Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Keep This organisation/centre seems to have a notable and unique element about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.98.20.245 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
- 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. Sr13 02:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] John Paulus
- – (View AfD)
Non-notable individual. The subject's only notability comes from claiming to having had sex once with pop singer Clay Aiken. He might (or might not) have withdrawn the claim recently. The article is thinly-sourced, chiefly from gossip columns. The subject does not appear notable in any lasting fashion. Also, he has begun editing the article and requested that it be deleted. I see no reason to keep it. Will Beback · † · 03:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)arro
- Delete. Individual is notable only for making a claim in the tabloids. Even the Enquirer, which originally published his claim, has disputed the credibility of statements he has made since. Were everything based on tabloid/gossip sources (all based solely on the individual's claims with no independent verification) to be removed from this entry, there would be nothing left except his ignominious exit from the military in 1997. This entry should be deleted. -Jmh123 03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just an FYI: some disputed material has just been removed by Ken Arromdee. Some comments in the following discussion prior to that deletion may not make sense unless edit history is consulted. -Jmh123 06:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- More material has been removed by another user this morning, following statements by Ken Arromdee in "talk". I wonder if it would not have been better to just let this AFD process take its course rather than intervening as Ken Arromdee did. -Jmh123 15:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There you go again. The National Enquirer DID NOT say that my claims were in question. You are rewriting history. Bias are you? That's the problem with this particular article it is skewed and infested with Claymate opinion and NO fact. And reference my military exit. At least I served my country. --JohnPaulus 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- According to the Scoop, the Enquirer did "question statements you have made since" just as I said. -Jmh123 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
The National Enquirer NEVER questioned the validity of the allegations as you have cleverly tried to insinuate. It's imperative that you keep to the facts rather than mending them to suit you and your agenda.--JohnPaulus 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The National Enquirer did not specifically question the validity of your allegations, they publically questioned YOU as a reliable source, stating that you were “completely distorting” the story of your interaction with them. Triage 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Regarding the "keep" vote below, the sources are the NY Post gossip column (Page Six), the NY Daily News gossip column, the MSNBC.com (per below, under Cyrus Andiron, that's a website, not a broadcast network) gossip column (the Scoop). The People reference is not related to Paulus, but to a frivilous lawsuit launched against Aiken over an unauthorized biography that he didn't endorse. -Jmh123 04:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Cite something in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that says that a properly fact-checked "gossip column" is not a reliable source. Otto4711 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_questionable_reliability: By definition, gossip columns report rumors and allegations, not facts. The Post and the Daily News can and do report that 'the Enquirer said that so and so alleges...'. Page Six & the Scoop are places for gossip and rumor, not "fact checked" news. Google articles about the Post's Page Six writer caught shaking down a millionaire last year--if he'd pay a quarter of a million, they'd stop printing lies about him. To step outside the world of celebrities, how about this one on acquisition rumors? [7] In the linked article you have the Post vs the Wall Street Journal with warring financial rumors. -Jmh123 15:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
But for you convenience you cite Realityblurred as an independent surce that did nothing, but regurgitate information provided to them by Claymates? They never called nor did they attempt to verify the facts with me. Sounds like a double standard and reinforces my argument that there have been a few that have compromised the integrity of Wikipedia by using it has a propaganda tool to promote an agenda.--JohnPaulus 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Wikipedia is not about whether something is true it's about whether something is notable. Unless you're suggesting that everything in Category:Hoaxes and Category:Urban legends be deleted, arguing that something be deleted because it's a rumor has no foundation in Wikipedia policy. Whether Paulus ever met Aiken or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there are reliable sources reporting on the allegations, and dismissing reliable sources on the basis of their being gossip columns is ridiculous. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Gossip is gossip, Otto. It isn't "unquestionably reliable." Paulus, in an entry full of gossip, it is only fair to cite gossip on Aiken's behalf as well as yours. -Jmh123 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not about whether something is true it's about whether something is notable. Unless you're suggesting that everything in Category:Hoaxes and Category:Urban legends be deleted, arguing that something be deleted because it's a rumor has no foundation in Wikipedia policy. Whether Paulus ever met Aiken or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there are reliable sources reporting on the allegations, and dismissing reliable sources on the basis of their being gossip columns is ridiculous. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep - article is sourced by articles from People, the New York Post, the New York Daily News and MSNBC. These are unquestionably reliable sources. More than adequate sourcing exists to demonstrate the subject's notability. Otto4711 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Thinly sourced, not enough IMO for a real biography. I don't think having sex with a pop singer makes you worth writing an article about, whether the gossip columns pick up on it or not. We don't automatically make articles for spouses, after all, and that's a much more lasting connection to a notable person than simply fucking-and-telling. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Non-notable individual, possible BLP violation. At best, this warrants a minor mention in Clay Aiken, not a full article. -- Kesh 05:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, tabloid material. Subject's request for deletion is reasonable. FNMF 05:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Other than maybe having sex with a star, this guy has no other claims to be famous. There are plenty of people whos stalk stars or sleep with stars on a constant basis and we are not the tabloids. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Since 100% of the coverage of this individual relates to a single issue, the article almost by definition violates WP:UNDUE. Ask yourself: if Britannica had unlimited space, would it ever consider including this individual? I'd say no. Not encyclopaedic, not notable, no biographies, no non-trivial sources primarily about the subject, all are reports of the event. Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 06:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, especially per Guy. Being a groupie is not notability. It's almost the textbook definition of trying to touch notability the only way one can. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, and request for deletion appropriate — Demong talk 09:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This kind of material belongs in the Enquirer, not an encyclopedia. Blogs and gossip columns are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. --Cyrus Andiron
12:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- According to WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." If you can cite something that says that gossip columns that appear in fact-checked publications or are broadcast over the fact-checked MSNBC don't qualify as reliable, then pony it up. Otherwise the dismissal of reliable sources stinks of WP:BIAS. Otto4711 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Otto, the MSNBC broadcast network is not cited in the entry in question; please check your own facts. -Jmh123 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are you asserting that the New York Post and MSNBC have fact-checked their gossip columns like they (are presumed to) do for their actual journalism? I don't have firsthand knowledge but I have very strong doubts about this. The Post has a horoscope section too; are you asserting that their horoscopes meet WP:RS because they appear in that paper? Delete per Guy, per WP:BLP, per WP:ATT, and so forth. Barno 14:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- If one were writing an article on Astrology and the continued interest of the American public in it, one could certainly use the horoscopes as a reliable source to document that interest. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Gossip, by its definition is nothing but rumors. Also, the alleged encounter could only be verified by Aiken, who refused to comment and Mr. Paulus, who claimed the encounter happened, then retracted, then claimed he never retracted. I'm going out on a limb here, but that doesn't seem too reliabe to me. Just because a gossip columnist chooses to publish his story, that doesn't make it any more true or reliable. I would point you to Jmh123's comments above about reliable sources. Otto, you continue to amuse. --Cyrus Andiron 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- You continue to either misread or misrepresent Wikipedia policy. Do you have credible evidence that the Post or MSNBC allows reports in any of its outlets without a fact-checking process in place? It sounds like you're making assumptions about what these media outlets are and aren't doing that fly in the face of standard journalism and legal practice. The truth of Paulus's allegations is irrelevant to the existence of them, and there are reliable sources that attest to the existence of them. Something does not have to be true to be on Wikipedia. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Guy. Brief blip on the celeb-gossip radar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, tabloid material. Subject's request for deletion is reasonable. Michigan user 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Guy and JMH123. Non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, tabloid material. - Maria202 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep well sourced by at least 3 sources, there is no reason for deletion. The alternatives would be to put all this stuff in Clay Aiken's article, with a redirect (which would be WP:UNDUE), or ignore the subject entirely (which would be an indication of our WP:BIAS). It's trashy and gossipy, but its not WP's gossip, it's the mainstream media's gossip. For an encyclopedia that insists on keeping every also ran on every version of reality show known to mankind, to delete this would also seem to be against precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, the key points are already covered in the Aiken article, so there's little more that needs to be merged in. -Will Beback · † · 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per Guy. Lemonflash|(say hi) 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This article is being used as a way to demean me and hide the actual facts regarding my allegation with Clay Aiken. This article has been manipulated to paint me in a negative light and it is riddled with errors and questionable facts. It needs to be deleted asap.--JohnPaulus 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Sleeping with someone famous does not make one notable - however many gossip rags decide to print the info. WP:BLP issues are also compelling. WjBscribe 23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This fellow has thrust himself into the public spotlight by promoting his claim to have had sex with Aiken. It is sourced adequately. If that is really Paulus commenting in this thread, his own disagreement with the contents of the article shouldn't lead to a deletion. It seems to set a bad precedent that "outing" articles like this exist only until sources appear which contradict them, at which point WP:BLP is invoked, with the result that Paulus's claims stick to Clay Aiken, but not to Paulus. Allon Fambrizzi 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
-
-
- FYI, the review process which led to this AfD began two months ago, before the subject came on the scene.[8][9] I think we'd presumed the subject would want to keep the article so when he indicated he also wanted to delete it there was no longer any reason to wait. -Will Beback · † · 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- The material should be deleted from the Aiken entry as well. It is simply non-encyclopaedic. FNMF 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You know that will never happen. Allon Fambrizzi 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
- I don't believe that perpetual inclusion of malicious, controversial, insensitive, unsubstantiated non-encyclopaedic sexual allegations is a foregone conclusion. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP at Aiken as well as here. Furthermore, the failure to apply policy by editors at one entry does not justify deciding not to apply policy at another entry. This material does not belong in any genuine encyclopaedia, neither under the heading of Paulus, nor under the heading of Aiken. It is up to editors to enforce policy, rather than come up with a "fair balance" on the grounds policy will not be enforced at either entry. FNMF 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about coming up with a "fair balance" (your term, not mine), it's about developing policies that are realistic in the first place. This information will survive at the "controversies about Clay Aiken" page and at the main Clay Aiken page (why don't you try and delete it and see what happens?), but the John Paulus page will be gone, with the result that the controversy revolves around Aiken, not Paulus. Allon Fambrizzi 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
- I appreciate the logic of your argument, but as the retraction has now been deleted from the Paulus page by Ken Arromdee as a violation of Paulus's WP:BLP, and he will brook no discussion on the matter, your argument is moot. Paulus gets a pass and his allegations stick to Aiken whether the Paulus entry as now written is deleted or not. -Jmh123 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not true. There's no reason that material can't be deleted from the Aiken page too, and tabloid-style allegations should be. Ken Arromdee 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd love to see it happen. Ain't there for lack of trying: See Mediation Cabal Case plus 13 archived pages on Talk:Clay Aiken. -Jmh123
- Not true. There's no reason that material can't be deleted from the Aiken page too, and tabloid-style allegations should be. Ken Arromdee 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate the logic of your argument, but as the retraction has now been deleted from the Paulus page by Ken Arromdee as a violation of Paulus's WP:BLP, and he will brook no discussion on the matter, your argument is moot. Paulus gets a pass and his allegations stick to Aiken whether the Paulus entry as now written is deleted or not. -Jmh123 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about coming up with a "fair balance" (your term, not mine), it's about developing policies that are realistic in the first place. This information will survive at the "controversies about Clay Aiken" page and at the main Clay Aiken page (why don't you try and delete it and see what happens?), but the John Paulus page will be gone, with the result that the controversy revolves around Aiken, not Paulus. Allon Fambrizzi 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
- I don't believe that perpetual inclusion of malicious, controversial, insensitive, unsubstantiated non-encyclopaedic sexual allegations is a foregone conclusion. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP at Aiken as well as here. Furthermore, the failure to apply policy by editors at one entry does not justify deciding not to apply policy at another entry. This material does not belong in any genuine encyclopaedia, neither under the heading of Paulus, nor under the heading of Aiken. It is up to editors to enforce policy, rather than come up with a "fair balance" on the grounds policy will not be enforced at either entry. FNMF 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You know that will never happen. Allon Fambrizzi 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
- Delete. The John Paulus page because it is non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, tabloid material and also remove references to him from Aiken's page. As WjB said, "Sleeping with someone famous does not make one notable - however many gossip rags decide to print the info. WP:BLP issues are also compelling."
Jimmy Wales has said it is sometimes better to have nothing at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:
Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. – Jimbo Wales
AllDone 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a blatant violation of BLP with respect to Aiken. DGG 02:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wait a second - how is it a violation of BLP on Aiken - it's something that actually happened ... Wikipedia is made of articles about things that happen - and if something notable happens - regardless of whether it makes someone else look bad - we have it. That being said, delete due to a lack of notability.danielfolsom 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- But it most probably did not happen. All that there is to this is one person's story to a tabloid. Absolutely nothing else to substantiate it. Which would make it potentially libel. But in any case - it would be the event that would be notable IF it actually happened, the person in question is not notable enough for an article, and he is requesting that the article be deleted. 66.82.9.103 03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
User:Danielfolsom said "how is it a violation of BLP on Aiken - it's something that actually happened." The only source for that story is John Paulus and the same John Paulus also retracted the story and said it was a hoax. He then wanted to retract the retraction because he said he was fibbing. There is no verifiable information whatsoever that it did happen. The alleged incident is the only thing that would be notable but there is no evidence that the incident ever occured. AllDone 03:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- It makes no difference whether the two actually had sex. What is being discussed is the allegation that they had sex. This allegation is sourced in accordance with every applicable Wikipedia policy and guideline. Something does not have to be true to be in Wikipedia, as the existence of the articles in Category:Hoaxes ably proves. If the article read "Clay Aiken had sex with John Paulus" and they did not have sex, then it might be libelous. But an aricle saying that Paulus claimed to have sex with Aiken is not libelous. Paulus did make the claim and reporting the truth - that he made the allegation - by definition can not be libel. Otto4711 04:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. While it is true that someone made an allegation, that doesn't mean that that allegation belongs in an article. There are allegations made about people all the time. This particular allegation is sourced to gossip columns and the self-published reality.com. Self published sources may *never* be used in articles about the subject, unless published by the subject. To top it off, we're abusing the guy by reporting him for 3RR because he's trying to revert unsourced material that is harming him. This article needs to go. Ken Arromdee 05:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Otto4711 said."Paulus did make the claim and reporting the truth - that he made the allegation - by definition can not be libel." Then it must also be reported that he confessed that it was a hoax and the article be moved to Category:Hoaxes. His allegations were published in tabloids and later the tabloids were cited as the source in gossip columns. The gossip columns in People, the New York Post, the New York Daily News and MSNBC are not high quality references.
Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: * Verifiability * Neutral point of view (NPOV) * No original research We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.
