Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 12
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Nakon 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Next generation entrepreneurship
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
It is a blatant how-to advice article on how to inherit money and a company from a forebearer. contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994TALK 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, a quick look at the article and one will see this is blatant advertising. Victao lopes (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Mkeranat (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's a topic in business that no one has cover yet and possibly even overlook. It is not about making money or how-to article; it is compilation of factual articles from reliable sources. Please think again. This could be useful for someone else! Asyera (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)— Asyera (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep This article does not promote any particular form of entrepreneurship, but is an informative source which provides the basics involved with next generation entrepreneurship. Information has been collected from various reliable sources and is topic that has not yet been touched upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ea0002 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC) — Ea0002 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep This article has been written with no intention to promote entrepreneurship or give advice on inheriting a company. It has been supported with multiple strong and reliable references from other factual articles. It should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connolly86 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC) — Connolly86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep This is clearly an educational article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.193.164 (talk) — 99.240.193.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KEEPCarmen00 (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.243.224 (talk) — 99.240.243.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Merge with succession planning. "Next generation entrepreneurship" is a bit neologistic/buzzwordy, although I'm sure examples of using it exist. The formal term is, however, succession planning, and our existing article and this one both have some salvageable material; this one is marginally better and has decent sources and source variety. Combined, and with some judicious trimming, they could make a decent article we could be proud of. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete; seems like a veiled advertisement for a consulting business. I see little of value to merge with succession planning here. Moreover, the title itself is too ambiguous and buzzwordish to support a redirect: if someone talks about "next generation entrepreneurship" it isn't immediately obvious that they're talking about death and retirement planning. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment If you honestly think it's spam then you should have some idea what company is being spammed, right? It would follow. I don't see that, though; could you clarify? --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment. "Next generation" is an ad-style buzzword in itself; as such the phrase "next generation entrepreneurship" is vague, perhaps deliberately so. I think it's spam largely because I see this article as an attempt to publicize this particular phrase, and invest it with a meaning it does not carry on its face. That's why it strikes me as a marketing coinage: after all, getting business owners to contemplate the future in which they shall surely face old age, disability, or death is an uphill battle for anyone. Best to think up a "next generation" catchphrase to make contemplation of these inevitabilities more inviting. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to succession planning; if there is material worth merging, or citations here that would strengthen that, merge material appropriately; no evidence that this is a separate topic. - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Family Business makes up 2/3 of the businesses in Canada. It makes up a large part of the economy. There is no reason to exclude such a significant topic on a website such as Wikipedia. The collection of information regarding the continuation of family businesses should be made available in a separate entry as it deals with a more specific topic. In terms of the title of the article, "Next Generation" usually refers to "the following generation" and "Entrepreneurship", a business; however, if a general census shows it is still unclear, the title can simply be modified. Valid point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ea0002 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 February 2008 (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD
AfDs for this article:
This article is not about scientists but instead purports to be about a book. It is a little known book, originally published in 1999 by a small British publishing house [11] and now out of print in the UK at least, [12] though possibly still in print in India. The article offers no commentary whatever from third party sources: hardly surprising, as a Google search brings up a mere 32 unique hits [13]; and they are only Wikipedia mirrors, automated listings at a few online bookshops and a couple of passing references from people who are happy about their own inclusion. The article can never conform to WP:BK, because (i) it contains nothing which is not apparently sourced from the book itself, and (ii) as a minor work published nine years ago (and out of print in most of the world) it is most unlikely ever to attract further independent commentary or reviews.
An AfD eighteen months ago closed as no consensus. Three main arguments were made for keeping the article; all are erroneous or else no longer relevant.
The first argument for keeping the article was that it served as a useful list of scientists, many of whom were still in need of articles. But since then, the vast majority of the redlinks have turned blue. And the article was always a poor to-do list, for reasons I'll come on to.
