing to work on it, they will fight the ensuing edit wars, and hope that is turns out ok and is not a big confusing mess (or conversely, a pitifully incomplete indiscriminate list). Right now I am opting for 1, because I think most people involved in Wikiproject Physics have a lot of other more important things to do then deal with this. (it seems some people involved in wikiproject phyics project have also voted delete). Danski14 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Suggestion - Rename this article to List of important classical physics formulae: Your complaint seems to be more agaimst the name than the content. Beyond that, I am amenable to the possibility of transwikiing this article, but I don't think that a good case for that has been made yet. I for one want to see how this article develops before lowering the boom on it. If it integrates itself into this project readily over the next few months, then obviously it will deserve to stay. If it instead stagnates I may prefer to see it transwikied later. BTW - I also think that it would be nice if the folks who think that material belongs in Wikibooks would have as their vote "transwiki" instead of "delete". The later is a call for the total removal of this material without even trying to put it in a better place, and I totally disapprove of that. --EMS | Talk 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Perhaps you should see Trigonometry#Common_formulae and reconsider what you have to say about trig tables. As for this list: It is already far superior to anything in Wikibooks. Maybe this article should be transwikied. Maybe it should be "prosified" a ways and made into a genuine Wikipedia article. Maybe it should be allowed to be the main file of a tree of such lists (possible in addition to one of the other two possibilities). However, it should not be unceremoniously deleted! This list is an asset, and it should be present somewhere. --EMS | Talk 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Although it needs work, it is a useful list that is very encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Build it and they will come. This should be given time to develop and grow. There is evidence that there is considerable interest in this sort of thing. It has been attempted several times before by different editors. There is clearly some sort of need for this. Let it grow. SilkTork 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is indeed useful but belongs at wikibooks. Formulae should be (and generally are) listed within the articles on specific topics rather than grouped into a massive category like "physics". Eluchil404 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment A vote for wikibooks should really be a Keep or transwiki, as per EMS . --Michael C. Price talk 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Encyclopediae should be reference tools. This entry will prove to be very popular amongst those using the internet to research the subject. Is not Wiki for the benefit of all?Hogan 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Is anyone reading the above comments? Anyone who has tried to learn physics knowns that lists of equations are not helpful for anything except crib sheets for tests. We here at wiki should want to increase public understanding of physics, not deprive them of it. Therefore, if we are going to create this page, it's going to take a lot of work. And for reasons above, many had said it would be unmaintainable, unless it is downgraded, and even then I am not sure how it might turn out. Danski14 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not gonna deny that a lot of people would use it to bone up for tests, but there's a lot of these equasions, and I get them mixed up all the time. If I ever needed a random physics equasion in everyday life (Don't ask for an example, PLEASE) then I would love to come here and just look it up. If you're really that concerned, then we can add an explanation to each equasion, although that may just bloat it a bit too much. We'll burn that bridge when we cross it. And besides, Physics books generally have tables of formulae in the back, so why not have one in the Wiki for people without physics books? -Ryanbomber 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- If were going to add explanations, that would be a waste of time. Everything is already covered in other articles. (Maxwell's Equations was mentioned before as a good example. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics equations Danski14 00:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete again Wikipedia is not for things written down two hours before the midterm. That's what Wikiversity is for. ~ trialsanderrors 00:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. wikipedic. --Vsion 04:46, 2 February 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 Keep – PeaceNT 07:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of formulae involving π
- – (View AfD)
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list is completely indiscriminate. There's no significance to this collection of equations. Yes, they all contain pi. So what? There are literally millions of equations that contain pi. There is no reason for including any of these equations, or excluding countless other equations, other than individual whimsy. Should we have List of formulae involving cosine or List of forumlae involving division, as well? Delete as indiscriminate information. eaolson 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: yes, there are literally millions of formula involving pi, but this page only lists historically notable or mathematically significant ones. This list is thus not indiscriminate. I would not place
- on it, and I would delete it from the article if I found it. GracenotesT § 05:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. What's "mathmatically significant" about:
- eaolson 05:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- History of numerical approximations of π#Other classical formulae GracenotesT § 05:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, point taken. But still, without a coherent reason for this article, it's all just pi-related trivia. eaolson 06:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Since when is "a coherent reason" a requirement? Sorry to be a bit confrontational, but many of the arguments on this (and on the physics formulae afd above) can be resolved by a simple move, or even a sentence in the intro. In this case, the article could be moved to "List of formulas used to calculate pi," or the intro could be adjusted to make it more clear what the criteria for inclusion were. I definitely understand the impulse to delete, but I think it's very important to keep Wikipedia indexed. --N Shar 06:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Notice the connection between this formula and the Heegner numbers. DavidCBryant 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Since when is "a coherent reason" a requirement? Sorry to be a bit confrontational, but many of the arguments on this (and on the physics formulae afd above) can be resolved by a simple move, or even a sentence in the intro. In this case, the article could be moved to "List of formulas used to calculate pi," or the intro could be adjusted to make it more clear what the criteria for inclusion were. I definitely understand the impulse to delete, but I think it's very important to keep Wikipedia indexed. --N Shar 06:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, point taken. But still, without a coherent reason for this article, it's all just pi-related trivia. eaolson 06:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- History of numerical approximations of π#Other classical formulae GracenotesT § 05:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Aw damnit - but WP:ILIKEIT. But, no, seriously, it's informative, so keep. Patstuarttalk|edits 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep per Gracenotes. I can't think of any possible use for this article, but uselessness is no reason for deletion. --N Shar 06:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep, I could use this for my math assignments... --Candy-Panda 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep The deletion arguments above could be resolved for the most part by editing. Notable, encyclopedic, and useful formulae belong in an encyclopedia. Edison 07:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Split/merge most into some other page(s). Mathematical numerical methods for approximating π are one category; physics and geometry are distinct. The former is clearly important per Gracenotes and relates (and partially restates) that section of the History page. That is a focused topic with clear inclusion criteria (or at least it could be if the intro described it as such). Maybe those parts of this page and the other one should be merged together into their own Numerical methods of approximating pi page? The physics/geometry parts of the page here see, weaker keep...more indiscriminate list-like. Area/volume/surface-area of many curvy-things involve π, what are the inclusion criteria? Appearance in relations among physical constants is a controlled class of equations, but geometry and "physics equations using it" (Coulomb's law, etc) gets less discriminating. No limit on what geometric shapes or physical relationships are included here. Coulomb's law is just a special case of inverse-squares that happens to have a constant involving π...that constant would be included in the "relations among physical constants". DMacks 09:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. One of the more interesting things about π is that it figures in so many places, and equations which on their surface seem to have little to do with circles. This is a worthwhile supplement to the article on π itself, and could not be merged with it without detracting from the article in chief's readability. In fact, my recommendation would be to move more equations out of the article in chief to this page. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but change the name to formulae involving π or formulas involving π or identities involving π or the like. And certainly (obviously) there are possible uses for this article; one can easily imagine (after the article is expanded far beyond its current size) a mathematician finding some odd identity here that they didn't know before and that proves useful in their research. Michael Hardy 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. That's just a call to open up Wikipedia to articles about anything. If the criteria for keeping an article is that someone, somewhere might find some tidbit of information useful, we could never delete an article at all. Like, List of books with an elephant on the cover. I don't think there are a lot of mathematicians doing pi-related research, anyway. As it stands, this article is just a bunch of mathematical pi-related trivia. eaolson 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete, I understand that the article contains only historically significant formulas, but grouping formulas because they contain pi seems rather arbitrary. I like the idea of having lists of significant formulas, but it would be much more useful to group them by use (chemistry, classical physics, quantum physics, topology, etc.) rather than by what constants they use. mikmt 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per many reasons above (most ILIKEIT :D). If this list was "completely indiscriminate", it would certainly include more elephants and burritos. Therefore, it is not "completely indiscriminate". --- RockMFR 17:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but merge content from the "Formulae" section of the main π article. There are formulae in π (and names and references for formulae) that are not in this page, and should be, and the "Formulae" section of π is rather cluttered. One of the uses I see for the article under discussion here is to offload content from π and thereby make it easier to read. But also ILIKEIT because all those formulas together in one place are pretty — they convey well a sense of wonder at the beauty of mathematics. —David Eppstein 18:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Pi is arguably the most historically significant real number in all of mathematics, and almost all these formulae are of interest to students of analysis. DavidCBryant 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Nomination is a misapplication of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. That section of policy does not deal with whether or not information is "important". Rather, it specifies certain types of articles which present problems for inclusion (and thus are discriminated against for inclusion). It has nothing to do with "trivia" or "significance". If the nominator wishes to argue those points, then he should refer instead to with WP:V or Wikipedia:Notability and attempt to claim that the article is either unreferenced or not notable. Dugwiki 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: the editors can delete the unimportant formulae. Some physics formulae simply depend on how the fundamental constants are defined. So if ℏ is used instead of h, a π disappears. Stephen B Streater 20:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Formulas *for* π are included in π, Computing π, and other articles. Physical formulas using π should be kept in articles about the specific branches of physics and engineering which they are used in. There are too many formulas with π to keep in one indiscriminate list. Argyriou (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- What about formulas not used for computing π and not physical formulas? For example,
- or
- or
- etc. Michael Hardy 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- What about formulas not used for computing π and not physical formulas? For example,
- Keep Fg2 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- keep The problem of computing pi is so central to much of mathematics and now computer science over the centuries that this article is useful, and N, and of course V. Bu the nature of the topic, the list is not indiscriminate. DGG 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- comment I agree that methods for computing pi is important, and an article exists on that already. I do not think that formulas should be listed together merely because they contain pi (imagine having an article on "list of formulas containing 0.5"). Whether or not a formula contains pi is trivial - it is dubious that somebody will actually need to find formulas that contain pi just because they contain pi. mikmt 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- But 0.5 isn't pi. Pi is a special number, and it's absolutely facinating (to me at least) how it keeps appearing all over mathematics where you might least expect it.