AllDone 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - if the article was stating that Paulus had sex with Aiken, then you're right, there would need to be better sourcing than what exists. However, the article is not stating that Paulus had sex with Aiken. It is stating that Paulus said he had sex with Aiken and the sourcing for his statement are solid. Otto4711 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Otto, the question is whether a guy who says he had sex with a celebrity once, who by virtue of the celebrity's notability, not his, got the attention of gossip columns and tabloids for a little while, is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I don't think he is. -Jmh123 15:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- The WP:BLP policy has improved since this article was written. It now includes a caution to use high quality references and to be careful when including biographical material about living persons in other articles. Tabloid and gossip columns certainly cannot be considered high quality. The subject of the article is not himself notable and the article circumvents the policy as it would be applied to Aiken's article. - Maria202 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Otto, the question is whether a guy who says he had sex with a celebrity once, who by virtue of the celebrity's notability, not his, got the attention of gossip columns and tabloids for a little while, is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I don't think he is. -Jmh123 15:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete too few sources/too little notability to support an article that satisfies policy Tom Harrison Talk 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. As per nom, lacks encyclopedic notability. — Athaenara 03:39, 10 May 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. At this point, the keep arguments boil down to WP:NOTINHERITED. However, if non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources is produced, the article can be re-created using them. MastCell Talk 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadow Mountain Community Church
- – (View AfD)
Editing history shows that the page was originally entered as cruft. Fails WP:N Shadow Mountain Community Church is a religious institution located in the east county region of San Diego County, historically lacking in any "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Nascentatheist 04:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable Corpx 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is the church that started San Diego Christian College, which in turn started the Institute for Creation Research, which means that it has played an important part in the history of American evangelicalism. StAnselm 07:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm really not sure on this one. There aren't any set guidelines on how to assert notability as it relates to churches. WP:CHURCH was not adopted by the community and thus cannot apply to this article. It appears to me that both senior pastors are notable. Both have been prolific authors, Tim LaHaye wrote the Left Behind series. I'm not sure if their involvement in Shadow Mountain Community Church makes it notable. --Cyrus Andiron 12:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Christian Heritage College was founded by Tim LaHaye, pastor of Scott Memorial at the time. As a point of order, it should be noted that the church did not "start" the college - a person did. The same goes for the ICR, the evolution of which can be traced to Henry Morris's book, The Genesis Flood. The church, itself, does not meet the criteria for notability under (my interpretation of) Wikipedia standards, which is why I nominated it. It does not generate "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources...independent of the subject." That those affiliated with a certain church also founded or "started" a Christian college as well as a creationist "research" institution does not make the church, itself, notable. Nascentatheist 12:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The history page at the college website notes that LaHaye's involvement was "under the sponsorship of the church", and the college originally met in the church building. StAnselm 13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Granted, but with LaHaye being the senior pastor and given the structure of the church at the time, one can make lots of those kinds of claims. If LaHaye, as senior pastor, declared it, it was under the "sponsorship of the church." That's how those things worked. I recall it well. Again, the church didn't establish the college. LaHaye did. He directed it, established that the church would "sponsor" it. That makes LaHaye notable - not the building. I do understand your point, however, and it's a fair point if we disregard that churches don't found colleges, people do. Thank you for your input. Nascentatheist 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Who said anything about a building? A church isn't a building! I certainly see your point, though, and I would view this church as notable precisely because it is LaHaye's church. Yes, I know - WP:NOTINHERITED. But it makes me think that those sources are going to exist. StAnselm 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Granted, but with LaHaye being the senior pastor and given the structure of the church at the time, one can make lots of those kinds of claims. If LaHaye, as senior pastor, declared it, it was under the "sponsorship of the church." That's how those things worked. I recall it well. Again, the church didn't establish the college. LaHaye did. He directed it, established that the church would "sponsor" it. That makes LaHaye notable - not the building. I do understand your point, however, and it's a fair point if we disregard that churches don't found colleges, people do. Thank you for your input. Nascentatheist 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The history page at the college website notes that LaHaye's involvement was "under the sponsorship of the church", and the college originally met in the church building. StAnselm 13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Christian Heritage College was founded by Tim LaHaye, pastor of Scott Memorial at the time. As a point of order, it should be noted that the church did not "start" the college - a person did. The same goes for the ICR, the evolution of which can be traced to Henry Morris's book, The Genesis Flood. The church, itself, does not meet the criteria for notability under (my interpretation of) Wikipedia standards, which is why I nominated it. It does not generate "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources...independent of the subject." That those affiliated with a certain church also founded or "started" a Christian college as well as a creationist "research" institution does not make the church, itself, notable. Nascentatheist 12:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the explanation by Nascentatheist. --Cyrus Andiron 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." ~ G1ggy! Reply | Powderfinger! 00:25, 14 May 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 - several suggestions to rename, or merge to People (magazine). Nabla 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sexiest Man Alive
- – (View AfD)
POV list of celebrities, no source or context Clicketyclack 09:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- No opinion on whether the list should be kept, but just noting that the version of the article as initially nominated was a vandalised one. I've restored the introduction that was removed by vandals. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 10:05Z
- Delete This is a completely unsourced list that details one particular feature of a magazine. --Cyrus Andiron 12:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- merge/redirect to People Magazine article. Preferably just redirect until we can be sure the coverage there is accurate. But this is a quasi-notable feature they run (for whatever reason) so it is a term people will be searching for and wanting info on, and it could be sourced. --W.marsh 13:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: PLEASE read this explanation before casting your vote! This article can easily be sourced by referencing the specific issues in which each years candidate is announced, and while most features would not merit their own article, People's Sexiest Man Alive is a cultural phenomenon. Each year, the winner is discussed in many other magazines and television shows unrelated to People, both in the celebrity pop culture genre (Entertainment Tonight, The Soup, etc.) and other genres (eg, The Colbert Report). This indicates a significant impact on pop culture and wide name recognition for the feature. Also of note is the fact that 11 different Wikipedia biographies link to this page. While it may seem to some to not be important enough to merit an article, the number of pages linking here begs to differ, and remember, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Definite keep. Zelmerszoetrop 13:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep I guess. Vapid but notable feature in a vapid but notable magazine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- keep and rename: The article should be sourced and renamed to People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive. --Kimontalk 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and source --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and rename per Kimon, above. I'll check the companion piece for vandalism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If kept, rename per Kimon above. Carlossuarez46 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This may be celebrity pap, but it's notable celebrity pap. The award has been known to turn around careers. As for the name, I'm not certain that further disambiguation is necessary. How many "Sexiest Man Alive" awards are there, anyway? --Dhartung | Talk 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep & rename Per Kimon. --Random Say it here! 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per Kimon. bibliomaniac15 00:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to User:JayHenry. Thanks! --JayHenry 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - very notable, easily sourced. - Peregrine Fisher 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:
- Part of the problem with this page is the title. After I AfD'd this list, User:Resurgent insurgent dug down a dozen changes, and discovered that the context had originally been established in the intro, but had long since vandalized been out, leaving just a list titled "Sexiest Man Alive", with no clue that it's a list of nominations by a magazine.
- A list like that just begs for "contributions" from every boy that searches WP for "sexiest".
- Please also note that People magazine is entirely unknown outside of the USA & Canada, and so likewise People's "SMA" list. Without the explicit context of it being a magazine feature, the list makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who's never been to the US - that is to say, most people on the planet. That could be seen as a {{Globalize/USA}} issue, but I can see now that the title is really the underlying problem.
- So if consensus is that this list really is a notable feature of USA culture, and that this isn't a matter of WP mirroring content for People magazine, then it should be merged into People (magazine), or at the very least renamed, to stop its essential context being repeatedly removed. Thanks, Clicketyclack 08:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- One more thing: there's a related debate going on over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Most Beautiful People, though in that case the consensus so far is strongly for deletion, since its meaning as (another) People magazine celeb award was never mentioned for that article. Clicketyclack 11:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. How is this possibly deletion-worthy? I can understand if there may be some sort of cultural shift here, but this is no doubt a well-known thing that gets major press every year it's published. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please see my comment above: it's only well-known in one country, and lacks context, press or notability for anyone from the rest of the planet. Clicketyclack 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete No source, massive WP:NPOV issues, and it probably fails WP:N too ~ G1ggy! Reply | Powderfinger! 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Over 5000 Google news hits for "sexiest man alive". The top ones? National mainstream coverage of the named stars for 2006 and 2004. There's no question about the notability or NPOV issues of this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please see my comment above: it gets national mainstream coverage in one country only, and lacks context, coverage or notability for anyone from the rest of the planet. Clicketyclack 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- None of those are entirely relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Imagine you're searching WP for "sexiest man alive", and it takes you to a list of men awarded that title annually by a magazine called Celebs, published only in New Zealand. The list consists almost entirely of celebrities from New Zealand, most or all of whom you've never heard of. It wouldn't make much sense to you, or to people from anywhere else outside of New Zealand. But the magazine is wildly popular there, and Wikipedians from New Zealand (WiKiwis?) might argue that the designation is very notable in their country, gets talked about on TV there, gets covered by the press there, etc. Is it encyclopedic material worthy of an article on WP? That's a matter for debate. But even if it is, the right thing to do with that list would be either a merge to Celebs (magazine), or at least a rename to Celebs Sexiest Man Alive list.
- See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - Clicketyclack 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this is countering systematic bias - if you haven't heard about it outside of the US, it doesn't make it non-notable. If the NZ magazine's yearly list gets press in every major publication in NZ, then I'd defend the list's inclusion here as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I can't find much evidence of systemic bias against US pop culture on WP. :-) Note that it's not nominated as non-notable, but as "POV list of celebrities, no source or context". Are you also opposing merging it to People (magazine)? Clicketyclack 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the point being is that the assumption that it's not notable because it allegedly only gets coverage in one country is the definition of systematic bias. The nomination, however, is completely spurious (nothing POV, unsourced, or uncontextual), and may have been based on a previously vandalised version. And yes, I'm strongly opposed to a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I haven't nominated it on grounds of non-notability, so no such assumption's being made. Also, the nomination is demonstrably not spurious:
- POV: An encyclopedic entry on the sexiest man alive, assuming that that should be in WP, shouldn't be based solely on a nomination by a single magazine, especially one that's only published in one country.