Another argument made for keeping was based on the incorrect belief, which had found its way into the article, that the list was the result of an important, authoritative survey of many academics, rather than the view of a single author, and was important because of this. However, the book itself (of which I have acquired a copy) makes no such claim. It makes it clear that this is a personal selection; commenting "While relying heavily on [three scholarly biographical dictionaries], the author has has attempted to extract the top 1000 names in science that should be known to everyone with a serious interest in the role of science in society" (Preface, page vii, emphasis mine). While it does add that "In this task, the author was assisted enormously by a survey he conducted in eighty university departments around the world" (emphasis mine again), this is all it says about the survey. There is no information at all on who was surveyed, what the response rate was, how many votes each scientist received, or even how much weight the author attached to the results in making his selection. This is in spite of suggestions to the contrary on the talk page. I will provide scans of the relevant pages on request by Email to confirm the book's actual contents.
I will add that, as others have pointed out on the talk page, the book's selection is quite bizarre. To list just a few of the missing names, there is no mention of Carl Friedrich Gauss, Christiaan Huygens, Leonardo da Vinci or Werner Heisenberg. Perhaps most astonishingly, on pages 88 and 89 the (alphabetical) entries jump straight from Paul Ehrlich to Willem Einthoven, without pausing to mention the German fellow with the funny hair and the famous equation. It's inconceivable that any well conducted survey could have missed so many greats from the history of science; a more likely explanation is that the book was completed in a hurry to cash in on the millennium (release date: December 1999). The haphazard selection further reduces the book's value as a to-do list.
Finally, it was suggested that the list of scientists was endorsed by the President of the British Society for History of Science, and gained notability from this fact. While it is true that there is a short introduction written by Ludmilla Jordanova, it is just a bland essay about scientific biographies. It makes no specific mention of Barker or this book, certainly does not endorse the selection, and seems likely to have been commissioned by the publisher before the content was available. It is unlikely that Barker collaborated closely with Jordanova, because he thanks her "for his (sic) helpful comments", apparently having failed to notice that she is a woman.
The list of scientists (essentially a contents page for the book) is therefore inherently unencyclopaedic; by including this list we give massively undue weight to a single non-notable person's view of who the most important scientists throughout history have been; and this POV cannot be fixed since names cannot be added or removed without traducing the book. The remainder of the article can never be much more than publisher's blurb and should be deleted.
In short the book fails Wikipedia's inclusion criteria on many levels; WP:N, WP:BK, WP:V and WP:NPOV to name just four. As an article about a book it is irredeemable due to the book's lack of notability, as a list of scientists it is something we have no need of. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- Delete Wow, I don't think you really needed to write a book of your own, but your point got across. This book definitely does not have any individual notability, outside references, or a need to clutter our site. Reywas92Talk 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We have plenty better lists of scientists that our readers would benefit from examining. As a book article, it fails the threshold by quite a margin. As a list of important scientists, it is only notable in its incompetence. Sorry to those who have spent time fixing wikilinks or dates of birth and death, but I believe your time will be better spent elsewhere. Colin°Talk 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, if for no other reason than that it was extremely useful in creating cross-links between various forms of the names of these scientists. In addition, it serves the very same purposes as most other lists on Wikipedia. Actually, I thought this was long-gone ancient history. Was it deleted and re-created again? In fact, it must have been. It looks like I created the article; mine is listed after the first entry. But in fact, that was one of my last edits there; I only edited it one other day since then, but I probably had a hundred edits before the first one listed in the history. It was originally put here by someone else, not by me. If I did re-create it, it was inadvertent. Prehaps I was editing it at the time someone else deleted it, and my edit then started it all over again; that's the only thing I can think of. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Who is going to benefit from the "cross-links between various forms of the names of these scientists"? If some science wikiproject want to keep the list as a tool for naming/linking, then it can go into project space. We write articles in WP namespace for the benefit of our readers, not the editors. I'm sorry you've spent time on this but I rather think we were mislead on the importance or worth of this list and book. Now that a copy has been found, its shortcomings as anything useful to WP are apparent. To have editors waste more time on this would be a crime. BTW: the article was deleted due to copyright concerns and the history incompletely restored when those concerns were addressed. Colin°Talk 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It must have been your copyvio deletion and the subsequent restoration that lost all the prior history and mistakenly made it look like I created the article. See the logs for the page, and User talk:Gene Nygaard/2005Jul-2006Jan#Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The IP-address you mentioned there on my talk page was probably the original creator, though I don't see anything about it on User talk:202.138.112.252 before your copyvio notice. It had been discussed somewhere, most likely on the article's talk page, in more stuff that has vanished into the ether.