- comment I agree that methods for computing pi is important, and an article exists on that already. I do not think that formulas should be listed together merely because they contain pi (imagine having an article on "list of formulas containing 0.5"). Whether or not a formula contains pi is trivial - it is dubious that somebody will actually need to find formulas that contain pi just because they contain pi. mikmt 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This list is not indiscriminate. It meets none of the deletion criteria and doesn't violate any policies, so there's no rule-based reason for deletion, and it's interesting and mathematically significant. —Mets501 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Useful index list of significant examples, mostly linked to related articles. Not indiscriminate. Will meet WP:LISTV if the inclusion criteria are made a little tighter. Gandalf61 13:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. A well-chosen and well-linked list. The physics formulas are maybe a bit dubious, since the appearance of π is generally a matter of choice of units or purely mathematical, but there are only a few of those anyway.--OinkOink 20:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If a whole section is dubious, how "well-chosen" is it really? Maybe needs a narrower scope? Scrapping the physics ones would us the list of numerical-approximation recipes, which is already covered elsewhere (though could be consolidated or shuffled if it deserves its own page). DMacks 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's a small section and not inherently invalid. In fact, it's instructive to compare formulas of electromagnetism in SI and Gaussian units, to see how eliminating π in one place makes it pop up in another, like playing whack-a-mole. It could be helped by links leading to context. For example, the connection between the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the relevant theorem giving a similar relation between a function and its Fourier transform (thus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle follows automatically once you say that momentum is essentially the Fourier transform of position).--OinkOink 04:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete; the mathematical formulas are (all or almost all) in pi and related articles; the appearances of π in the physical formulas are all choices of unit, and side effects of the fact that the volume of 3-spheres and 4-spheres both contain π. Eaolson is right. Wikibooks may be willing to take this, but it doesn't belong here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Incredibly useful and encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. "Useful" in what way? I can understand how an article on pi, or even an article on the different ways to derive pi might be useful in understanding the constant and it's study through history. I've been trying, and I can't think of any circumstances where I'd have a use for a list of equations that included pi, just because they included pi. Unless it's doing a term paper of some sort on pi. eaolson 03:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This list is the epitome of indiscriminate information per Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria. As it is now, I can just make up A = 4 π²/G³ and it qualifies for the list, since it involves π.~ trialsanderrors 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)- Keep for now. I added an unambiguous criterion: The list contains only formulae whose significance is established either in the article on the formula itself, or in the articles on π or Computing π. ~ trialsanderrors 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per comments above and the evident consensus. Newyorkbrad 03:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- By way of addendum, since challenges have been made to a prior closing as an obvious consensus Keep, in further reviewing the article, I see useful references and links to articles about several of the formulas, a reference (more can be added), and a collection of equations that does not appear in the other pi-related articles. I also endorse the keep comments of Mets501 and DGG. Newyorkbrad 04:06, 30 January 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 KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 22:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Piotr Blass
- – (View AfD)
This page has a relatively tortured history on Wikipedia, namely two AfD's and a DRV, as well as other discussions regarding behaviour linked to it.
This is a procedural nomination, stemming from Trialsanderrors' desalting of this article with the concensus of deletion review. This was done so a draft, written by Jreferee and now located in the articlespace at this article name, could be moved into the articlespace. It gathered a concensus to relist pending possible further notability discussion at this AfD. As this is purely procedural, I abstain presently, not withstanding the fact I may give further opinion if I feel it is merited.
- Quick links
- Articles for deletion discussion I - August 2, 2006; closed as delete by Sam Blanning.
- Articles for deletion discussion II - January 15, 2007; closed as speedy delete per G4 by Will Beback.
- Deletion review - January 25, 2007; closed as unsalted by Trialsanderrors, moved and relisted by Daniel.Bryant.
Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Further note: there was a not-quite-as-strong-as-the-unsalt-concensus-but-still-strong concensus that this probably passes WP:BIO, and hence relisting may be moot. Whether it is or not, I felt that there is adequate reasoning to relist, as some pointed out that they purely wanted it "relisted" to get a definitive answer at DRV, and that others were wondering about potential NPOV problems in addition to a discussion about notability. I have no opinion on the validity of either view presently, but they should be discussed, and here is a better medium than any other given what this article has been through, and how it has resurfaced (as a rewrite via DRV). If this turns into a snowball-style keep after a couple of days, I would encourage closing this early, given the rewrite is so dramatic. Daniel.Bryant 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yet-another-note I've also unsalted Piotr blass following a request and following the assumption of article retention and that the deletion review would apply to any redirects. --Robdurbar 22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- Delete I can't access the provided links to the sources, but titles like "7 also-rans in governor's race chase elusive spotlight" and "PBCC president list final at 76" and sources like "Local section, page 3B" always make me suspicious, so I had to rely on my own Lexis-Nexis/Newsbank search. There's quite a few scraps (45 hits total), but if I restrict the search to "Piotr Blass" in headline or first paragraph, I'm down to three. They are:
- "GOVERNOR WRITE-IN SEES EINSTEIN SOLUTION" ← Full portrait. (Palm Beach Post, The (FL) - August 27, 2006 length: 838 words)
- "Saying he wanted to be a voice for the common people, write-in gubernatorial candidate Piotr Blass on Thursday appealed to a Palm Beach County judge to set the stage for him to participate in Monday's debate between his two more well-known opponents. " ← passing mention
- "The candidates include Edward J. Foley, principal at South Area High School, a Lake Worth school for potential dropouts; Piotr Blass, a math professor at Palm Beach Atlantic College" ← passing mention
- Blass's career as academic certainly doesn't pass WP:PROF. His best-cited contribution gets 8 cites (all by either Blass or Lang), the rest get 4 or less. One article does not WP:BIO pass, a handfull of self-cites does not WP:PROF pass, and the puffery doesn't help either. ~ trialsanderrors 10:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Rewrite appears to establish "notability." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Badlydrawnjeff; article clearly establishes notability and cites a range of sources; result of previous AfDs does not constitute a reason for deletion. Judge each article on its own merits. Walton monarchist89 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe anyone said as such (the last AfD applies), because this is a totally new article, hence the DRV decision. If I inadvertently said so in nomination, please allow me to correct it; I'm merely (trying to) apply consensus and common sense on a hot topic (at least, I hope it's common...). Of course, your statement could have been made in advance for anyone who uses the argument, but you never know over the internet :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 13:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete His candidacies seem to be the heart of the notability claims. A perennial marginal/write-in candidate for various offices, with the trivial news coverage that such candidates usually get, does not look notable to me. In an open democracy, anyone can declare themselves a candidate. Being taken seriously, or even getting serious coverage, is something else. Fan-1967 15:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, there seems to be a weak assertion of WP:BIO Alf photoman 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fan1967. The claims to notability are extremely weak. As mentioned, anyone in the street can declare candidacy, and it is a matter of course that these get minor news coverage. As an analogy, we don't have articles for every minor political party that runs in every election, since it is such a trivial matter to get a party registered. Zunaid©® 16:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is the third time I am writing this. Blass is not notable as a mathematician. His math papers have low citation, including his pride thesis which has a total of four (on Google Scholar). His politics is even less notable, although I am not an expert. The warning is the long-long-long section about his gubernatorial campaign which ended with his getting "eighteen votes". That's about one line per vote. Not notable by any stretch. Mhym 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Blass received only eighteen votes and yet more than twenty independent, non-trivial published works felt Blass important enough to include in their publication. That is more than one publication per vote. -- Jreferee 17:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- So, is this saying how many papers cared to list him or how few votes he received? I once wrote-in my boss in mayoral elections. By your logic, this makes his "publication per vote" ratio in the thousands. Mhym 17:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Per Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. (1) The present article is a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, which is the purpose of Wikipedia:Notability. (2) Since Blass has been the subject of numerous published works the topic meets Wikipedia:Notability. There presently are 28 non-trivial published works footnoted in the article. These three published works were mainly about Blass and by themselves meet Wikipedia:Notability: (a) Vash, Will. (August 27, 2006) The Palm Beach Post. Governor write-in sees Einstein solution. (b) Cerabino, Frank. (November 3, 2006) The Palm Beach Post. Fringe choices for governor want your vote. Local section, page 1C. (c) Ellman, Steve. (August 27, 2004) Palm Beach Daily Business Review. Case of divorced couple and their troubled teenager gives backers of Unified Family Courts plenty of ammunition. (3) I did review the AfDs and other items that went into the relatively tortured history of the topic. Blass' efforts appear to have been to get an article about himself on Wikipedia with little clue of how to do it. I think the present article will help reduce any behaviour issues. (4) It is not reasonable to expect the article to meet guidelines for which there is not enought non-trivial published works. There are no published works about Blass being a great fisherman or a great footballer; is that a reason to delete the article? Please keep in mind that the topic does not create the article; rather, it is the non-trivial published works that create the article and it is those non-trivial published works which are judge under Wikipedia:Notability. -- Jreferee 16:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Articles on people need a claim to notability to avoid being speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. This article doesn't even make clear what this claim is. Mathematician? Clearly he's nowhere near what our standards for academics are, per above. An "early proponent of the Internet who formulated in 1987 what is believed to be one of the first high-level online math journals"? It seems the sole source for this statement is Blass himself, as conveyed to a sympathetic Palm Beach Post. The vagueness of this comment (which "high-level" journal? Why 1987 when the internet goes back to the 1970's? Who are the prominent adherents who confirm Blass's involvement?) puts this almost outside WP:V and certainly outside WP:NPOV. A perennial minor candidate for various elections? There is a consensus that minor candidates who haven't established notability for themselves otherwise are at best mentioned in the campaign article per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Clearly all articles minus one have the election as their focus and portrait minor candidates in a cluster ("Fringe candidates") for the sake of comprehensiveness. ~ trialsanderrors 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- The math journal claim is a bit odd. Certainly Ulam exists and existed, the earliest reference I can find is this USENET posting from 1993[15] which doesn't mention Blass. Per my knowledge of such things (yes, I go back to the bang path days), it's entirely possible that it was the first journal in mathematics available strictly online, but I would expect he would turn up in the electronic record somewhere if he were a significant part of bringing it to life. Given other odd claims in the article, I'm not inclined to give this claim the benefit of the doubt. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't so much doubt his involvement than that the founding of the journal was a significant event. ISI Journal Report doesn't have a listing of it, JSTOR and ScienceDirect have one cite each to an Ulam Quarterly paper, Newsbank comes up with nothing. Factiva has two passing mentions in 1994, neither backing the claim that it was "the first" or even "early", and it's certainly not "high-level". The article is still 90% puffery, 10% substance. ~ trialsanderrors 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- The math journal claim is a bit odd. Certainly Ulam exists and existed, the earliest reference I can find is this USENET posting from 1993[15] which doesn't mention Blass. Per my knowledge of such things (yes, I go back to the bang path days), it's entirely possible that it was the first journal in mathematics available strictly online, but I would expect he would turn up in the electronic record somewhere if he were a significant part of bringing it to life. Given other odd claims in the article, I'm not inclined to give this claim the benefit of the doubt. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Articles on people need a claim to notability to avoid being speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. This article doesn't even make clear what this claim is. Mathematician? Clearly he's nowhere near what our standards for academics are, per above. An "early proponent of the Internet who formulated in 1987 what is believed to be one of the first high-level online math journals"? It seems the sole source for this statement is Blass himself, as conveyed to a sympathetic Palm Beach Post. The vagueness of this comment (which "high-level" journal? Why 1987 when the internet goes back to the 1970's? Who are the prominent adherents who confirm Blass's involvement?) puts this almost outside WP:V and certainly outside WP:NPOV. A perennial minor candidate for various elections? There is a consensus that minor candidates who haven't established notability for themselves otherwise are at best mentioned in the campaign article per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Clearly all articles minus one have the election as their focus and portrait minor candidates in a cluster ("Fringe candidates") for the sake of comprehensiveness. ~ trialsanderrors 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Trialsanderrors and Fan-1967. Local publications and passing mentions don't seem to convey substantial enough notability to make it. There are lots of fringe candidates who get mentions in election campaigns, and sometimes whole articles about them in the local papers, but usually on slow news days. The published works, as Trialsanderrors mentions, don't do much to meet WP:PROF, either; to me, this just doesn't quite make it. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Really nothing more than a perpetually failing political candidate. While the litigation he is involved in might be notable, or have produced case law of significant precedential value in Florida, the parties to the litigation itself are not automatically notable themselves. There are thousands of important family law cases when one considers the number of jurisdictions. While there may be articles on those cases, unless the participants in those cases are notable for other reasons, there is no need for an article on the parties. If the case is notable, then there should be an article about the case, but we don't need an article on only one of the parties in the case. Agent 86 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per verifiability problems with the few claims to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Serial nuisance political candidates are notable provided that they get media attention, and this one has. Ballot box results are not needed to establish notability when we already have non-trivial media sources. Raffles mk 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Borderline notability at best plus a huge headache trying to police the article to prevent the subject from inserting his vanity adds up (no pun intended) to delete. JChap2007 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- "borderline should default to keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