- Unsourced: I can find no sources cited in the article that People ever nominated any of them for SMA, or that Mel Gibson was the first winner, Clooney twice, etc. Nor can I find sources in any of the articles linked.
- Context: Context has been restored to the article's body (though not the title) by User:Resurgent insurgent after nomination, though looking at the edit history that's highly likely to be deleted again. That problem could be fixed by merging, rather than deleting, as I've noted above. The other two remain grounds for a complete re-write or deletion. Clicketyclack 14:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I haven't nominated it on grounds of non-notability, so no such assumption's being made. Also, the nomination is demonstrably not spurious:
- Well, the point being is that the assumption that it's not notable because it allegedly only gets coverage in one country is the definition of systematic bias. The nomination, however, is completely spurious (nothing POV, unsourced, or uncontextual), and may have been based on a previously vandalised version. And yes, I'm strongly opposed to a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I can't find much evidence of systemic bias against US pop culture on WP. :-) Note that it's not nominated as non-notable, but as "POV list of celebrities, no source or context". Are you also opposing merging it to People (magazine)? Clicketyclack 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this is countering systematic bias - if you haven't heard about it outside of the US, it doesn't make it non-notable. If the NZ magazine's yearly list gets press in every major publication in NZ, then I'd defend the list's inclusion here as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- None of those are entirely relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please see my comment above: it gets national mainstream coverage in one country only, and lacks context, coverage or notability for anyone from the rest of the planet. Clicketyclack 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to People (magazine), which created this list, and let the editors there decide how much detail is appropriate beyond a simple list with links. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:20, 15 May 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] John L. Lee
- – (View AfD)
Subject was supposedly "a Central Intelligence Agency field operative involved in a covert military intelligence rogue operation undertaken by the CIA" ... "By the age of 21, Lee had become one of the primary high value assassination targets of the KGB First Chief Directorate in South East Asia.", etc. The article on the film Spy Game claims that a character played by Brad Pitt may have been based on Lee.
This was nominated for speedy deletion, but it seems reasonable under the circumstances to bump it to AFD: It has incoming links, makes assertions of notability, but is unreferenced and concerns a possibly living person making claims which are sensitive unless sourced. I don't find any hits on Google for anything resembling reliable sources. Pharamond 09:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No sources provided in the article, thus nothing can be verified. Also, the article was created by an anon user who only edited for one day and then never returned [14]. My guess is that this is a hoax article. It was wikilinked by a well meaning editor, not the creator of the article. --Cyrus Andiron 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't know where I could find a source for this, but keeping an article with these assertions really needs to be sourced before it is added per WP:BIO. Slavlin 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Somebody who knows about these things should take a look at the two articles on operations which link to this one: Project Pale Horse and Phoenix Program. Pharamond 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete PHOENIX, the CIA's assassination program in South Vietnam, is absolutely notable and largely verifiable (for instance). I can't find anything credible about Pale Horse, though, or Lee. I'm leaning toward WP:HOAX, but this at least fails WP:V that I can see. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that a very large part of the Phoenix Program article appears to consist of material contributed in 2005 by IPs beginning with 207.118, similar to the ones that created the John L. Lee and Project Pale Horse articles at roughly the same time. Just removing the links is probably insufficient. (I will add a comment to Talk:Phoenix Program). Pharamond 05:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unless there is some source somewhere I don't see how we can keep it under BLP, and from the nature of the notability claimed we can't really expect sources.DGG 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, it doesn't seem to be verifiable. Plus, I highly doubt the CIA would let out facts about a active op. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carbonmotion (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 May 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Atlantis in Bible
- – (View AfD)
Original research. Copyvio from the author's own book Atlantis the Final Solution. A previous version was speedily deleted. This one is mainly irrelevant to the title, being a retelling of Genesis. Fork of Atlantis anyway. -- RHaworth 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unencessary and possibly POV fork of Atlantis, where the author's book is mentioned anyway. --Tikiwont 12:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note that the link to the author's book was added by a single-purpose IP address. -- RHaworth 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete looks like the editor put some material from his book into a Wikipedia page. Definite OR and a little conflict of interest for flavor. Maybe someone isn't selling so well... Cyrus Andiron 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nonsense Mangoe 13:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Gillyweed 13:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Close to the heart of original research. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Definitely WP:OR and even a little promotional to boot. I guess you could say that makes it a little soapbox-y. Arkyan • (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete mumbo jumbo WP:OR. IZAK 07:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - nonsense (scientific evidence of the Flood etc). Alan Liefting 08:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Pure nonsense, the article refers to "scholars" and "scriptures" without providing references to any of them. More or less it appears to be a "cut & paste" of whatever scriptures are used as basis for the article with some personal interpretations added in. Almost sounds like "bible bashing". Sweboi 11:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. While not patent nonsense, agree that article in its current state represents original research and an essay, not an encyclopedic article. --Shirahadasha 04:30, 10 May 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] James David Honsaker
- – (View AfD)
Contested prod; {{prod}} (and {{stub}}) tag removed by anonymous IP with no explanation. Not quite speediable due to the "award winning", but no indication of what these awards are, nothing to indicate what sort of composing he does and no information at all about the man himself. Needless to say, 0 Ghits on James David Honsaker and 1 ghit on Jim Honsaker, that 1 ghit being his Friendster page - which I'm not totally convinced is a reliable source — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: He's 21, the only source is an inaccessible page on the Sibelius website. Mangoe 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not notable, no sources cited which can count as reliable. I got to the webpage cited, and it further weakens the claim of notability by saying the awards were "regional". Hut 8.5 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete a modern composer known for lighting effects. That's all well and good, but where are the sources that verify this? Until they are produced, notability cannot be asserted. --Cyrus Andiron 15:28, 8 May 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; disregarding the accusations of bad-faith towards the nom, which do not actually pertain to whether the article should be kept or not, the arguments for delete outweigh those for keep. Krimpet (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flags of micronations
- – (View AfD)
This should really have been bundled with the "coats of arms" article; however, as I've only just discovered this article it's too late to add it. My rationale for deletion is the same as my extended rationale provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations; please read that debate before commenting here. kingboyk 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Related announcement: Skeleton page for guidelines/policy in this area: Wikipedia:Micronations. --kingboyk 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'm just spitballing here, but isn't it redundant to have the flag and coat of arms on separate pages, when they are listed in each micronation's main article? Is there any reason for having them on here twice? They're micronations after all, they aren't even recognized. Hell, I can start my own if I want. --Cyrus Andiron 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fake flags from fake countries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as per {{db-nonsense}} Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. That most micronations themselves deserve a Wikipedia article is debatable enough - that we need a gallery of their flags seems baffling. Arkyan • (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- week keep based on no consensus at related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rebent (talk • contribs).