- Curiously, if you go to the history of the talk page for the article, it shows 17 talk page entries which predate my supposed creation of the article on 31 December 2005. What is going on here, anyway? Can you figure it out? Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It must have been your copyvio deletion and the subsequent restoration that lost all the prior history and mistakenly made it look like I created the article. See the logs for the page, and User talk:Gene Nygaard/2005Jul-2006Jan#Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who is going to benefit from the "cross-links between various forms of the names of these scientists"? If some science wikiproject want to keep the list as a tool for naming/linking, then it can go into project space. We write articles in WP namespace for the benefit of our readers, not the editors. I'm sorry you've spent time on this but I rather think we were mislead on the importance or worth of this list and book. Now that a copy has been found, its shortcomings as anything useful to WP are apparent. To have editors waste more time on this would be a crime. BTW: the article was deleted due to copyright concerns and the history incompletely restored when those concerns were addressed. Colin°Talk 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Furthermore, even that first entry on the talk page is a pretty clear indication that the article had been in existence for some time before then (and it is likely before then that most of the editing I did too place). THat first talk page entry says:
- This page was made into a redirect to List of scientists but I reverted it because this article references one particular book and so the content of the redirect and the content of the article would not be the same. Qaz (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The log shows that the article was deleted by User:Quadell on 20 Feb 2006 as a copyvio, then restored two days later by User:David.Monniaux when the author apparently released the list under the GFDL. However, for some reason David only restored the most recent revision (yours) rather than all the revisions, making it look like you created the page. Admins do have the option of selectively restoring revisions; it allows them to remove libel and whatnot from page histories without the need for oversight. Why David did it in this case I don't know - it might have been to do with the permission, or it might have been a simple mistake. You'd have to ask him.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- On the main point though I agree with Colin; with the article's many inadequacies which I've outlined, I don't see that "useful cross-links" is a good enough reason to overcome WP:V, WP:N, WP:BK and WP:UNDUE. I'm sorry that the good work you put into cleaning up this page was in vain, but there really is nothing here to merit an article. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete very simply as a non-notable book. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator, the book's not notable. I see the argument for keeping as a reference list of top-scientists, but no Gauss?! Heisenberg?! Einstein?!? It's a bit too controversial to be useful, bearing in mind that it's ultimately just one man's informed opinion. The Zig (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep/merge There are still some redlinks. I'm not seeing a good list to merge these into and don't think the list should be deleted until we've got them all. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- A quick flick through some of the redlinks suggests that many or most are already redlinked from other lists; for example Thomas Lewis (cardiologist) is redlinked from these articles, Saul Winstein is redlinked from here; others only seem to be redlinks only because they point to uncommon variants of the person's name which nobody's bothered to redirect yet; for example I've just redirected Gerald Mayer Rubin to Gerald M. Rubin. Others might just not be very notable - after all, the author's selection is idiosyncratic at best, and a hundred word biographical sketch in an obscure book does not in itself confer notability, however grand the book's title. However, if anyone thinks the redlinks retain value as a to do list, it would be better to keep them on a Wikiproject's subpage than in article space, as the list has no inherent value as an article. In fact, the redlinks are already preserved at User:Lambiam/RedlinkedScientists, so the information would not be lost by removing this from article space. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure it started out with over 900 redlinks. A good number of them were just red because appropriate redirects hadn't been made; Wikipedia already had the articles, but the names were originally just blindly linked as they appeared in the book. OTOH, there were also blue links to inappropriate articles. But even with that, much fewer than half of them on the list had articles (whether they had been found or not) when this article started. This article ws one impetus for athe initial creation of a good number of articles, and for cleaning up a lot of the existing ones. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- A quick flick through some of the redlinks suggests that many or most are already redlinked from other lists; for example Thomas Lewis (cardiologist) is redlinked from these articles, Saul Winstein is redlinked from here; others only seem to be redlinks only because they point to uncommon variants of the person's name which nobody's bothered to redirect yet; for example I've just redirected Gerald Mayer Rubin to Gerald M. Rubin. Others might just not be very notable - after all, the author's selection is idiosyncratic at best, and a hundred word biographical sketch in an obscure book does not in itself confer notability, however grand the book's title. However, if anyone thinks the redlinks retain value as a to do list, it would be better to keep them on a Wikiproject's subpage than in article space, as the list has no inherent value as an article. In fact, the redlinks are already preserved at User:Lambiam/RedlinkedScientists, so the information would not be lost by removing this from article space. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The multiple reasons for deletion have been amply explained. I note that Gene Nygaard says the article was extremely useful in creating cross-links between various forms of the names of these scientists. Pardon the personal note, but my room is full of things that at one time or other were extremely useful; plenty of them are now worn out, boring, mouldy or otherwise of no more than curiosity value, and the entire room is an unsightly mess. I'm surprised to hear that this article was useful, but if it was then let's be grateful for this as we put it out of its misery. ¶ Immediately above, the Colonel points out that there are still some redlinks, and is not seeing a good list to merge these into. A few seconds ago (and before reading Iain99's comment) I plonked a list of all these redlinks on the talk page of this AfD, so they'll survive the richly deserved deletion of this sixty-two kilobyte "article"; anyone is free thereafter to do anything with them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator and my own arguments on the article's talk page. One bias-revealing stat I once worked out is the mean number of wikipedia articles in different languages, a decent indicator of someone's international fame, for different groups of scientists on the list. In November, for British scientists this was 3.5, for the rest of the world this was 13... There is no need for a list like this to artificially boost the UK's superiority complex with respect to science, though it is fun to compare the greater merits of listed people like Herbert Brereton Baker and the delightfully named Sir Gordon Brims Black McIvor Sutherland with notable absentees like Avicenna and Heinrich Hertz. Afasmit (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- To claim your original research here as evidence of bias is more just evidence of your own bias than anything else. Have you actually looked at the scope of most of the Wikipedias? Over 70% of them don't even have 1,000 articles. That "3.5" is about the total number who make any kind of a stab a comprehensiveness, isn't it?
- Or are you just complaining because Chemical Ali didn't make the list, when he has links to articles in 19 other Wikipedias? Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Gene, don't get upset about this. I've probably put at least as much time in cleaning up this list as you. I'll just save a copy for myself now. Other much, much larger projects have been deleted in the past, like the index of people by last name.
- It's sad how "original research" has become a dirty word; the wikipedia rule likely should not be interpreted as "don't check on your facts before writing." If I were to make a wikipedia article entitled "Bias in Philip Barker's Top 1000 Scientists list" you'd have a good point.
- Your claim that "since the other language wikipedias are not comprehensive, the numbers have no meaning" doesn't make sense; in fact, if each were indeed comprehensive all listed 1037 scientists would occur in all languages. As it is now (and always will be), all wikipedias contain samples of articles someone somewhere thought was noteworthy enough to include, and this sampling did the statistics for me. Undoubtedly, there is a bias there too (some systematic, like mathematicians around the world seem to have really jumped on wikipedia, countries with multiple languages like Switzerland have a small head start, British historical figures have a wider exposure through the dominance of English-language text books, because of the size of the English wikipedia, lesser known foreign scientists get the English entry "for free", etc.), but it's not my bias and it will never explain why half the British listees had 3 or fewer wikipedia entries, and half of the international had 13 or more. Afasmit (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly, I'm just saying your methodology if flawed. For one thing, having articles in many Wikipedias is anot a reliable indicator that someone is a "top scientist", which is why I mentioned Chemical Ali. Then there is the question of the significance of numbers like "3.5" and "13" when they range from zero to 90, and when they are not by any mans independent, with articles from one often being translated into another; and the more closely related the languages are, the more likely this is to happen. Like from one Norwegian Wikipedia to the other Norwegian Wikipedia. And the wide discrepancies in the numbers of speakers of each of the various languages. The very limited pool of active editors on some wikipedias will skew the results greatly. The methods you use to determine nationality can skew the results too.