- Delete unsuccessful candidate for office, non-notable. Pete.Hurd 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Normally I am inclined to vote down losing candidates. But crackpot candidates do somehow develop some notability by virtue of their perennial crusades like Lyndon Larouche and locally for me Tom Lingenfelter. I guess if I lived in Fla, I would miss him if he wasn't on the ballot for something. Montco 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Change vote to delete. I have thought about it and 16 and 18 votes doesn't really do it for notability. Heck, I won a race in a lot smaller constituency than Florida with 22 votes, and that doesn't make me notable. I must admit that the subject's email blast leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well. Montco 02:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)- Delete per Trialsanderrors and Fan-1967. This article is much better written that previous autobiographies, however, I'm still not seeing notability as an academic or a political candidate. Delete and re-salt. Sarah 11:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep List of publications augmented see also discussion page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.46.64.179 (talk • contribs). ← IP hosted in Maitland, Florida. ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per my votes in the previous AfDs.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
*:What does this mean? Pete.Hurd 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because A and B have never heard of C doesn't mean that C is not notable. This seems one of the basic misconceptions here. <KF> 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep notable nutjob, I'd heard of him up here in Maine because of family in Florida. Guy has extensive media coverage (almost all of it is negative). Sure he fails WP:PROF, but his extensive media coverage makes him pass WP:BIO. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Is Newsbank censoring its negative coverage? I can't find anything but one article plus assorted pm's. ~ trialsanderrors 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete Current biography does not describe Blass' career, only one of the very recent events in it. It is not a biography. Mathsci 01:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per WP:Notability. This guy gets a ton of press. Look him up on Google! Look through Google News. Just because you guys haven't heard of him doesn't mean he exists. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- No one is doubting that he exists, but his accomplishments as a mathematician are very, very far below accepted standards of notability, and his status as a notable politician is remarkably weak. Pete.Hurd 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Clear and obvious delete. The article itself is evidence of the man's non-notability. So much trivia. To write so much boring vanity with the end result of the plain evidence of the man's non-achievement in life. I could write a much fuller article on myself. I at least achieve a google hit of 25,500 compared to this guy's 620. Delete the vanity and spank the editor's bottoms hard. SilkTork 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, notablity is rather weak for a biography article. I would think he needs to run for several more elections before becoming a notable perennial candidate. --Vsion 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite appears to pass WP:BIO based on this and this... Addhoc 20:49, 2 February 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. Bucketsofg 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mehmet Murat İldan
- – (View AfD)
[edit] Delete
- This article and all the articles on his books are a part of an aggressive self (?)-pr covering a growing number of wp editions; whilst he has little notability in english and even less in all the other languages. Note also the previous intro statement "Following his epistolary novel, The First Sorrows of Young Werther, he is regarded as a romantic writer", when the book in question is due to be published in february this year (now corected to march). When the article also stated that this unpublished Young Werther is his magnum opus, we an easily assume that this author not notable, yet.
Even though an anonymous newbee User:Melanicool (contrib) has corrected this, the most obvious errors in the biography, this is still selfbiograhy, vanity and spamming. It remains to be explained why he (or his advocates) wishes to make the impression that all of his books have an english title, as if they have been translated. And it is still a fact the he (or his advocates) is abusing wikipedia worldwide (or, actually, languagewide) severly in order to self promote beyond notability.
Please also note that all his alleged "books" have their own articles; though several of his listed plays (such as Journey to God, Alchemist's Wife, Goddesses also Die and Master Moliere is Marrying etc) has no information about publishing or stage performances; they are merely manuscripts. Orland 09:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the article, and speedy delete for all the plays and books articles that he also created here. None of them has been published with more than 3 000 copies, and some are still to be published... No sources except himself or the editor. He might be close from matching the criteria, but his creation of articles on himself on 30 different WP (half have already deleted or started a deletion procedure) is an incredible attempt to use the limited resources of WP for a worldwide self promotion. A violation of WP's principles that are the reason for my vote. Clem23 10:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - there is odd smell coming from this writer. Better to wait and see if he actually is what he claim is. --Finn Bjorklid 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per Clem23's first intervention, becoming strong delete after reading the very dubious interventions in favour of keeping. --Goochelaar 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete vast campaign of self promotion. --Vlad|-> 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Kjetil_r 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I wanted to give this a chance. Sites like google have limited effectiveness in searching for people who only operate abroad. But its hard to see how the case for notability has been made. I don't know how reliable the NewAbsinthe link is, but if there were more like it, I guess I could give this a pass. One of the proponents seems to think that merely publishing a book makes one notable and lists sites that sell his books. That is not the case. In other cases, proponents have described him as an emerging writer. Perhaps he can wait until he has emerged? Right now the massive sock operation leaves a bad aftertaste.Montco 03:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- If I'm the proponent cited as saying that a published book makes one notable (there's another one who does more, but I was the first one), I feel I should clarify my position. I'd misread the nomination as suggesting that the books were unpublished, rather than the plays, about which I can also find nothing online. Obviously if a book is available online, it's been published. That said, as I understand the nomination now I see that the mere existence of the books wasn't really in question - and neither does it automatically confer notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Seems as an obvious case of using Wikipedia for commercial reasons; what did our new attorney say about such "articles"? Ulflarsen 07:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to me as being a part of a wery cheap ad-campaign. Cheap moneywise, that is. Is Wikipedia supposed to sponsor him in all languages? Noorse 08:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete the article, and speedy delete for all the plays and books articles that he also created here. Self promotion --Dalgspleh 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with Thermite Does not meet WP:BIO. The first page of Google results is self-promotion or otherwise trivial articles. As per Clem23, even if he were in that list it would count for nothing, being the equivalent of a directory listing if it has 10k entries. Does not meet WP:V - can't find any English primary sources...in fact, it's quite hard to find anything in the mess of GoogleSpam that now comes up when you run a search!! Given the socks, I think letting this article remain would encourage similar WikiSpamming, which would be a very BadTM thing.--inksT 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Tuohirulla puhu 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Clem23- Wikipedia is not a commercial website. Surena 14:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete the author has not only vandalized en.wikipedia and other languages, he has also hijacked the effort to delete this vanity article by sockpuppetry. --Clouseth 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete for all ancillary articles on plays and books. For the BIO: Delete or, at the very least, rewrite by someone who isn't directly related to the author by virtue of being...the author. There may be a case for inclusion on local site, as there is a review of one book on the Turkish tourism board website here, but half a thousand words of ego-massage it is not. As for little sock-puppet friends, just having written all these plays and books is not really the issue: I'd like a little more evidence of someone having ever read them. Scandrett 17:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there are five reviews of his works if you search the name through this search page [17]. --Ekeb 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- A 'review', as you define it, is essentially nothing but a de facto admission of a work's existence. A review of 'Animal Farm' saying: "I can confirm this book is real; is made primarily of paper; was written by a man originally called Eric and is mostly about pigs" would not have gained Orwell an admission, and the reviews you source review nothing but the size of the book. Useful only if you're looking to buy a paperweight or a draft excluder. I still say weak keep on the Author page (and not the individual play/novel pages) provided there's an agricultural scale cull of the pooterism & puffery.Scandrett 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, the full text of the "reviews" look like this:
Title: The Beggar’s Prophecy (Dilencinin Kehaneti) Author (Editor, Trans., etc.): Mehmet Murat İLDAN Genre: Two-act play Edition: First printing Year of Publication : 2001 Dewey Decimal No: 812,42A 'reviewa Number of Pages: 54 + vii Size: 20 cm. Publication No: 2644 Name of Series: Works on Art-Drama Series Series No: 338-203 ISBN: 975-17-2629-8 Copies Printed : 4,000 Price: 800,000 TL Description: Mehmet Murat ildan’s play about a beggar and a lady in Paris.
-
- I don't know what other people think, but to me that is NOT a review, that is a directory/index listing. It is not an in-depth, non-trivial article. This is an example of a real, in-depth, review. Even if it were, one could argue that the Turkish Ministry of Culture is not the most independent of reviewers. Note also that WP:BIO suggests that simply publishing is not sufficient, the author must have also received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. Perhaps if more time was spent improving the plays instead of WikiSpamming...--inksT 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Let's not encourage people to write articles on themselves. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Self-promoting spammer. -- Yekrats 12:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- This writer does not exist. He has not published any books at all. he is fiction. I comment to delete him. it is obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.122.73.12 (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- In Latin Wikipedia: "Calling it a self-promotion is curious. Nobody can know whether Mehmet knows about this case at all, although someone claimed the opposite. Ok, the promotion was bad, but the reaction smells bad as well." --Sun-o-man 18:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - It's not a matter of Turkey. This guy would be from Costa-Rica, Slovenia or New Zealand it would exactly be the same. It's a huge spamming abuse on over 30 different wikipedias, of a very unfamous writer, totally unknown in Turkey according to the Turks themselves. And the community reacts against that, which is quite sound and normal I believe. VaclavSmar 07:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete vanity Prittglue 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not notable --Pancasila 14:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Clem23 --Epaphroditus Ph. M. 18:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete spam --Orang gila 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Keep
- Weak keep, although I'll admit to not quite following what's going on here. A brief Google using the Turkish dotted-I spelling throws up this site, which seems to verify the existence of "Roses under Paris" ("Paris'in Altındaki Güller", I believe, although my Turkish is pretty bad) and probably others as well, so he seems to have published something at least. Whether or not this is a vanity press is something I can't comment on, since it requires more language ability than I have. The fact that the article has claimed that an unpublished book is his magnum opus is neither here nor there, since it's a content issue which is curable by editing rather than deletion. In terms of the English titles, I'm not sure what the normal policy is regarding books with foreign language titles, although I'd point to this tome as evidence that perhaps it's legitimate to keep the titles as is, as long as the books have been published. On the surface, though, he seems to qualify as notable enough in Turkey, which I'd say makes him sufficiently notable here as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the article,When we check the page http://www.essex.ac.uk/alumni/pubs/nineties.htm, we can see that the author has Master and Doctorate degrees in Economics from the University of Essex. Therefore, in the infobox, it is fair to write "Economist" as one of his occupations along with novelist and playwright... So I am not agree with the user Melanicool to remove the "economist" label. That info was correct. If you also see the page http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=113181, the page rank on the right, it is fair to say that author has certain notability. Also, as we all know that PEN Clubs are important and serious literary organisations. In Turkish PEN's official web site, http://www.pen-tr.org/en/writes.asp?catid=1&name=2&id=56, we see author's some works published expilicitly in English. I believe this gives us some opinion that though he is an emerging writer, he has already some notability. I know from a friend living in the USA that author's novel Roses Underneath Paris can be found in certain bookshops in New York. The novel is not in English, it seems to be a great paradox, but it is not, because the book is read by the Turkish community living in the USA. Same applies to London or Münich as well. So I believe we must be fair on judging about the notabilty... We should also bear in mind that, checking his life story, author has lived about 9 years in England and he writes books where the events pass in England. So he is pro-England or England-lover writer as well... even only for this reason, I believe that an article about him deserves to be kept, improved and enriched... 25 january 2007.