- Delete. The article is even more specialized and on an even more tenuous topic than say, Toilets in Japan. Though we do have pages for thumbs of flags/coats of arms for real countries, these aren't "real" in the same way. I DO agree with having the List of micronations, though, since it is a legitimate and encyclopedic topic. This however is not. —ScouterSig 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I have grave doubts about even the existence of master articles for these "micronations", and as for their "Coats of Arms"... Where are the secondary sources that these flags exist? - fchd 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete what's next Flags of Federation planets? Carlossuarez46 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, the above votes are all full of dismissive language about the legitimacy of the countries, when what's at issue is whether an index to them should exist. We have hundreds of articles about things that aren't true, because they still were worth writing about. Micronations aren't recognized as states, but we still consider them worth writing about for articles. Why not offer an index to their common symbology? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable flags from non-nations. Edison 23:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The items are restricted to "nations" which have been talked about sufficiently to have WP articles, and have a flag as part of the article. If it were compiled indiscriminately, it wouldn't be a sound article, but as it exists, I think it is. It's encyclopedic=something that people would reasonably expect to find in an encyclopedia. DGG 04:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But this AfD is not about the articles for the
tinpotmini-"nations" themselves, it is about an article which groups together their flags. Even though I think the articles about Sealand etc. should be deleted, I respect their sourcing and the consensus to keep. Where is the required secondary sourcing that these flags exist, or the need to have a gallery page of them? - fchd 11:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But this AfD is not about the articles for the
- Keep. Spurious nomination by editor on a mission to expunge content not to his personal taste from Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 07:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're on a mission to get blocked if you keep accusing me of bad faith. I've seen it from you so many times: somebody comes along and attempts to clean up micronation articles and along comes the owner Gene Poole, with accusations of vandalism, bad faith and (I'm waiting for this one) sockpuppetry. The micronations articles are going to be decrufted and brought into line with Wikipedia policies whether you like it or not. Specifically, I am on a mission - to remove original research and fancruft. --kingboyk 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kingboyk, AFD is rather specifically per its policy not a replacement for article cleanup procedures. It's clear you do have a bee somewhere unfortunate; if you actually want to clean stuff up, starting with the policy (good) and talk pages discussions (not started yet, for the most part) are the necessary prior steps. Georgewilliamherbert 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the article should be deleted. Some others agree with me. Here is the place to discuss it. I don't want it "cleaned up", I want it deleted as unencyclopedic, trivial, copyvio etc etc. And, yes, I have a bee in my bonnet alright: that a small group of editors want to inflict this garbage on Wikipedia in defiance of our policies and guidelines. --kingboyk 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only "defiance of policy" is a disagreement about notability, for which a real policy is the only solution. For a long time, Gene's unofficial policy was the only thing (and please, if you think Gene's a nutter inclusionist, look at the cruft he and I and others have been fighting to keep out all these years). Your policy you just started largely is based on Gene's. Where on earth do you come up with this sudden push of deletions being reasonable? Georgewilliamherbert 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be working on this until I've finished the category; then I will move on to the next thing I find. Something totally unrelated, hopefully. I don't think Gene is an "inclusionist nutter" at all. I think your small group can't see the woods for the trees - you see deletion debates or the removal of material as some sort of attack; and you are happy to present all micronations in the same format regardless of their legitimacy. Look at this, which was acceptable to Gene but totally non-neutral, and this, which tells it as the sources do. We shouldn't have been presenting that scam as anything other than a scam. We shouldn't be presenting micronations as countries. We must stick to the prevalent view from the reliable sources. Incidentally, the policy I started isn't "mine"; I'd hoped we could work together on it and indeed Gene has edited it today. --kingboyk 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You couldn't wait until after there was a policy to start randomly deleting things, and claim you intend to do it to the whole category, and think we're unreasonable? I have no problem presenting frauds as such, but fraudulent micronations are still micronations. They usually aren't notable as frauds; they are notable within the scope of micronations and should be treated as such, including describing what they were proposing to do, even if it's believed that they had no true intent to do that. You're cherrypicking sources to replace micronation related info with pure fraud info. That's not NPOV or RS. Georgewilliamherbert 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Stop with the accusations please. I used the sources on the New Utopia article that Gene had left when he last edited it! By all means you go through them again and see what I left out that was cited in multiple sources. (Clue: Not a lot). "they are notable within the scope of micronations" - so? This isn't MicronationPedia, it's a general encyclopedia. --kingboyk 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's not a lotofthingsPedia, but we cover just about everything. The fact that you started work on a notability guideline for Micronations makes my case here. You seem to admit that they should be covered if they meet the criteria. The criteria you used seem to be the ones Gene's been informally proposing we use for years, and what several of us use to filter out true cruft and stuff made up in a day. What's the problem? Georgewilliamherbert 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I started with his criteria, as a courtesy. That doesn't mean I agree with it (there's some good points there, but it needed work imho). However, please discuss this at WT:MICRONAT if it's still a live concern, thanks. (It may not be a live concern as that page got tagged as rejected). --kingboyk 13:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a lotofthingsPedia, but we cover just about everything. The fact that you started work on a notability guideline for Micronations makes my case here. You seem to admit that they should be covered if they meet the criteria. The criteria you used seem to be the ones Gene's been informally proposing we use for years, and what several of us use to filter out true cruft and stuff made up in a day. What's the problem? Georgewilliamherbert 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Stop with the accusations please. I used the sources on the New Utopia article that Gene had left when he last edited it! By all means you go through them again and see what I left out that was cited in multiple sources. (Clue: Not a lot). "they are notable within the scope of micronations" - so? This isn't MicronationPedia, it's a general encyclopedia. --kingboyk 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You couldn't wait until after there was a policy to start randomly deleting things, and claim you intend to do it to the whole category, and think we're unreasonable? I have no problem presenting frauds as such, but fraudulent micronations are still micronations. They usually aren't notable as frauds; they are notable within the scope of micronations and should be treated as such, including describing what they were proposing to do, even if it's believed that they had no true intent to do that. You're cherrypicking sources to replace micronation related info with pure fraud info. That's not NPOV or RS. Georgewilliamherbert 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be working on this until I've finished the category; then I will move on to the next thing I find. Something totally unrelated, hopefully. I don't think Gene is an "inclusionist nutter" at all. I think your small group can't see the woods for the trees - you see deletion debates or the removal of material as some sort of attack; and you are happy to present all micronations in the same format regardless of their legitimacy. Look at this, which was acceptable to Gene but totally non-neutral, and this, which tells it as the sources do. We shouldn't have been presenting that scam as anything other than a scam. We shouldn't be presenting micronations as countries. We must stick to the prevalent view from the reliable sources. Incidentally, the policy I started isn't "mine"; I'd hoped we could work together on it and indeed Gene has edited it today. --kingboyk 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only "defiance of policy" is a disagreement about notability, for which a real policy is the only solution. For a long time, Gene's unofficial policy was the only thing (and please, if you think Gene's a nutter inclusionist, look at the cruft he and I and others have been fighting to keep out all these years). Your policy you just started largely is based on Gene's. Where on earth do you come up with this sudden push of deletions being reasonable? Georgewilliamherbert 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the article should be deleted. Some others agree with me. Here is the place to discuss it. I don't want it "cleaned up", I want it deleted as unencyclopedic, trivial, copyvio etc etc. And, yes, I have a bee in my bonnet alright: that a small group of editors want to inflict this garbage on Wikipedia in defiance of our policies and guidelines. --kingboyk 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kingboyk, AFD is rather specifically per its policy not a replacement for article cleanup procedures. It's clear you do have a bee somewhere unfortunate; if you actually want to clean stuff up, starting with the policy (good) and talk pages discussions (not started yet, for the most part) are the necessary prior steps. Georgewilliamherbert 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're on a mission to get blocked if you keep accusing me of bad faith. I've seen it from you so many times: somebody comes along and attempts to clean up micronation articles and along comes the owner Gene Poole, with accusations of vandalism, bad faith and (I'm waiting for this one) sockpuppetry. The micronations articles are going to be decrufted and brought into line with Wikipedia policies whether you like it or not. Specifically, I am on a mission - to remove original research and fancruft. --kingboyk 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, highly not encyclopedic, borderline WP:NFT, and gallery of trivia. >Radiant< 12:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Most of the entries are plainly notable. Delete the few that aren't, perhaps, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The article is useful. PubliusFL 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - How are any of the flags of these micronations "plainly notable"? - fchd 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- None? --kingboyk 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I meant the micronations are plainly notable (a couple may not be, and the flags of those micronations should be deleted). If the micronations themselves are notable, and the designs of their flags are verifiable, I think a list of this type is appropriate. Similarly, I don't think we need multiple non-trivial sources specifically on the subject of the flag of Zulia (one of Venezuela's 23 states). If Zulia itself is notable, and we can verify what Zulia's flag is, I think it's appropriate to include Zulia's flag on List of flags. YMMV. PubliusFL 19:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - How are any of the flags of these micronations "plainly notable"? - fchd 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep same reasons as the coats of arms. If the subjects of the articles are notable, features such as flags, coats of arms, etc. in a list are as well. Georgewilliamherbert 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Non sequitur. >Radiant< 08:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alas, the closing admin on the coats of arms deletion debate obviously didn't think the community held that view, as the article was deleted. --kingboyk 