- And nowhere is the methodology more flawed than in your talking about a "mean" above, and then talking as if it were a median in your last sentence. We don't even know what you were trying to measure, let alone how accurate the implementation of that determination was. Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC) originally posted not logged in, 69.57.91.185 06:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad. I meant to type median of course. Darn the nitwits that came up with those easily mixed up names. You could have just said "by the way, you meant to say 'median' " of course.
- With respect to Chemical Ali, and I trust you're not implying that most foreign scientists are terrorists, I'm only comparing people on the list, all presumably there because they were noteworthy for their scientific work and not their notoriety.
- It seems you think the English language is some four-fold disadvantageous for scientists to be included in foreign language wikipedias. I suspect it is rather advantage instead (e.g. the texbook issue I mentioned above, most foreigners will look in the English wikipedia to translate biographies from, as this tends to be the second language people know, etc.). Also, for scientists from the US, Australia, South Africa, Canada, etc. the median number of foreign wikipedia articles was 11, not that much different from the 14 for non-English speaking countries. I think Barker just had access to a British biographical dictionary. You seem very interested in this. I can send you the excel file if you like. Afasmit (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep Though the content draws from one book expressing one man's opinion, it is a cite to a published source, and it's superior to an original research list of a thousand scientists. It's also the basis for adding other information. Though the author packaged it in a form that would make it more marketable, this isn't a countdown (although Casey Kasem could have sent out a dedication right before introducing #181, Sir Isaac Newton). It's a published list of persons, not all of them well-known, who made notable contributions to science. If someone else has published a similar list of 1,000 persons, merge the articles. It appears that 38 of these names are red-links, which means either that the entry has been misspelled or that there's not an article about that person. If Wikipedia has articles about the other 962, then that's pretty good. Perhaps it's not as popular an encylopedia topic as, say, List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, season three but there's room for all the disciplines in Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's also the basis for adding other information. Could you elaborate? ¶ If someone else has published a similar list of 1,000 persons, merge the articles. It's highly unlikely that any such book (or web list or whatever) would have precisely the same title. Let's suppose that its title were slightly different but its purpose indisputably identical. We can also assume, I think, that this second person's top thousand would not be the same as the "thousand" (1037) here. Indeed, the union of the two sets would almost certainly exceed 1037. How might one title the resulting article? I can't think of anything neater than "Union of lists of top thousand scientists", but to me that sounds a distinctly strange article. (Actually the very notion of there being a "top [insert number here] scientists" sounds odd to me, but that's another matter.) ¶ It appears that 38 of these names are red-links, which means either that the entry has been misspelled or that there's not an article about that person. If you're looking at my derivative on this AfD's talk page, I didn't count them, and I can't guarantee that I didn't sleepily overlook something. (Simple to check: before the article is deleted, get its HTML source -- I don't mean the editable preprocessor source -- and grep this for the string "action=edit".) But however accurate or inaccurate the list, as it's on this AfD's talk page it will outlive the article and can be used in any way you wish. Indeed, any interested user or project could put it into a "to do" list elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a cite to a published source, it is an article about a published source, and there are different criteria as a result. If someone wants to use this crappy list to prop up the notability of another article as a reference, well, I don't think they'll need to for any of these scientists, but they can give it a go. That doesn't mean that the published source deserves its own article, though. There are no cites for this book to any other published sources at all. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please note: we are discussing the deletion of a book article, not a WP list that happens to cite a book. The creation of such a WP list would either be POV or necessarily involve sythnesis of sources, and fail on that account. Colin°Talk 08:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No one is debating that the people ON the list are notable or not; what is in question is whether the list and book THEMSELVES are notable. Therefore, we need third-party reliable sources discussing the list or the book and assigning notability to this specific list of 1000 scientists. Was this list debated in any scientific journals? Was it reviewed by the New York Times? Did anyone even notice that the book was published? You would think that if the book itself was notable, the exclusion of key scientists like Einstein would have been the subject of uproar, controversy, or at least simple observation by third-party media. The fact that it was not implies that this work is merely another insignificant book written by one man who happened to be lucky enough to con a publisher into printing it for him. The "useful" redlinks have already been preserved, leaving no reason for this regurgitation of a non-notable book's table of contents to remain in Wikipedia. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I decided to do a little research into what sort of company WOULD be conned into publishing this. It turns out that "The Book Guild Ltd." offers "partnership publishing"[14] which is a fancy word for vanity press. A Google serch revealed at least one writer's website that indicated that The Book Guild sometimes asked for "contributions" from prospective authors looking to have their book published. So it's likely that this author didn't even have the editorial oversight of a single editor, he simply ponied up some money and put his opinions into print. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as before, ZERO external sources. This book fails the fundamental criterion of notability - that external sources of information exist. Even if it passes that criterion, there's no reason in the world for us to have an article that is merely some random person's list of scientists. --B (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless and until an independent review of the book, published in a notable journal or similar, is cited. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Said keep last time, but that was a year and a half ago and there has been no improvement whatsoever since then. Batmanand | Talk 09:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I am not sure where the worry about a vanity publisher emerges.The book has been published by Orient Lingman ,one of teh biggest and most respected publishing houses in Asia[15] The publication house has publishes many bestsellers including Wings of Fire by Abdul Kalam.And thsi is not a random list-it has been authored by a noted UK archaelogist.