-
- Vote note signed but done by IP 85.106.155.214. A IP in Ankara, Turkey, the same type of IP that created this article on 31 different WP on a timespan of 1 month and a half. And sometime uses the following usernames: Ademusset or Marivaux on Fr, Cicero on WP in Latin, Carlogoldoni in Italian, Lopedevaga in Spanish, and Muratildan in Turkish. Vanity of one single person that has never sold more than 3 000 copies of one of his books. de:, pl:, sv:, it:, id: and others have used speedy deletion, fr:, es: are using articles for deletion procedure shifting towards deletion. Clem23 13:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep the article, I am totally surprised to see that some users doubt whether this writer has published something at all! I am half Turkish, because my mother is Turkish. With a quick search on google, I can give some proof pages that he has published at least 10 books. http://www.imge.com.tr/person.php?person_id=22366 (This is a known publishing house in Turkey); another one is http://kitap.antoloji.com/kisi.asp?CAS=33853. Another one http://www.tulumba.com/storeItem.asp?ic=zBK964063WA584. This particular site sends books all over the world. http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D3138FE9074FF19B0005DFB6D1186A7B243F (This one is Republic of Turkey, Ministery Page) http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D3137A2395174CFB32E19EDC603C979CEB01. There is a famous Publishing house on plays in Istanbul. You can find his book on their site as well: http://www.mitosboyut.net/index.php?option=com_productbook&func=detail&Itemid=30&id=135. There exist at least 100 pages where one can buy his books. This particular site http://www.truvabookstore.com/main/product_detail.asp?pro_ID=19&sub_cat_ID=11&cat_ID=5, is author's official publishing house and you can find his books over there as well. I think there exist a germen internet book site as well, wehere especially Turkish-Germans can buy his or other Turkisk books.
I have also seen that all the information in the article is verifiable. For instance in the article it mentions Absinthe: New European Writing Journal. I made a search on it. You can see his name appears in http://www.absinthenew.com/pages/issue2.html. In the article it mentions about AQT competition. I found information in this web page: http://undergroundtransit.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_undergroundtransit_archive.html that his play became finalist. In short, all the information in the article is surely verifiable. About Magnum Opus, I have not seen such a thing; if there was, most probably it was an editing mistake. As user BigHaz said, it's a content issue which is curable easily by editing rather than deletion. I am sure his books will soon be published in England as well. Wikipedia is a paradise of information; we must not delete, but we must verify and edit any kind of information if found wrong. We must also know that no one can ever promote himself through wikipedia, but only by the good quality of his or her works. I have read his book Antiquary Arago's Diary (original title Antikacı Arago'nun Günlüğü), I believe he is good quality writer and he knows England very well. So my vote is to keep the article strongly.Faydunnaway
-
- This account is likely to be a sock-puppet. Clem23 11:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the article, from google search it is obvious that he is a known writer. My vote is to keep. Alpacin. 27 January 2007
- Hmmm. Two absolutely fresh users, who has only written in this debate!? This looks like Sock puppetry to me. --Orland 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- 3, you forgot to count the IP that has also expressed a keep vote. Clem23 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Two absolutely fresh users, who has only written in this debate!? This looks like Sock puppetry to me. --Orland 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, certainly notable in Turkey, the question is if it isn't a case for Turkish Wikipedia ... as for will be published soon in England: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we have things that happened and that are verifiable in an Encyclopedia Alf photoman 15:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the article, every writer has her or his advocates, that is quite normal. I have read some parts of author's play Master William Shakespeare, which is available in http://www.pen-tr.org/en/writes.asp?catid=1&name=2&id=56. He seems to be a serious and good writer. What use to delete the article about him which has obviously correct information? I believe that English wikipedia users can and should benefit from the information and literary material given in the article. We must also keep in mind the considerable effort made to create this article. I suggest we respect the effort and the work. So my vote is definitely to keep the article... deleting is an easy way, we should be helpers not the terminators.good day.Jabbar. 27 January 2007, 18.07
-
- not signed by Sockpuppet n°4, you could also use the 4 different names that you used to write the article, I'm waiting for their vote. Clem23 16:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean out the self-promotion. Seems "notable" enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and see systemic bias. Baristarim 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Could you elaborate on this? --Goochelaar 23:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I shall elaborate a bit myself. First of all, the person which is object of the article we are discussing shares 8 or 9 of the 10 features attributed to the average Wikipedian. Secondly, countering systemic bias means countering the tendency to consider a major Turkish (or Italian, or Somali, or...) writer de facto less important than a minor English-speaking one, not allowing a minor one (independently from his nationality) to advertise freely, should this be the case here. --Goochelaar 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A published author, notable in his own language group at least. Spam is annoying but does not make him insignificant. User:Dimadick
-
- He is so notable that he isn't even listed in the turkish ministry of culture's turkish authors encyclopedia, that contains hundreds of names [18] Clem23 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you read the preface about that website, you will notice that the web version has only 2.023 the most notable of about 10.000 Turkish authors which are listed in the printed version [19]. --Ekeb 09:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for correcting, so I was saying that he's not among the 2 023 most famous turkish writers, and that we do not know if he is among the 10 000. But as for notability it's still a very important information. Clem23 11:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you read the preface about that website, you will notice that the web version has only 2.023 the most notable of about 10.000 Turkish authors which are listed in the printed version [19]. --Ekeb 09:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- He is so notable that he isn't even listed in the turkish ministry of culture's turkish authors encyclopedia, that contains hundreds of names [18] Clem23 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep, self-promotion or non-notability outside of origin country have never been reasons to delete in English Wikipedia. --Tbonefin 07:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There are considerably less notable bios in the English Wikipedia. Seems to meet our marginal bar for significance. Huangdi 08:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- FYI. I have also nominated for deletion 10 articles on mostly unpublished and unstaged plays by Ildan; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Admirer of Machiavelli. Quoting a visitor on my norwegian talk page: "this guy launched one of the most incredible spam event that I've ever seen on WP" --Orland 08:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Week Keep, It needs work on establishing the significance. Current form of the page does not have significant info, lets say textual depth. OttomanReference 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Further info. Please also note that User:Saposcat, who must be recognized for some insight in turkish literature removed this edit by the most frequent Ildan-agitator User:Tagorgora, when Tagorgora tried to edit Ildan into the article Turkish literature. --Orland 11:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep - As a tr.wp admin and probably the first reader of the WP article on him, I would like to provide you guys some information about this issue. First of all, it is Mehmet Murat İldan himself, who has been writing all these articles. So it's an autobiography. I personally don't see WP:AUTO as a reason to delete an article, as long as the person in question is notable. In that case i think he is, even though i've never heard of him in my life before his Wikiactivity. He is definitely not famous in Turkey, that i can assure you. But as an author of several books, i personally would consider him as notable. He has several awards, books published by Ministry of Culture etc. He clearly speaks very highly of himself and all his contributions are about himself, but my tendency to stay neutral no matter what pushes me to accept this person as notable. The article can be neutralized or stubbed.--Vito Genovese 11:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't see why to delete this article... Honestly, there is some ongoing prejudice about Turkish articles in wikipedia, and I highly disapprove of this! This guy has bbooks published. see above links, I checked them. So just because english speakers don't read him it means he doesn't exist as a writer or what? This is an english language encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of English things... he has several published books. turkish national libraries list him. what else do you need? --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you're Turkish, would you want your country to be represented by this self-promoting, non-notable, hack of a writer or by Orhan Pamuk, whose reputation is not in any doubt and would not resort to such low actions to sell a few more of his books? By voting to delete this article, you are voting to protect the good name of Turkey and Turkish writers. --Pancasila 14:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Because I smell very bad racist lynching operation here! Turkey's most prestigous writers are those of the Turkish PEN Club members; Orhan Pamuk is also a member... Here is a definite proof that Mehmet Murat İldan is a Turkish writer and a member of the most prestiguous literary club in Turkey. Check this web page: Turkish PEN Club Members The article is not Self promoting, it is INFORMATION PROMOTING which is the most important aim of Wikipedia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.122.73.42 (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
-
- This vote might be Sock puppetry --Orland 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong KeepAny person who has published 10 books will be considered notable enough in any country. Check the Kurdish page [Mehmet Murat İldan] His books have not been translated into Kurdish, but the information on the writer exists in Kurdish. What is the purpose of the Wikipedia, if not to provide information. Can anyone disprove the information given in the article? All you "no" guys just talk. His books are not in Kurdish language. So what profit he can gain from this? Obviously, this article and the brother articles aim is to provide info, nothing but info about the writer. If you need an information about Turkish playwrights, where an earth are you going to look at? Don't you see that Wikipedia is a wonderful opportunity to get information? Will the writer go to a publishing House in Portugal and say that "Look, I have an article in wikipedia, publish my works!" It is absolutely funny!!!!!! There is obviously unjustified no-proof attack on the article. I protest this strongly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.73.31 (talk • contribs)
-
- This vote might be Sock puppetry --Orland 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep What's with all the deletes here? Yes, the page may be a so called "vanity" page now. It may right now be self promotion. But if George W Bush wrote his own Wiki-page, would you guys still delete it? He is notable in Turkey. Just because you have not heard of him here does not mean that he is not notable somewhere else in the world. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - notable in Turkey--Boookabooo 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- This vote might be sock puppetry. If I counted right, this is the 9th sockpuppet or suspected sockpuppet of Mehmet Murat Ildan (not all of them voted though, a few just tried to fix the article to try desperately to save it) Clem23 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Linguicism again. Several Turkish-speaking Wikipedians (including one who has my utmost trust in anything Turkey-related) have attested this author is notable. – Alensha talk 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
- Supplying a perspective: A biography of modern turkish national author Yaşar Kemal excists in ca 10 wp languages. This article was spread into ca 30 languages. This is obviously unproportional, and suggests an agenda of spamming beyond significance. --Orland 13:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is also a relevant comparison with Orhan Pamuk, the recent nobel prize winner. In many small WP they are the only 2 authors listed in the turkish writers category (ie in finnish) Clem23 13:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong
. The same article is being considered for deletion in multiple Wikipedias all of sudden? first deletion proposal I've seen in Finnish Wikipedia that isn't in Finnish, for example. Can anyone tell me, admittedly, a slow-witted fellow, what the heck is going on? An craftily orchestrated international deletion debate, or business as usual? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- An administrator at the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia noticed the concerted effort of spreading this biographical article to a great number of Wikipedias, and believing the effort to be self-promotion from an artist who probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability in any language made an extra effort of countering the apparent spam in like fashion. I believe that is more or less the core of this issue. __meco 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- After considering the case, it does appear to be a case of a) an unprecedentedly elaborate VSCA attack and b) an equally elaborate and rather unprecedented response to it by AfDing the articles everywhere. So, right now, I'd say Weak Delete unless there's definite proof that these books are indeed published or something along those lines. If this is indeed a case of vanispam, the author must be strongly cautioned to not touch the article too much further, but if the article subject's merits are okay, then there's really no reason to delete the article anyway. User conduct is not grounds for article deletion. So, basically, improve or let it go. I do have to say that if this article creation gimmick is really as elaborate as it seems like at this point, this is most frown-worthy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- The books seem to have been published, and nobody's flagged anything about a vanity press/print on demand outfit being involved, so that particular obstacle looks cleared. BigHaz -
- Finnish vote seems to be for keep 26/10 at the moment. --Sun-o-man 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- The books seem to have been published, and nobody's flagged anything about a vanity press/print on demand outfit being involved, so that particular obstacle looks cleared. BigHaz -
-
- Strong . For some reasons why to keep this article, see the (English) discussion in the Latin Wikipedia. --Roland2 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Would wwwwolf and Roland2 clarify whether their use of is meant to indicate a comment or a vote?--inksT 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Additional Comments Hm. Following the comment by BigHaz that the books seemed to have been published, I have tried to find listings for the ISBN 975-17-2629-8 for "The Beggar’s Prophecy (Dilencinin Kehaneti)" which is supposed to have had a 4k print run in 2001 - no records [20], [21]. Have also tried the University Library catalogues of several Turkish Universities, no hits. [22], [23]. So I tried the listed ISBN for Sisam Adası Aşıkları - Lovers of Samos Island, 2006 and got nothing again. [24]. No hits even for the authors name. [25], [26]. These were the only ones I could find:[27]. In contrast, I can pick up any book off a pile here at the University of Otago library, and find multiple listings. For example "Renata's Journey", (1994), a historical narrative of a particular expedition in 1843/44 by Maori and Pakeha, of academic interest only, and probably had a small print run. ISBN 0908812361, and look, a listing.[28].--inksT 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll refer once again to this site, which seems (although I can't be totally sure) to allow people to purchase two of his books and what looks to be an anthology of somethingoranother in which he is included - all in the original Turkish, however. There mightn't be an ISBN attached, but the fact that his work is available for purchase seems to say that he is published. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am sincerely hoping that the following library and book web site pages will persuade you that these books exist:
Istanbul Technical University Library Antiquary Arago's Diary Novel Istanbul Bilgi University Library Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Play Turkish Ministry of Culture Library - Galileo Galilei Play Turkish Ministry of Culture Library William Shakespeare Play Turkish Ministry of Culture Library Antiquary Arago's Diary Novel Turkish Books Site Sisam Adası Aşıkları - Lovers of Samos Island Ormanın Hayaletleri - Ghosts of Forest Turkish Books Site Antikacı Arago'nun Günlüğü - Antiquary Arago's Diary Ilknokta Book Web Site Antikacı Arago'nun Günlüğü - Antiquary Arago's Diary TNN Bookstore Turkish Ministry of Culture Library Dilencinin Kehaneti - Beggar's Prophecy William Shakespeare Play Advertisement in Milliyet Newspaper I can give you 100 more web sites that one find all the books mentioned in the article. Please also note that 4000 copy for a theatre play in Turkey is realy a very very big printing number. Dilencinin Kehaneti-Beggar's Prophecy printed in 2001 and sold out compeletly in 2002. Now it is a rare book which can be found only in seller of secondhand books... We give big importance to Wikipedia and all we want is to be here, to let others know about the Contemporary Turkish Literature and share with you... yours sincerely... Tagorgora. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.226.141.13 (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- I would like to give additional information about the library records as a proof of the books existence. Here is the National Library records.
National Library of Turkey Database You can see that writer's birthday info is wrong. It should be 1965. But in the government record it is written as 1956. Please also check the spelling Ormanýnýn hayaletleri (Ghost's of Forest) The correct spelling should be Ormanın Hayaletleri. Thus, when you search the books in the google or in other search engines or even in databases, because of the wrong records, spelling mistakes it is not always easy to find a book in a quick search. National Library of Turkey Database in Ankara is the largest database. Please check the following page: National Library of Turkey Database You will see only 6 books of the author. But he has more than 10 books published. We don't see them in the database, because databases are unfortunatley not updated and there exists several spelling mistakes... Anyway, this is my final comment on this issue. You can delete or keep the article, it is your decision. I hope that people from different countries will create different articles on the Contemporary Turkish Literature and contemporary Turkish Writers so that literature world can be enriched further. Yours sincerely... Tagorgora. Vox populi vox Dei. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.231.213.149 (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- Comment I wonder if it is a coincidence that the last two, very indignant, remarks come from unregistered, unsigning editors with very similar IPs: in one case this is the unique contribution to Wikipedia, in the other there is also a minor editing to the İldan article. I won't comment about the racism accusations. --Goochelaar 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Are we deleting this article because it is self promotion or because he's not notable? I mean, if the article was created by an established user, would you want it to be deleted? If an established user re-creates the article two months after the closure of this Afd, would the article get deleted and why? (WP:CSD A7?) What i don't understand is, why would self promotion be a reason to delete an article. Why don't we focus on notability and just neutralize the article? Does notability refer to how famous the person in question is or does it refer to the work he/she has done to deserve an article? I simply don't understand why we keep an article about Prince Harry's girlfriend and delete this one (or recreations in the future)? Not that i support this guy just because he's from Turkey (i got so close to blocking him on tr.wp), but i don't see any reason to relinquish information, just because it's been used for self promotion. --Vito Genovese 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Things are actually getting muddled by several non-pertinent factors: the suspect of self-promotion, the sudden appearance of the articles in several wikipedias, the comments by possible sockpuppets, the accusations of racism... All of which heats the debate and distracts from the actual issues of possible non-notability and possible lack of reliable sources. Nevertheless, some good points have been made. For instance, somebody pointed out the "Encyclopedia of Turkish Authors" [29] of the Turkish Ministry of Culture, in which İldan does not appear. It allegedly includes the 2023 "owners of the most important works in Turkish language". So it appears that İldan is, at best, the 2024th most notable Turkish writer, which does not appear very notable among Turkish writers (we are not even thinking of comparing him with writers in other languages). This is just to exemplify some of the points made about his notability. Then again, these points must carefully be found amid other less relevant arguments. --Goochelaar 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think you are talking about this page. Turkish Authors I have just made a quick look at it. Özen Yula is not in the list, but Ahmet Önel is in the list. Özen Yula is a famous Playwright in İstanbul... I am saying to you that that list is definitely not correct, not complete, politically biased, since Fethullah Gülen's name is there!... Also it is not the list of the Famous Authors, but it is the list of Turkish Authors. Do you also know that Ministry of Culture is no longer printing theatre plays? Why? because the government does not like theatre!.. Oh, dear friend there are millions of things you don't know about Turkey, about what is going on in Turkey... any way, I will sleep now! But before sleep I will give you one more name, probably you may know him İsmail Cem, former Minister, died few days ago. he has many books, but he is not in the list! . He is not writing literary books, rather political books. But the list above already a mixed list. Good day to you... Yours sincerely... Tagorgora
- COMMENT - I have read some of the discussions above. First of all, there exists neither racism nor prejudice against the Turks or what so ever. I believe there is confusion here. If you see the notability criteria for people in the following page, [notability], things will be clearer. It says that “The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person” From the above web sites we can see that he has at least 10 books published. He has published about Galileo Galilei, [Galileo Galilei] , since Bertolt Brecht this is the second play ever written on Galileo’s life. Can we call this a trivial publication? There exists no play on William Shakespeare’s life. See this page, [Master William Shakespeare], are we going to call this publication trivial and rubbish? Has anybody tried to read the play? Why not? Do you think that high literature is something garbage? Please see the page, [Gandhi], this is the only comprehensive Gandhi play in the world, no one can assert othervise; are we going to say that this Gandhi play is trivial publication? Another criteria says “Published authors who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.” Büyünün Gözleri (Eyes of Magic) Play, [Eyes of Magic], obtained a National award in Istanbul. Do you think that it is easy to get a national award where hundreds of participants enter the competition? Is it something trivial? Now please see this page, [Sabahattin Eyuboğlu]. You will probably say who the hell this Sabahattin Eyuboğlu is. He is a very important Turkish writer, and when I read the artcile I have seen nothing about Shakespeare and I added that info, added Shakespeare link as well. He has translated Macbeth, Timon of Athens, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, most wonderful translations… We have loved Shakespeare through his incredibly beautiful translations. Now, if you look at his article, a very short article, so he means an unimportant writer? We can not get anything from the length of the article. It is not the length but the quality matters. Unfortunately we don’t have much time. We have works to do. There are hundreds of Turkish related articles to be improved. There are also so many misonformation as well. Now see this page, [Mehmet Murat ildan] in Magyar language. It is clear that a Magyar guy translated this page. It probably says Murat ildan is a Turkish writer. And there is also Bibliografi. Where is the spam here? Is the play Master William Shakespeare spam? what is the spam here? I see only a very limited info on the writer. Are we going to call this a spam, a garbage? What is your knowledge about literature? Have you ever tried to read the writers one of the plays in English, available in different sites. See the page [Mehmet Murat İldan] in Latin language page. Do you call this a spam? It says Murat İldan is a Turkish writer. Galileo text is given there. So is it the play spam, or rubbish? Do you think that it is easy to be a writer in Turkey. Burhan Günel is a famous (and notable) writer in Turkey. His story books are printed in 2000 copies. May be you find it funny? Have you ever heard Burhan Günel? No! check the google now, you will see only 992! he is 60 years old. Now see this Turkish short CV: Ödülleri: Kültür Bakanlığı Çocuk Öyküleri Başarı
Ödülü (1979), Türk Dil Kurumu Ödülü (1981), Mehmet Ali Yalçın Roman Ödülü (1981 ve 1982), Nevzat Üstün Öykü Birinci Başarı Ödülü (1983), Ömer Seyfettin Öykü Ödülü (1994), Yunus Nadi Roman Ödülü (1997), Yunus Nadi Öykü Ödülü (2000). He has at least 6 very important Literary Awards! But according to google he is 992! There are lots of important Turkish writers that even most Turkish people don't know because they are not advertised, because big publishing houses are supporting many trivial, magazinal type books and writers. I am avery disappointed and sad about the above discussions!.. They mentioned above writers dictionary. They are all biased dictionaries. There is another dictionary where 4000 writer names exist. We don't have 4000 writers, I am talking about literature! Turkish Playwrights number is not more than 100! You can check from the playwrights association in ıstanbul by sending them an e-mail. What about living novelists? May be 200, but not more!.. Being famous is something to do with advertisement, somethimg to do with money, not with quality. Not every good writer has money, or dark powers for advertisements... What is the conclusion? The writer in question is notable but not famous in Turkey! Who cares about being famous? are we going to be interested in the works or whether the person in question is famous? Ask 1000 people in the streets of Turkey, They will not know about Sabahattin Eyuboğlu... Some says His Hamlet is even better than the original language, it so poetical... goodnight. Tagorgora.