13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Given that Coats of arms of micronations was wrongly deleted by a trigger-happy admin when there was no consensus justifying that decision (8 to delete, 7 to keep does not a "consensus to delete" make), your argument holds no water. You would do well not to perpetrate porkies of this nature. --Gene_poole 09:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep, and sanction nominator - the nominator is nominating in bad faith edits in his quest to redefine micronations to suit a personal POV. This is a bad faith nomination and should be speedily closed, but in case it's not, please look at the case. Most micronations on this list are not things made up in school as he claims and as has stupidly been asserted to and agreed to by other users, who haven't done their research and evaluated how significant some of these have been for the countries from which they seceded - the Hutt River Principality and Sealand have been major constitutional and legal battles with Australia and England respectively, for example,- they are well documented phenomenon in political geography, history and politics, and their flags are a notable and interesting part of that. If there's something that is made up, get rid of that, but nominating the whole list is quite ridiculous and not on. I would be happy to merge this to List of micronations along with the respective coats of arms and details on each micronation, but that should be done in the correct fashion - not in a mass bad faith edit as is being done here. JRG 14:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please refrain from targetting me and stick to the nomination. If this and other nominations were in bad faith there wouldn't be all this debate, with well-respected editors on both sides. Your keep rationale seems to be a version of WP:ILIKEIT, and if you can't justify with references to policies and guidelines why this should be kept when the coat of arms article was deleted your !vote should be discounted. --kingboyk 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see no reason why a small (50px or so) flag could be added to the list of micronations page—but this page still needs to go, as I do not believe it quite fits the term 'encyclopedic' and 'notable' by itself. —ScouterSig 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I quite agree. That would be a sensible solution. Keep an eye on the copyright notices though, some of the images rely on fair use claims and it's probably not fair use to have them in any list or gallery type article. --kingboyk 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Flags are, I would think, by their own nature copyrighted to their creator or the sovereign state concerned - there's no way you could get around that; you could always draw your own, I suppose. JRG 00:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer mate, but: I don't think there's copyright in old flags of "real" countries, the same may apply to historical micronations (especially if the artist is long deceased). Coats of arms generally seem to be copyright (see {{seal}}). Some of these micronations are of course recent, private entities, and copyright undeniably applies to their flags and coats of arms unless they have specifically released them into the public domain or under a free licence. Copyright doesn't have to be claimed, it's automatic. Creating your own copy doesn't help, that's likely to be a "derivative work" and copyright to the original artist/micronation too. In summary, you'll have to proceed on a case by case basis: some can be used in a list, some can't. --kingboyk 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per DGG above. Lankiveil 04:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Arbitrary break
- Comment the second sentence of the article is nonsensical: "This is not intended as a list of all micronation flags; only those flags the actual physical existence of which can be verified photographically or through other third-party historical sources should be listed here." I believe it means that there had to have been a cloth-version of the flag to make it onto the page; htough perhaps the sentence's author meant that the micronation had to be notable. While most wikiarticles are subject to having at least one bad sentence... This article has only TWO sentences total, and this second sentence is a description of what the article is! —ScouterSig 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I wrote the sentence in the Queen's English, and it's meaning is clear as crystal. Unless there's documentary or photographic evidence that a fabric flag of the documented design has actually physically existed in the real world, then don't list it. --Gene_poole 09:12, 12 May 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 moot. I believe the amount of cleanup that occurred during the debate was so substantial that it's hard to draw any conclusion from this one. I considered a simple relist (I would have archived most of the lengthy discussion below) but some of the earlier comments no longer apply to the revised version. I am going to begin a new AfD right away, though, because letting Flyer22 continue to work so hard is not right if the article topic is deemed to be improper, so I think we really need to figure that out. Mangojuicetalk 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey
- – (View AfD)
This page consists of noting but an excessively long plot summary of various episodes in a TV series. There are no significant secondary sources. It is full of Original research synthesizing plot elements and explaining the motives of characters. It has far too many fair use screen shots for our image policy. Most importantly, it has nothing but plot summary. According to WP:FICT Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. and Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction and Plot summaries should be kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. This article violates all of these guidelines, and seems unlikely ever to include much "real-world context and sourced analysis". DES (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per my nom. DES (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Right now this reads like a plot summary. It merely details the events between two soap opera characters. Also, no sources are provided that could verify any of the information. Unless a major overhaul occurs, delete per nom. --Cyrus Andiron 19:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Not sure how much improvement has taken place since the gargantuan series of comments below, but there is currently nothing on this page that couldn't (and shouldn't) be summarised in a few lines on the television programme's page. A1octopus 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Most recent comment, after everything below. The plot has been greatly edited down more so to focus on the work rather than reiterating the plot. Mention of the couple's popularity is provided with a SID poll article. And an exmaple of their media press has been given with such articles as TVGuide, and the magazine Celebrity Living. Overall, of course, I'm very much dedicated to the article, as well as other articles on Wikipedia Flyer22 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. J.R. and Babe have a history separate from being about that of the show All My Children, as many couples of television shows have, which is why an article for that particular pairing may be created. The J.R. and Babe article has been improved to the point where it provides more references and sources than any other article similar to it. The setup has been changed/improved to give detail to the origin of the couple, and the summaries have been trimmed, but focus on the most important aspects of the couple's history, as do articles on fictional characters such as Anakin Skywalker go about doing. The J.R and Babe article stands at least as an example for what other soap articles should attempt to include in their pages. TVguide, about.com, Associated Content, and MediaWire are all reliabe independent sources apart from the television show and or company producing the show. More independent sources will be attempted as the article is improved. As I stated below, I don't feel that this article should most definitely be deleted. Flyer22 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please provide sources which show that this is a genuine supercouple? Have they won an award, or been cited as a supercouple in major press? --Elonka 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call them a supercouple, but I will try to find more sources apart from the production company proving that the couple is popular.Flyer22 06:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Improving This Article
I am the creator of this page, and will work on improving it while it is up for deletion. All I ask is that it is taken into great consideration (as I'm sure it will be) in not being deleted. I am very new to wikipedia and am just learning the ropes. I'd read on creating pages, and didn't feel that this article was that beyond help, if needed improvement. When I first came to this page a year ago, it seemed fine. Then, as I came back to it a few weeks ago, it was deleted. I was not the creator of this article then, but I decided to register and create the article since it was popular as to some of its fans before. I welcome the most skilled editors to please assist me in improving this page, so that it is not deleted. As for the summaries, I was contacted by a friend on how one of his favorite pages Spike (Buffyverse) was greatly detailed, and that the detail improved the enjoyment of that article, thus I wanted the J.R. and Babe page to be detailed in the same effect. If it truly required for me to cut back on the summaries, which it seems so...unless I provide a link to such quotes within it, then I will, or I will provide the link within the quote. The Free Use Images, I'm not certain if I should have tagged all of them Free Use. I have noticed a few screenshots on some articles only needed the appropriate license, and not the tag of Free Use. I will work on all of that as well, of course.
I am greatly sorry for having caused this inconvience my first time out on a page. I truly do welcome any help from editors who would like to accompany me in bettering this page. Flyer22 18:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am quite prepared to assume good faith, and to presume that you want to improve the article and the project. And given some of the articles that are out there, i can understand why you thought this would be wanted. The problem is that this is just a long summery of an aspect of the plot of a soap opera. Wikipedia is not in the business of re-telling stories of TV shows, novels, or other works of fiction. Articles about works of fiction should have relatively short plot summaries, enough so that the reader can understand what the work is about. Most of such articles should be about critical reaction to or analysis of such works of fiction, or their effects and influences on the non-fictional world, or the like. Please read our guidelines for fiction on this subject. Note that Wikipedia is not a directory says that wikipedia articles should not be a TV or Radio Guide, and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot."
- In my view, for this article to survive, the plot summery would need to be cut down to one or two par graphs, maybe three, and a significant amount of content would need to be added dealing with the "achievements, impact or historical significance" of this aspect of this soap opera, and all of that would have to be supported by reliable sources, at least some of them independent of the show's producers. Note that fan sites are rarely reliable sources, because of the lack of an editorial process. I doubt that can be done on this topic -- i don't think the material is there. If not, the existence of these characters and their relationship could be covered briefly on the articles on the show as a whole. DES (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The problem that I have here is pretty much summed up in WP:FICT, an that we're not a soap opera guide. Now, if there were a wiki dedicated to soap opera, then we'd probably have something - but only over there. =^^= . Flyer22, kudos on you for creating this, but you might want to stick it in your user page somewhere and work on it there, if only to preserve the data. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Editing Article. Thank you for your understanding. I have edited out the main trivial quotes in this article. And trimmed down the summaries, added sources, but I notice that you state that you feel that this article should be limited to only three paragraphs as one of the goals to save it. Please don't misunderstand my question of asking this, but can you please explain to me how my article on J.R. and Babe differs all that much in describing the events between this couple as compared to other articles on popular couples such as Ethan and Theresa or Shawn and Belle in which also describe the events of those couples?