- And I do not know why the refernce to omision of Einstein is made-he is very much there!I know the earlier edition was recalled in the UK but the current edition does have all that.[16] and has a forward by a top UK historian of science[17]. Should that not be a reason enough? (Delhite (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
- Book Guild obviously dropped the book when the realised what a turd it was. Universities Press (India) Pvt. Ltd (an associate of Orient Longman) were somehow persuaded to publish a paperback, which may well have had Einstein inserted as its such an obvious gaff. Philip Barker (the archaeologist) is most definitely not the author of this book. See his obituary from 2001. The forward (available from Iain by email) is damning in its lack of praise for the book. I would think that Jordanova is rather embarrassed by it. Publication alone is not enough to get an article on WP. There are millions of non-notable books published by excellent publishers. Colin°Talk 12:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Einstein is absolutely not in the original edition, which I have sitting in front of me. If you doubt this, Email me and I'll send you a scan of the page he should be on. The Indian publisher might well have corrected this gaffe, after all, it's a glaring omission, even to a layman; but if the list was changed between editions this is yet more proof that it's an arbitrary, mutable selection and not the result of a comprehensive survey, which could hardly be changed after the fact.
- The book was not authored by Philip Barker, the archaeologist. I found a single university press release which suggests it was [18], but I assume this is a simple mistake on behalf of the university's press officer. The minimal biography on the dust jacket describes the author as a scholar who lectures in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka and received a PhD in 1994. If he were a world renowned archaeologist, the biography would have found room to mention this. Furthermore, according to the OTRS ticket on the talk page, the author was apparently on hand in 2006 to release the list under the GFDL. Barker the archaeologist died in 2001. Ans as Colin's obituary shows, he was in a nursing home by 1999, and in no state to write a book.