- Comment "Now see this page, [Mehmet Murat ildan] in Magyar language [Mehmet Murat ildan]. It is clear that a Magyar guy translated this page. It probably says Murat ildan is a Turkish writer" [User: Tagorgora] Now my Magyar may be a little rusty, but as someone with a little Latin left over from school I can assure you that while the latin page [Mehmet Murat İldan] does, sort of, say Ildan is a Turkish writer, it does it in a way that suspiciously reeks of someone running it through a Latin babelfish, since anyone with a little Latin left would have left the verb 'est', at the end of the sentence & I get the same feeling about the other languages that Ildan (sorry, Ildan's 'biographer') is posting to. I know this is nitpicking, but the whole thing just stinks to high heaven of a concerted, and conceited, attempt to carpet bomb every wiki in existence into submission. First of all I thought this was just simple vanity, more and more I'm starting to think hoax. Surely no-one could be so self-regarding to need about 15 sock-puppets and daily postings on AfD just to prop up their insecurity? Also, accusations of racism are a very cheap shot & need to be nipped in the bud right away.Scandrett 00:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Side note: The Latin is ok, see la:Vicipaedia:A est B. ;-) --Roland2 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have just added World Short Story Day article in the Wikipedia which was proposed by the Turkish Authors Association (TAA) in Ankara. About the article on Mehmet Murat İldan, I would like to give a brief info on him which is that the author is a member of TAA, Turkish Authors Association in Ankara. His name is written as Mehmet M. Ildan in the list. Membership number is 704. The association is a liberal sided organisation, some of his members prisioned in the past years. Another info that I know about the writer is that one of his plays, Tanrı'ya Yolculuk, Journey to God banned in Istanbul on the grounds that society is not ready for this play. The play considers the science as the sole Prophet. It is anti-religuous but pro-God play. In his theatre articles, this particular one Thoughts on the banns in theatre writer explains his opinions on such matters. but I don't know whether an english version of the article can be found on the web. I just wanted to give the wikipedia community these info. as far as notabilty, he is surely notable. this particular web site Tiyatrom is the most visited web site (among the theatre web sites) in Turkey. Please ellaborate on my new article World Short Story Day as well. Take care. Hande, 31 jan 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HandeKurtulus (talk • contribs) 12:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
-
- This would be the seventh Sock puppet to defend Ildan. --Orland 17:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment reverted to editions turkish title following user Orland's contributions.
- Comment: For god's sake, what's this longish debate about someone who has 10 books published? Isn't that enough criteria for notability? Who cares about the writer of the article? even if he wrte it himself... it doesn't say he's the bigest turkish writer - to have POV in it. It says he has X number of books published. So why are we still debating about NOTABILITY? I speak turkish and read the turkish sources. He exists. he has those books published, he is a member of the PEN club. what else do you need for notability? I do say there IS racim against Turkish articles going on in enwiki, and quite frankly I don't really know why. what's your problem with turkish literature? that you can't read it? that's no excuse for deleting something, just because you can't read it. 100 million speakers of the Turkish language CAN. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I added the ecessary references to the page, about the biography elements, about the award winning play (did find sources about it) and about the books, found his bio and bibliography at the website of the publisher of three of his books, Truva Yayinlari. Link also added at the site. Hope this is enough proof of notabilty for everyone. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 21:11, 2 February 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted per WP:WEB and the like—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pie vs cake
|
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}} |
- – (View AfD)
A comic on a website about whether pie or cake is better. Non-notable obviously. Recury 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: The article is not about a comic, nor even about which is better cake or pie. It is about the situation that occured around staff members creating a feud and it's effects on the users of the site. In many ways it is similar (on a drastically lower and much sillier scale) to the publishing of the Mohammad comics and the outrage stirred up in the Islamic community because of them. (Much much lower and sillier scale) Creol 17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- The entry is a valid argument that people have been following on roosterteeth.com. I see no reason why this article should not be included on wikipedia. maybe it should be linked on Roosterteeth.com wiki article but still included in wikipedia. maybe it is not noteable to EVERY wikipedia reader but then again most articles are not notable to everyone. the mere fact that the pie vs cake argument does in fact have a following should be more then enough reason for a wikipedia article to exist.
- I think the entry should stay. At least for a little while longer. It is no longer an edited mess. Fritzmonkey 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- You haven't explained how the article satisfies our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It has potential, but maybe not in it's current form. There are articles about other internet memes and phenomena. While it certainly is alive and kicking on the Roosterteeth Site, I'm reasonably sure It did not start there and it is on many other sites as well.PollitzerBK 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It needs to be verifiable from multiple, independent reliable sources. So if some other news site wrote about it that would help, but if its just people on that website talking about it then it isn't independent and if its just blogs or forum posts that talk about it then those aren't reliable sources. Recury 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this artiticle would be better placed on the RvB web site and forum, not here. I see what the Wiki people are saying about it being unnecessary and just silly, but that is the heart of RvB. Anyways, I don't think it should be deleted now, but if it must then lets us move it to the RvB site first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.30.180 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-25 17:35:37
- Maybe you'd consider some of the others candidates for deletion too, but a lot of the articles in the Internet Phenomena list don't have much verification other than "this image first appeared on the somethingawful forums on Such and such a date" like the HA! HA! guy PollitzerBK 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's certainly true, but it doesn't exclude this article from needing them. Recury 17:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can come up with, most references I'm finding so far are simply other discussion boards talking about the same thing PollitzerBK 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not that it's entirely relevant, but in the interests of disclosure I'm the moderator "BigBen" on Roosterteeth.com. I also do some wiki editing and I'm trying to be neutral here, so feel free to consider any potential bias on my part. PollitzerBK 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- How about something similar (perhaps more cleaned up) to the article on Pirates versus Ninjas. This is a similar phenomenom, and could be dealt with in a similar way. PollitzerBK 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- That article isn't referenced at all. It's even got the tag asking for references, so I wouldn't use that as a good example. All your base are belong to us has some references to The Register and CNET (although a lot of the other references aren't very good). Recury 18:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- As I mentioned on the discussion page, the "Pie vs Cake" debate is found across many forums on the internet, not just on RoosterTeeth. RT are just the people who escalated the debate with the comic. However, for many forums and websites with a discussion element, the "pie or cake?" question is a common icebreaker.
- I suppose that's the question then, how do you reference a phenomenon that has a very obscure beginning, and primarily consists of a debate occurring on discussion boards. Or is this enough to eliminate it for consideration entirely? PollitzerBK 18:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is. WP:V says: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:RS discusses the reliability of forum posts. Recury 18:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- WP:RS also has at the top "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I would certainly agree that because it does not strictly meet the rule it needs extra attention, but in this case I think it's a candidate for an exception. This is because, like the case of the Pirates v Ninjas article, it seems that forum posts are ample evidence to merely document the existence of an internet phenomenon, which is all the article should focus on in any case, not the personal disputes of some roosterteeth staff members. PollitzerBK 18:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia employs sources where the identity of the author/publisher can be ascertained, where it is evident that fact checking and peer review have occurred, and where it is evident that what has been published has been acknowledged by others and has become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. An anonymous or pseudonymous posting to a World Wide Web discussion forum fails that on just about every count. And as Recury pointed out, you are using as a benchmark an article that isn't satisfactory when it comes to sourcing. Uncle G 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete forum joke at a single site, no claim to notability. Not even close to WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- A google search for Pie vs Cakefinds threads on several dozen forums devoted to the topic within the first few pages. I won't make any claims to verifiability or reliability, but that's reasonably notable. PollitzerBK 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've never edited anything on wikipedia before, but I feel I need to have my say on this one. The Pie vs Cake argument, although I do not know whether started on the Roosterteeth website, it was the first place that I (and i would warrant many other people) heard of the argument.
Just because this article is based on references to discussion boards, forums and the news pages of a few websites does not mean it should be deleted from this one, it is a large argument, which first started out as a joke based on actual events taking place in an office which were quite comical and surreal.
The fact that some people decided to take the argument seriously is, i believe reason enough for it to have a place on Wikipedia. It should at the very most be moved to an article concerning the way in which people sometimes do not recognise humor, or refuse to, thus creating a serious disagreement.
In closing, this article's subject matter does belong on this website, quite simply because it is information, and information is what this website is all about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.33.54.69 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
- This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Our metric of whether something is deserving of an article is whether it has already been properly documented by independent sources outside of Wikipedia. Your metric is perhaps a reason for those sources to consider documenting the subject in the first place. But Wikipedia is not a primary source and until they do document the subject, it should not have an article. Uncle G 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - seems to miss the mark under multiple parts of WP:NOT, WP:WEB, WP:NOTE, and WP:NOR. The Rooster Teeth article is most appropriate, if the pointless information is part of WP at all. --JJLatWiki 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why not expand the article to include more the the RT content and references? Fritzmonkey 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)~Darkended Blade (XBL gamertag)~~I believe the article should be relocated to the history section of the Roosterteeth wikipedia entry, rather than deleated.
The Pie vs Cake feud is Rooster Teeth History. Since Rooster Teeth manages Red vs. Blue, it is Red vs. Blue history and it should be preserved. Relocation is only fair. – Elizabeth Shaoblane
- Speedy delete, surprised it was nominated for an AfD. Clearly non-notable, I agree with User:JJLatWiki re: at best moving a summarised (down to a sentence or two) version to the Rooster Teeth article, in reality it's my opinion that it doesnt really belong on Wikipedia. MidgleyDJ 20:40, 25 January 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. There is simply no credible assertion per WP:BIO or any other guideline for an article on this radio show character. If anyone wants to DAB this per Barno I think that is a very good idea.--Isotope23 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Midnight Rider
|
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}} |
- – (View AfD)
Fictional, non-important character on a radio show --Whackbagger 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dusty Rhodes. It's appropriate, because that is a persona used by wrestler Dusty Rhodes. Kyros 02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I had prodded this but it was contested. Mangojuicetalk 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:RS, WP:BIO. I do not think that an on-air character that has existed for less than 2 weeks is notable. --Bill W. Smith, Jr.(talk/contribs) 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)- Delete unverifiable, unencyclopedic. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:FICT for reasons of previous commenters. No prejudice against creation of a new article under this title for any of:
- - the Paul Revere biography video
- - the Paul Revere "virtual museum"
- - the 1953 movie featuring the Lone Ranger character
- - a redirect to the Gregg Allman song (without "The" in title), which also charted when other artists covered it
- - a redirect to the Kat Martin novel (without "The" in title)
- In fact maybe a disambig page should be set up, as some of the above subjects will be found notable when people with enough interest research them. Barno 04:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Nomination for deletion is created under false, bias pretenses, due to the fact that the person playing the role is very maligned in the XM community. Rider is a character that Dave McDonald plays, therefore, it should be kept with editorial notations stating the fact that he is a character. MattyFridays 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MattyFridays (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
-
- The character is already mentioned on Dave MacDonald's page. This fictional character is not notable enough for his own article --Whackbagger 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Dave MacDonald was killed at Indy in '64. East Side Dave is another character played by the person Dave MacDonald, but they are two separate, notable characters. And you are not being neutral.
- Actually, one more thing, and this is key to your entire argument, Whackbagger - do you have a VERIFIABLE (key word) reference that states Rider is East Side Dave? MattyFridays 18:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, Whackbagger is always speaking in absolutes about The Rider, yet has no verifiable sources for what he is saying. More holier than thou elitist editing which does Wikipedia a disservice.69.140.51.137 09:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, one more thing, and this is key to your entire argument, Whackbagger - do you have a VERIFIABLE (key word) reference that states Rider is East Side Dave? MattyFridays 18:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Dave MacDonald was killed at Indy in '64. East Side Dave is another character played by the person Dave MacDonald, but they are two separate, notable characters. And you are not being neutral.