- I ask that, because if such articles such as those are allowed in their current format, I want the J.R. and Babe article to come as close to those articles in playing by the same rules as possible.
- I haven't looked at those, perhaps they should be deleted or trimmed also. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is generally not considerd an impressive arguemnet, the fact that soem articels do not meet standards does not mean that others don't have to. DES (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right now, the summaries in the article J.R. and Babe do not differ that much in length from an article such as J.R. Chandler, and I really do want to know the questions I pose so I that I might better understand the differences in what is mentioned in my article in comparison to such other related fictional articles as those.
- I will read the guidelines for fiction and do what all I must to save this page. Please try to answer the questions I posed. My main interest on this matter is to improve this page, thus is why I asked the above questions.Flyer22 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I contemplated a "weak keep" based on my belief that an otherwise valid article which contains too much plot summary should be edited, not deleted. Deletion is not a tool to improve articles. However, both J. R. Chandler and Babe have their own lengthy articles and it seems to me that the argument for keeping this as a separate article on the two of them as a couple is weak, despite the fact that, as the article's creator points out, there are similar articles on other soap opera couples. If the information can be readily incorporate into their individual articles, it seems to me that is the best solution. If the article is improved and shows a reason to exist as an independent article, I may revisit the issue. -- DS1953 talk 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I am well aware that just because other articles similar to mine in layout exist doesn't mean that mine will be spared. However, I could see why mine was nominated for deletion earlier, but now I have trimmed it down, taken out uneccessary quote-mess, added valid sources, and stuck mainly to the history of the two characters just as other couple articles have. My main reason for mentioning the other articles is that I saw that one could mention the events of a character (and in more than three paragraphs) or couple as long as it's not total trivial matters, and as long as it has references and or valid sources linked to validate the claims. If my article is still considered for deletion now, I was only very much perplexed as to why, considering that many more fictional (not just soap opera) couples follow the same format as mine, and I wanted to know, if possible, why mine was pulled aside when it doesn't differ much from the others in format. I was only trying to better understand, and am sorry to have asked those questions if you found them besides the point. It's just those articles were very much the point when I decided to re-create the J.R. and Babe article. When I took a look over at guidelines for fiction, I saw that the character details in laying out a character's life does not differ all that much in format as to how my article is now. My article lays out the note-worthy events of J.R. and Babe's life as a couple together. I did read on major characters and or minor characters though, and I'm sure that I still need to better familiarize myself with wikipedia as a member here, which is why I will go back and read more extensively, seeing as though I didn't have enough time before.
- On the subject that another editor here brought up that a J.R. article already exists, and that a Babe article already exists, I don't feel that those facts should have a huge weight as to deleting my article on J.R. and Babe. I would argue that the J.R. and Babe article is one in which combines the two for their own section, and gives important information on such events as how it was confirmed that J.R. is the biological father of Little Adam, and if it was confimed at all, which are two answers to questions that some AMC fans (to this day) still ask for information on, and sometimes don't find the details, but it is given in my article, and yet seems to always be excluded from other articles on J.R. and Babe. There are other links to validate other questions people frequently ask about this couple. And in the Notes section of J.R. and Babe, I mention what a huge impact the Babe-death had on the very real-life audience during the biggest animosity-filled fight between J.R. and Babe, giving added significance to this couple's history, in which were also big moments in the show's history. The J.R. and Babe article as it exists now pertains to the central knowledge of the couple, rather than how the article was when you first addressed me on this matter.
- If you still feel that this article needs more slimming down when it comes to the summaries, I will do my best to ensure your wishes. Addressing the big moments in this couple's history is quite challenging to do in only limiting it to three paragraphs, thus I feel that as long I have provided the valid sources, and kept it to the huge facts as of detailing this couple's history as briefly as possible without eliminating vital information, the summaries shouldn't be cut down too far extreme than how they are now.
- I look forward to working on this page a lot in the future, and with every added big incident between this couple, the above summaries within it will have to be shortened regardless. This couple seems to be if not over, then in limbo right now. Again, I will try my best to edit down even further on the two biggest sections of this article at this moment, and those sections are "The Baby-Switch Drama" section and the "Babe's Almost-Death And Fake-Death" section. If "The J.R./Babe/Josh Love Triangle" section can be edited down even further without deleting important facts, I will tackle that again as well. Thank you for your patience. And if you still are not satisfied with my aricle after that, please let me know of this, which I'm certain that you will.Flyer22 06:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is not solely a question of what needs to coem out, but what needs to go in, remember, "...articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot."(from WP:FICT and WP:NOT) Unless you can add such context and analysis, sourced to one or more reliable sources then the whole article ought to go, IMO. If you can add and source such, then the plot summery ought to be cut down to just enough to give context to that part, also IMO. DES (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. DES, I just got some very helpful information on fixing my article via my talk page. I am doing everything to gain more knowledge on how my article should be. I realize that you may be worn out in dealing with me by now, but I really do appreciate your time and effort in addressing me on these matters. I stated that I would ask you the same question as I asked at the help desk for your take.
- The question was/is... On the subject of "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" I thought I had provided many valid sources in my article, but now I'm told that it shouldn't be limited to what it was. I needed to know exactly what I was missing in the "real-world" context issue. I mean, as for reliable sources, Wikipedia states that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and I thought that I did that in my article. Reliabe sources are about a trusted publisher making the same claims as you. Well, when addressing certain sections like "The Baby-Switch Drama"...I added sources as to that section's claims. And I'm thinking that TV Guide interviews on certain incidents as of a certain section would be a reliable source. But as for real-world context, I kind of got lost there, but thought something like "Cultural Impact And Popularity" that I added to this article is what you meant, what effect certain storylines as of this couple's history that were of historical significance.
- I've read the guidelines for fiction, of course, but I was wondering if you could provide me with information directly. I just don't see how my article differs all that much from a soap couple article such as Luke Spencer and Laura Webber. But now I was told that even that article is poorly sourced. I'm not naming them to say that my article should skid by, and I don't mean to come off as slow in understanding things, but could you please tell me exactly what is meant by "real-world context" on this matter? I mean, if the Luke and Laura article adds enough of this, I was trying to be on the same lines as that article, because I really do like the way in which that article is set up, but if I shouldn't follow it, as it now seems apparent, I'm looking for a better example so that I may get a true representation of how my article should be. I looked at the Superman article and some other fiction layouts to learn, but, of course Superman has huge historical significance anyhow. And I thought that I should get get in contact with some editors who work on editing some soap opera articles to help me, but a few I clicked on didn't seem to have active talk pages. I also love science-fiction/action-adventure material, but I was more so focusing on looking at soap opera articles for this matter, which now I'm told isn't a great idea to base my outline on soap opera articles.
- If you feel that you can answer my questions in better detail, please do, such as the "How to add reliable sources" issue. I finally feel as though I'm getting the hang of what needs to be done as of "Historical significance" and or "sources"...but I still would love to read your comments further concerning this. Flyer22 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- By "real world context" I mean that such an articel should indicate the effects of the fictional work or character outside the fictional context. For example the artilce on Sherlock Holmes discusses how the character has been an influence on other writing, and how real people have writen about the character (outside of the original stories) and how such things as museams have been created focusing on the character. Another possible aspect of a valid articel would be sourced analysis, menaing that people not affiliated with teh show have writen about this couple (as a couple) analyizing ther characters or somethign about them, in a citable source (not a blog or fan-style web site, but a published source). Comments on how they relate to or differ from other characters, how they ahve influenced other actgors or writers or shows, or the effect they ahve had in the wider culture would als be appropriate, again only if proerplyu cited to a reliabel source. Part of teh poitn is that fictional characte such as Superman can have such articels written about them precisely because they have "huge historical significance" and it appears that these charactrs do not.