- The character is already mentioned on Dave MacDonald's page. This fictional character is not notable enough for his own article --Whackbagger 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- STRONG Delete Wait a sec, let me get this straight... Dave McDonald=East Side Dave=Midnight Rider? And you expect Wikipedia to maintain separate pages for EACH? If you had ONE page for McDonald, noted there that these others are personae, and redirected those names to McDonald I MIGHT vote for it. Better yet would be a page for the show they appear on (sorry, it is so un-notable I cannot remember the name) with a list of the shows cast and all characters each plays. However, and I am gonna say this as plainly as possible... Midnight Rider is NOT notable. Where are independent reliable sources??? Where are news stories in mainstream media about ANY of this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BillWSmithJr (talk • contribs).
- Delete unencyclopedic. --Bill.matthews 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Useful to wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flash Virus (talk • contribs). — Flash Virus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep Until his identity is revealed there is not enough proof to merge the article with another one.. for now it is useful to wikipedia for listeners of a very reputable radio program who are seeking out information on the show staff. IrisKawling 05:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- He is a producer of Ron & Fez. His content can go in the Ron and Fez article or the List of Ron and Fez Show characters. He is not notable enough for an article. --Bill.matthews 06:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- He is notable enough for his own page, as it was also a persona of Dusty Rhodes, who is a worldwide known figure in professional wrestling. The Midnight Rider page should not be merged with Dusty or East Side Dave
- Keep He is notable enough for his own page, as it was also a persona of Dusty Rhodes, who is a figure known worldwide in professional wrestling. The Midnight Rider page should not be merged with Dusty Rhodes or East Side Dave as it is a completely separate persona.--Hndsmepete 08:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Notability is not subjective. Doing a google search for "the midnight rider" produces no results that relate to the Ron & Fez producer (other than this article). Therefore he is not notable. As a producer for R&F, he is already listed on their article. --Bill.matthews 13:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wallop (talk • contribs). (Note well: User's thirteenth edit.)
- Delete, per nom and various others above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete • There are no strong verifiable sources, and [{WP:N|notability]] is questionable. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom and others. Verifiability and notability are very questionable for this article. SuperMachine 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of references and notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete contra the meats - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dusty Rhodes OR East Side Dave, OR make a disambig page. Mathmo Talk 04:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Redirect to East Side Dave, OR make a disambig page Nothing should be deleted because several people think its not worthy. Obviously a few people also think it is worthy to be in Wikipedia in some form. Tyrannical editors and their henchman who think they own Wikipedia must be stopped. 69.140.51.137 09:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If Ron and Fez Show is notable enough to have it's own page and their other Producers East Side Dave and Earl Douglas are notable enough to have their page I see no reason why their collegue, The Midnight Rider wouldn't be notable enough to have his page. This is a Whackbag user with a single purpose out trying to harm The Rider and the Show's reputation and this deletion discussion should be ignored, closed and The Riders page left in tact. Cgbrannigan 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC) — Cgbrannigan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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 consenus to delete. W.marsh 15:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde
|
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}} |
- – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO- non notable IRA terrorist- no references and no evidence of having done anything Astrotrain 21:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This was any amazing man, born in Derry, moved to Belfast where his house was bombed and his father and brother shot by loyalist. Then commended for bravery by the Irish Army before joining the PIRA, involved in many missions and killed by the British Army. Granted more detail needs to be added but that only comes with time.--Vintagekits 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Again you are using unreliable sources, or citing sources that cannot be verified. The Troops Out Movement is not a reliable source for example. Other users may wish to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Montgomery where Vintagekits is citing a Daily Mail article that doesn't even exist in their archives. Astrotrain 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Comment, Actually the source was proven correct, the article was in its subscription service, and also obviously could have been read if you bought the paper on the days that the information was printed in them, or went to look at their arcives--Vintagekits 16:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- *Comment - not just one source there mate - what about CAIN and The Guardian - ever heard of them!?!--Vintagekits 23:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Again you are using unreliable sources, or citing sources that cannot be verified. The Troops Out Movement is not a reliable source for example. Other users may wish to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Montgomery where Vintagekits is citing a Daily Mail article that doesn't even exist in their archives. Astrotrain 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no notability asserted. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable Weggie 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I have now added a lot more detail and references to the article. Please see here to compare old the version and the time the AfD and the current contribution. regards--Vintagekits 16:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The manner of his death and his ther accomplishments together make him notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Under the condition that the POV in the article is removed, and the content is narrowed down to what the references cover. Some of the references quoted don't even mention him. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment, Stu, in the other articles he is possibly refered to by his English name which I have also listed, please note that his English name is stated in different location as being any comination of Tony or Anthony and McBride and MacBride. regards--Vintagekits 08:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete not notable. I would also point out that how "strong" you might feel about your vote doesn't make it worth more than my regular old delete. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. This isnt a vote, its a discussion, and strong/weak are ways of expressing emotion. play on. John Vandenberg 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep - As much as I hate to agree with Vintagekits, MacGiolla Bhrighde probably deserves to be kept given the particular circumstances; however these debates have to be on an individual basis only. Vintagekits must also realize that lavishing praise on terrorists is a sure way to get his edits reviewed for POV.El chulito 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Not noteable. - Kittybrewster 17:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless it is Wikipedia's intention to carry a biography of every dedicated murderer of innocent civilians who ever existed. David Lauder 13:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This article seems to be part of an ongoing attempt to memorialise every dead IRA militant on Wikipedia, padded with dubious sources and an undercurrent of anglophobia.--Major Bonkers 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per the above comments.--Couter-revolutionary 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment, Admin, please see here and here for details on the canvassing campaign in breach of WP:CANVAS that a number of the editors who have voted delete have been engaged in.--Vintagekits 19:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, Much of the arguments for deletion above boils down to to POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT as we know that is not a reason to delete. There is numerous nontrivial secondary source coverage here, and any perceived NPOV problems can be sorted through WP:SOFIXIT. My reasoning for the 'keep vote are factual.
- A nationalist moving into a loyalist area and where there family house was repeated attacks and he and his father were shoot (his father eventually dieing from his injuries (notable)
- Joining the regular Irish Army and at the same time secretly joking the IRA, highly unusual, controversial and therefore notable,
- Caught smuggling arms from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland and subsequently being imprisoned for this (notable)
- PIRA membership is pretty notable on its own but MacGiolla Bhrighde was aligned with the militant South Derry and the East Tyrone Brigades who favoured a more radical approach that the IRA Army Council.(notable)
- Shot by the SAS in highly disputed circumstances with republicans claiming he was executed after being detained and British forces claiming that he was shot after lunging for a British Army soldiers gun.(notable)
- Debate of the location of his memorial stone, may not very notable but interesting nonetheless.
- He is refernced in some of the most well known books on the modern days troubles including those by Andy McNab, Tim Pat Coogan and Ed Moloney.(notable)
Finally please compare the version when the article was first nominated and the current version.--Vintagekits 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, this one is obvious. Numerous independent sources attest the notability of the topic under WP:BIO. —ptk✰fgs 23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. All of the citations are from non-reliable sources, while google books and google news return nothing. Addhoc 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Notable figure in the Irish conflict who played a key role in the IRA's armed campaign. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Whether you agree or disagree with the man's politics, his life was an extraordinary one and the information contained on this entry informs the general knowledge and understanding of the Irish conflict. I am interested in all of the extraordinary people on all sides of this conflict whose history and the political choices the made and actions they took can contribute to the general understanding of the war in Ireland.Free Speech
-
- Comment:the IRA were a proscribed and illegal organisation throughout all of Ireland. There was no "war" in Ireland, just a terrorist campaign by an illegal group of monsters responsible for the deaths of innocents. Glorification of these people in pages on Wikipedia should be discouraged entirely. That is not what encyclopaedias are for. David Lauder 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - firstly "Free Speech" is an IP and the above 'vote' his/her first contribution. Secondly, this isn't about whether he was "extraordinary" or a "monster". The sources provided so far are not reliable and the subject does not appear to be verifiable based on internet searches. Addhoc 10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - internet searches alone do not tell the whole story with regards this situation, 1. When he was killed in was before the "internet explosion" - if it were today then there wold be a multitude of internet based sources, if you were to access the hard copy archives of Irish and NI paper you would be able to see the reports. 2. He is written about in a number of the leading books relating to Northern Irish troubles and they have been referenced. 3. which sources listed do you not consider to be reliable and what statements from them are you questioning? If you can clearly list and point your argument then we should be able to discuss them sensibly. regards--Vintagekits 11:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment thanks for your calm and thoughtful reply. Completely agree that internet searches don't always tell the whole story. For the avoidance of doubt, when the nom indicates "no references" that implies none of the citations provided are considered satisfactory. Could you provide extracts from the books that mention him? Addhoc 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment,Addhoc, no problem, please see the nominators history of nominations to gauge his POV, I dont have time right now to type out verbaitum the extracts for the books but I will try - they are very well known books with regards this subject, the McNab one being very popular as it was the follow up to his "Brave Two Zero" book with the Moloney and Coogan books being more recognised within the academic world for their insite into the working of the IRA and its history. I'll see what I can do.--Vintagekits 12:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - firstly "Free Speech" is an IP and the above 'vote' his/her first contribution. Secondly, this isn't about whether he was "extraordinary" or a "monster". The sources provided so far are not reliable and the subject does not appear to be verifiable based on internet searches. Addhoc 10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:the IRA were a proscribed and illegal organisation throughout all of Ireland. There was no "war" in Ireland, just a terrorist campaign by an illegal group of monsters responsible for the deaths of innocents. Glorification of these people in pages on Wikipedia should be discouraged entirely. That is not what encyclopaedias are for. David Lauder 10:11, 1 February 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 keep Cool Hand Luke 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Annabel Port
- – (View AfD)
Non-notable person; fails WP:BIO. (Note: as of 20:42, January 30, I am changing my vote to Neutral) Veinor (talk to me) 22:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
-
- do not delete. I think that Ms. Port should remain in wikipedia, when I first heard virgin radio, I wanted to look up some information on the radio personalities that was not produced by the station itself. I think her role as radio sidekick warrants an individual entry. This would also apply to Tony Moorey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15.195.185.76 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
- DO NOT DELETE
I think that instead of deleting her page you should merge it with the pages of Geoff Lloyd and Tony Moorey to make one big page for The Symposium!!!!!!!!!!--Gumboster 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete
Just look at the amount of debate/interest this issue has raised. Surely this alone proves that Annabel Port is significant enough to merit her own page, anyway the democratic balance seems to be heavily weighted in favour of keeping the articleConal 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Annabel Port is an extremely talented and funny entertainer, she played an important part in Pete and Geoffs Breakfast show on Virgin Radio and continues to do so as part of the Geoff Show.