- The "Cultural Impact And Popularity" section does begin to address the kind of think I mean. But it still has problems. For example you say "The J.R. and Babe romance is considered one of the few soap opera couples that have super couple potential" Who says so? There is no source cited. The sources you do cite are interviews with cast members or polls taken by the producer, which are not independant sources, and one article that looks to me like a blog, but perhaps woudl qualify as a reliabel source. But look at the huge disproportion between this section and the rest of the article. The plot info should be ther jsut to expaln what this is about, so it should probably wind up shorter than the "Cultural Impact" section. Overall i can see that you are trying hard, but i just don't think this topic has much place here. DES (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I get what you mean now, DES. Another editor even broke it down to me like this:
-- J.R. and Babe are a fictional couple. Real world context would be things like:
the actors who play them
inspiration from their lives which the actors use for their characters (that is, what they bring to their roles)
the people who developed the characters, the romance, and wrote their lines
the inspiration for the couple and their ongoing relationship (how the writers came up with it)
behind the camera politics
the impact the fictional couple have had on viewers, politics, society... and the world
the fictional couple's popularity
number of posters, t-shirts, and coffe cups sold with the couple on them
...and so on --
- I thought that's what real world context meant. I get what is needed, and I feel that I can do it. If you are willing to give me some more time to gather the article as it should be, then I should have an even futher overhaul soon. I'm thinking that I won't have the changes show up on the page yet until I've pieced it all together. Here's good luck to me. You're terrific in your assistance. Flyer22 00:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Commment - long and tearful story just like most soap operas. Recommend to shorten this out to one page just like them scientists in Physical Review demand and conserve the important references. One page will do it. greg park avenue 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Updated The Article
Well, DES, I fixed up the article, added everything that needed to be added, trimmed down the summaries once more, such as The Baby-Switch section and The Love Triangle section, and now the summaries pretty much match in length to that of such other fictional characters' life, like Spike (Buffyverse), and I really do believe that this article is valid now. I feel a lot better about it, and I am glad that you called me out on fixing it up. It really does seem like an article combining the characters of J.R. and Babe, rather than what it was before. All I can do now is wait. Flyer22 13:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- While this is somewhat improved, there are still multiple screenfuls of plot summery, versus a few paragraphs of other stuff. Also the writing is rather incoherent, but that is an editorial matter ("...the power of their love has been referenced more than once in the show to that of supercouple..." [is compared meant here?]; "One of her character creations in general, Babe Carey, first sprouted up in 2003" [mixed metaphor]; "This time between J.R. and Babe would come to be the day in which Babe would describe as the happiest day of her life." [misplaced word]; "When J.R. tried to murder Babe, and yet the couple was still portrayed as true loves to each other, it sparked a perplexing, 'former debate among soap opera viewers and viewers of television shows in general" [when did is stop being a debate? and who was perplexed by it?]; "Jacob Young's very realistic portrayal of an alcoholic battling his inner demons, who also couldn't fully grasp why he'd tried to kill his wife got him and his character noticed by PRISM..." [Wrong antecedent, unless it is the demons who had trouble understanding Young's motives]; etc). There are also lots of weasel words ("dishing out what many considered a complete overhaul of their beloved drama"; "Many fans felt that J.R. should have served time for his crime.") and grandiosities ("The events listed in this section occur from the huge history-shaping AMC/One Life To Live crossover"; "The events listed in this section occur from the greatly controversial AMC Satin Slayer, The Fusion Serial Killer storyline"). The current version also seem to have lots of [[WP:NOR|original research], and many of the sources now cited are either bloggers, fan sites, or provided by the production company or the network, i see few if any reliable, independent sources. I still thank this is worth deleting, perhaps after it is copied to the new soap operas wiki on Wikia, but it is a significant improvement over the earlier version. DES (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- 'Note I will clean up what you mention on the writing aspect.
As for the references, I wouldn't consider TV Guide a fansite, but I get that you mean more of the references should be like that of TV Guide or the Associated Content reference. I know that I mentioned one blog site, but as for the ones pertaining to Dixie's death, that was more so to validate the impact of Dixie's death, but I will delete those. By "fan site", I would have thought that you meant a J.R. and Babe fansite, which, of course, isn't in my references. But by "sources supported by the production company or network"...you must mean the fact that some of it comes from abc.com. I would argue that considering that J.R. and Babe are a couple from a soap opera, the fact that most of their portrayers and or the creators of their characters' interviews would come via abc.com is to be expected. Sure, they are not characters from a show such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where tons of sources are available apart from the production company in which supported that show, but I don't feel that it makes the notion of a J.R. and Babe article on Wikipedia being useful and or sound any less valid.
- I really do feel that this is one of the better soap opera couple articles on Wikipedia, though there is always room for improvement, which I will continually work on, but I strongly disagree that deletion is the best way to go here. This article at least attempts to provide and or does provide some valid sources and references...while other soap opera couple articles do not. This, I feel, is what sets the J.R. and Babe couple article apart from the other soap couple articles. If all soap couple articles went by the criteria in which you make known, DES, then I feel that we would be on the road to better soap articles in general as well. As for the summaries, I was under the impression that the length of the summaries are in accordance to other such fictional characters' summaries. However, I take what you state on all matters regarding this article into great thought and apply it as necessary.
- I appreciate your thoughts on this article having been significantly improved. It is because of this improvement that I feel that this article would be better addressed on the topic of cleaning it up instead of deleting it. I will look over the editorial issue, and do what I must there. I just cannot agree with you that this article should be deleted.
- All that said, you truly have made me better in composing articles on Wikipedia, though this (as I'm sure it showed when I first started) is my first one.Flyer22 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- You know, whoever created and or helped to update the soap couple article Luke Spencer and Laura Webber could have/can still have access to a lot of sourced material apart from ABC or a publisher of a soap opera magazine for that couple, I feel...with that couple's impact, and how they spun the supercouple definition/era. That's definitely one soap opera article that one could have total unlimiting gain with.Flyer22 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Feedback. I know that this won't help save my article, but I thought that I'd mention it, because it made me so proud of the article. It's not feedback that I asked for either. In other words...I didn't go to any forums and say, "Hey, what do you think of the J.R. and Babe article on Wikipedia?" I mean, really, I want to stay anonymous as having created anything on Wikipedia, because it just feels right. So I was pleasantly surprised when I recently came across comments that have made me believe in this article all the more. The best thing is that these weren't comments from fans of this couple. It seems that a few people, such as fans of the Zach Slater and Kendall Hart couple, and a few others have noticed this article and have expressed that they wish the Zach and Kendall article was like this one, or that this article is the best soap couple article that they've seen on Wikipedia (I know, huh, my exact thoughts in this debate, though I'm biased), but they mentioned things such as not knowing that the J.R. and Babe romance was based on the Adam/Dixie/Tad love triangle, or that Jacob Young had been nominated for PRISM for his role of J.R. Chandler during that highly alcoholic, homicidal state of his. They even discussed clicking on the link, and being surprised that the proof was there, although my personal feelings are that Wikipedia is pretty valid most of the time.
- Again, I know that this will play little role, if any, in reconsidering to delete this article, and what AMC fans think isn't weight to if an article is deleted or not, but I feel even more now that this article is valuable in information. It's more than what you'd get from just reading the J.R. article, or the Babe article alone. I'm improving this article everyday, and can't help but wonder how helpful it will be to people in the future. Flyer22 20:02, 13 May 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 Speedy Delete (A7) by Sr13 -- The Placebo Effect 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "net entertainment"
- – (View AfD)
Article was speedy deleted using CSD A7 (corp/web). Article was then recreated by original author and then went through a failed PROD (somebody added a prod tag that was then removed by original author). Since this article went through a failed PROD I decided that tagging with a CSD template would be wrong, but I believe it definitely still fits under CSD A7. Speedy delete. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as per above Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete & SALT Clearly a non notable company that can be speedied under CSD A7. It should also be salted to prevent recreation. Clearly, the author cannot take a hint. --Cyrus Andiron 18:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and definitely don't forget the salt this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and add salt, perhaps pepper to taste. Fits the criteria. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as spam. DarkAudit 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The article doesn't provide any independent citations to demonstrate notability, but it does assert notability of a sort (software "used by over 40 well known online operators"), so I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion. EALacey 21:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment an assertion of notability would preclude an A7 speedy, but other speedy criteria may still be applicable. Like spam. DarkAudit 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, non notable and meet WP:CSD#A7. Carlosguitar 22:30, 8 May 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.