- DO NOT DELETE
Annabel is the heart of the geoff show on a weekday night, you cannot just delete her from the website that holds the fountain of human knowledge!, she has also worked with Paul McCartney you wouldn't delete john lennon! (that was a bit extreme)but wikipedia has articles on people that have lived in the big brother house...WHAT HAVE THEY DONE THAT IS NOTABLE...annabel has done something, and she and the symposium have over 1 million listeners! DO NOT DELETE 86.3.88.170 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete
Annabel is Gorgeous, Don't delete you silly Americans !*Do Not Delete Annabel is a great icon for the Virgin Radio Goeff Show - a show with world-wide coverage. She is definitely a well known celebrity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.64.255.106 (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
- Do Not Delete
I think Annabel is definitely a celebrity in her own right and deserves a page on wikipedia.Penny79UK 20:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete
Deleting Annabel would be like deleting terry wogan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.45.34 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
- Do Not Delete annabel port is a celebrity for many people in London and has been for some time now she is a great radio presenter and should at least be acknowledged for this somewhere, this profile is not doing harm, it is not offensive, it is just a biography of a radio presenter. PLease don't delete this 88.109.39.10 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete - I agree with most comments made here, the point is not that she is not a notable person, as it was stated before if Big Brother contestants are notable for living in a TV house for a few weeks, Annabel Port whom many people listen to and love on a daily basis and have for many years now, certainly deserves an entry. But I do agree the article can do with a facelift and tidy up. I get the feeling that The people who appreciate her somewhat original style have tried to create an entry that reflects that style and is unfortunately not adapted to what WP articles usually look like. She deserves a proper entry, so please WP people keep the entry and please fans don't mess up the page of someone you like, see what it leads to !
194.98.105.3 13:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Kathy, member of Wikipedia France
- Do Not Delete - it simply requires clean-up. MSJapan: you are wrong. The first result on Google with the term "annabel port" is her Virgin Radio profile page. She is a visible member of the radio industry, syndicated on a nightly basis to the whole of London on FM, the whole of the UK on AM and DAB, and worldwide online, and she has been nominanted for Sony Awards. All this article needs to be relevant is a cleanup. --poorsodtalk 15:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete - The item referring to the boyfriend comments: This statement was indeed accurate, a citation should be possible if you're able to link to the podcast of the radio show where annabel made this reference. Annabel is nationally known to virgin radio listeners in the UK, and also those listeners on the internet. Criterea for Notability states 'Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers' - Annabel's opinion is nationally broadcast Monday to Friday as her role as an entertainment personality in "porting controversy". There is not sufficient basis for removal, and more than enough for keeping the entry - Jonathan Lozinski —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.131.121.253 (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
- Delete, doesn't seem like a notable radio presenter. Jokes about boyfriend don't help. --Dhartung | Talk 23:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete "Annabel recently considered ending her relationship with her boyfriend of four years, on account of the fact that she found the latest Roxette single in their CD-player"? I'd like to see a verifiable source for that one. User:Dimadick
- Do Not Delete - she calls up Donald Trump's secretary asking him to come and play such games as "can Trump's pet play the trumpet". Genius - she should stay a notable person.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.228.233.162 (talk • contribs).
- Do Not Delete - Annabel is an integral part of "The Geoff Show," one of the most popular radio show podcasts on the internet. Her voice if familiar to radio listeners and internet users worldwide, and her sense of humour provides an essential balance to the humour and wit of Geoff Lloyd and Tony Morey. She is notable in terms of UK and worldwide radio, and should stay on Wikipedia.
User:Songfta (Note: This user has only 29 minor edits prior to this AfD, since Feb. 2005.) MSJapan 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. As an individual, she is not notable, and there do not appear to be any sources to verify any of the claims made. This article is the first Google hit for her, which is usually a bad sign. The second is the WP article on the show she cohosts. There's a few mentions here and there, but none of it really adheres. There's plenty of radio cohosts who don't rate articles, and she's just another one. Also, as there's clearly some humor intended in the article (which doesn't belong there), my final statement would be "I don't care if her boyfriend checks this page six times a day with Roxette on repeat, she's still not notable!" MSJapan 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per MSJapan. Valrith 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete- Annabel Port is a nationally recognized presenter (DJ for the illiterates reading) on Virgin Radio, a national station in England which is heard worldwide online. It w/b criminal to delete her. Martyfromnewyawk
- Do not Delete Annabel Port is a very notable face in British radio, and is nationally recognised both in the uk and worldwide. Clairehogben 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete -
REASONS THAT DELETION OF Annabel Port IS INAPPROPRIATE
1. Notability: Annabel Port broadcasts to a nightly audience of over a million people in the UK (source: RAJAR the UK's radio audience research organisation) as well as many more online, with Virgin Radio being the world's most listened-to radio station (source: Arbitron). That's an audience bigger than most non-syndicated US personalities, and even some syndicated ones. As part of the Pete And Geoff show team, she has received multiple radio awards and nominations, including for the prestigious UK Sony Radio Academy Awards.
2. Other Media Coverage: She has been featured in large-circulation national UK publications such as the Daily Mirror, The Independent and the Radio Times, and appeared as a guest on both terrestrial and digital TV channels in the UK.
3. Cultural significance: In addition to this, as mentioned in her entry, she co-wrote a song with Paul McCartney. As one of only a handful of people to boast a composer credit alongside one of the greatest music and cultural icons of the 20th Century, thIs alone should warrant her a permanent entry.
ON VANDALISM: As far as people adding silly jokes to the entry goes, this is an unfortunate and unwanted of entries about pop-culture figures, major or minor. The boyfriend comment was clearly something mentioned on the radio, and jumped-on by a listener who edited here. There are hours upon hours of verifiable source downloadable in the form of podcast/archive audio, although this is, admittedly, an arduous task.
The problem here, surely, is not the validity of Annabel Port's entry, but a need for greater vigilance policing this page for vandalism and flippant additions. 82.69.47.207 10:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Lespez
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.47.207 (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
- Do Not Delete - Annabel Port is an integral part of The Geoff Show, one of the flagship shows on the world renowned Virgin Radio. To delete her entry would be a crime, as she clearly meets the criteria to be listed on Wikipedia. Phloot 12:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- do NOT delete she contributes hugely to Virgin Radio - without her the show would be nowhere near as entertaining. She deserves a mention on Wikipedia as a figurehead of radio presenting, not to mention her sharp wit.
- Do not delete - While the article on wikipedia is of exceedingly low quality and little value to anyone wanting to read up on her that is no reason to delete it, for the reasons preceding this comment there are many reasons as to why there should be a page for Annabel Port all it is in need of is a clean up.
do not delete. why? CAUSE I SAID SO. i am an angry hormonal teenager and if you'd rather have me causing havoc than listening to the MARVELLOUS virgin radio... you know what to do.. i warn yee.. i am a pest.
- Do no delete - As a presenter on the largest commercial pop and rock station in the UK (Source: RAJAR) she deserves an entry here. If her entry is deleted, then the majority of other radio DJ entries would similarly need to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.49.61.205 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
- Do not delete. - As a presenter of a very popular radio show in the UK she has a large fan base and therefore deserves to have an entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.44.169 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
- Do Not Delete - Annabel Port is an integral part of a national radio show. How about we delete Chris Moyles? 88.106.170.67 13:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete - Wikipedia is international and ground up in its concept. Annabel Port commands an audience both in the UK (on national independent radio) and internationally via the Internet. The radio station in question has recently featured the UK Prime Minister live on air (not as a specifically invited guest - he called in himself), so Mr Blair is not of the opinion it is insignificant. Vandalism (the boyfriend comment) and lack of sources are specifically listed as not good enough reasons to delete. The Geoff Show is innovative light entertainment radio and is significantly different from any other radio show I have heard. Annabel is an integral part of the Geoff Show (as she was of the Pete and Geoff Breakfast Show). I have personally not heard of all of the subjects of Wikipedia articles - surely this is the point? An Encycopedia is a place where a person can look up information that he or she does not already know. Panperoxide 19:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do not delete!!
Annabel Port is an essential member of a prime time radio broadcast that goes out worldwide, although she is not the main host, she provides much of the content and among the shows listenership she is very well known and loved. I see that many of the contestents in Big Brother have an entry, Chantelle, Jade Goody etc, even though they haven't achieved anything in life. Annabel has forged a successful career in radio over the past 5 years and could be considered one of the top 200 most powerful people in radio in the uk. I guess the question that i would ask the Wikipedia administrators is "Do you consider radio to be an unimportant genre of entertainment not worthy of comment or discussion now we have other forms, television, internet etc?" If Karl Pilkington can have an entry, then Annabel should also have one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.176.235 (talk • contribs) 20:01, January 27, 2007
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE : Annabel has kept the nation amused for years, she is a truly worthy person and has saved many a person from suicidal thoughts. she is VERY well known in Surrey, her biggest fan base. As a student i have just been asked to do some homework researching radio stars, i have chosen her, it is very useful to have information about this celebrity here. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.251.72 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 January 2007
- Delete. Just another radio presenter, no different from any other. Please, people, let's at least have a hint as to why we should regard this kind of stuff as notable. WMMartin 13:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete Over the last year I have become a fan of the Geoff Show and in Particular Annabelle. I think she is a integral part of the show. The show is worldwide. If you are to delete Annabelle port then you must delete all other Radio DJ's that you have listed on this site.
DO NOT DELETE: Annabelle Port is a well known radio presenter and a lot of other Virgin Radio presenters are on Wiki Template:Rvsrvs
- Do Not Delete: Annabelle is indeed a celebrity, and a well known presenter for virgin radio, There are lesser celebrities on wikki!
Worth noting that an effort to save this article has just gone out on air :)
- Keep. Sock puppets and rentamobs aside (why is the concept of the word 'keep' always beyond them?) she's co-presenter on the morning radio show on a nationwide station with a listening audience (i.e. number actually listening, not number in the area broadcast) of over 2 million [79], and on more than one occasion a nominee for the Sony Radio Awards. How many ears listening to you in the morning are needed to make someone notable? Average Earthman 22:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know that even 10 Billion ears listening makes someone notable. Aside from that, there is also the issue of WP:RS, which, imo, don't exist to support WP:V for this article. Valrith 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If 10 billion ears listening are still not notable I suggest we just nominate Jesus Christ for deletion. And frankly if 2 million people are listening to you everyday then that is more notable than a huge number of people in wikipedia articles. As for reliable sources - I've given you RAJAR, which proves the station exists and is notable, and the stations own website has a biography for the woman. What are you waiting for, a book? Average Earthman 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know that even 10 Billion ears listening makes someone notable. Aside from that, there is also the issue of WP:RS, which, imo, don't exist to support WP:V for this article. Valrith 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete: Annabel Port is very well known in the UK, and many other countries as well. If you put an article about pete bennett on Wikipedia, surely you should keep this article. It only needs a bit of tidying up and it will be fine. BackInBlack89
- Keep National radio personality on a popular show. And found a Daily Mirror article about her. [80] (inserted into article). --Oakshade 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. She's on Virgin Radio, right? That seems to be a national radio station, and also available on cable and satellite. Sky Digital, I see. So, this is someone who can be heard across most of the European continent. That's somewhat notable. --Kim Bruning 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Notable radio presenter. One Night In Hackney 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This page seems pretty overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the article, with most of the pro-deletion brigade being our cousins from across the pond who seem to know very little about British radio and its presenters (just as I know very little about American radio). Just needs a cleanup, nothing more. 88.81.132.38 20:56, 1 February 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.