- As I wrote in the nomination, Jordanova's forward is a short (a page and a half), bland essay on the general topic of scientific biographies, which says nothing about the book itself. Notability is not contagious, and merely being loosely associated with a notable scholar does not make the book itself notable. If it were a genuinely important book, there would be a wealth of independent reviews commenting on it, praising or criticising its selection and contents, which would allow the article to grow beyond a simple text dump of its contents page. There aren't; it's never even had a customer review on Amazon. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 14:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Book Guild obviously dropped the book when the realised what a turd it was. Universities Press (India) Pvt. Ltd (an associate of Orient Longman) were somehow persuaded to publish a paperback, which may well have had Einstein inserted as its such an obvious gaff. Philip Barker (the archaeologist) is most definitely not the author of this book. See his obituary from 2001. The forward (available from Iain by email) is damning in its lack of praise for the book. I would think that Jordanova is rather embarrassed by it. Publication alone is not enough to get an article on WP. There are millions of non-notable books published by excellent publishers. Colin°Talk 12:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable book. No reliable sourcing. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This article about a non-notable book by a non-notable author gives vastly undue weight to the opinions of that author. The title of the article gives the impression that this is Wikipedia's list of the 1000 greatest, rather than an article about one random guy's favorite 1000. The book author did not include the fathers of scientific psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, Gustav Fechner and William James, along with the proponent of operant conditioning B.F. Skinner. He left out physicist Gustav Kirchhoff who pioneered the concept of black body radiation as well as his current and voltage laws which allow analysis of electric circuits. He left out Joseph Henry who was the co-discoverer of electrical induction. He left out Heinrich Hertz who proved the existence of electromagnetic waves. He included many lesser lights. He included industrialist/inventors George Westinghouse , Thomas Edison , and Joseph Swan , whose actual scientific contributions were minor. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not a notable book, -- worldCat shows only 55 libraries, which is very low for a book intended as a popular-level reference book. The uselessness of the list for WP purposes seems to have been dealt with above. Would anyone be interested in a List of Scientists included in Dictionary of Scientific biography, however? It's several thousand, but I could do it gradually. it would be a good check list for WP bios. .DGG (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per many comments above. It is not notable and has done its job as a list of redlinks. --Bduke (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Oy vey! WP does not need this article on a not notable and deeply flawed "book". Pinkville (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rant OK, I spent a bit of time last night doing my own bit to kill off the redlinks, and I'm left wondering if I'm going slightly mad. While writing articles for James Walker (chemist) and Thomas Edward Thorpe, I noticed that Adolf von Baeyer, Rainer Ludwig Claisen and best of all, August Kekulé are missing from Barker's book. Now, smashing chaps as I'm sure Walker and Thorpe were, I confess that I'd never heard of them until last night, and having read their ODNB entries (and Barker's book, for that matter) I'm still in the dark as to what they did which makes them anywhere near as important, let alone more important, than those three German gentlemen, so can anyone, anywhere enlighten me? As for Thomas Melvill, he seems to be so obscure that I was a bit worried that an overzealous new page patroller would slap a CSD tag on the article, and had to think carefully about how to assert notability. His ODNB entry is three paragraphs long, and even Barker's book says he "had no impact on the scientific community" and ascribes his "lack of influence" to his early death. Even to a Brit like me with a superiority complex about science ;-), this is ridiculous. I now find it hard to believe that Barker did much more than paraphrase entries at random from an anglocentric biographical dictionary. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 08:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep
I think it is important not be to swayed by knee-jerk reactions.I am alluding in particular to Iain's comments:
1.Archaelogist Barker did not author the book.University of Rochester science portal suggests otherwise. [19]
2.Jordanova is "embarassed" by her forward;is there any evidence to back it up apart from one'sown hunch!If so,I shouldlike to see that.
3.I amas an Indian and a Tamil tempeted totakie very strong exception to teh suggestion that Orient Longman,one of teh top and most respected publishing houses in Asia published t---d once it was rejected!The use of that word I am not sure conforms to the standards required by the Wiki.And is there any evidence.Orient Longman has long been teh premier publishing house in this region.[20] I am not sure many readers and users of Wiki owuld find the comment in good taste.
3.The book was originally published by Book Guild!I have been though the book in the refrence section of Chennai Mathematical Society-going through it I notice tha this volume is a reprint and it syas that teh book was originally published by Orient Longman,later as a hardback by Book Guild which was recalled because of errors almost immediately.
4.Einstein is very much there in the original volume [21]
Please note that his photo appears on the cover page!Clearly Iain has the recalledvolume in his hand!
To his credit he did leave a note on my talk page when he nominated this article for deletion.But I am afraid I cannot go along with unsubstantiated hunches.
(Venkat Radhakrishnan (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC))
- You raise various points. ¶ You say 1.Archaelogist Barker did not author the book.University of Rochester science portal suggests otherwise. [22] Iain99 has already pointed this out (see above). He followed this with various observations, among them that it seems that the author of this book contacted Wikipedia five years after the archaeologist had died. This raises various possibilities: (i) the archaeologist didn't die, (ii) the archaeologist's ghost contacted Wikipedia, (iii) the non-archaeologist author contacted Wikipedia, (iv) an impostor contacted Wikipedia. Let's take these one by one. (1) would imply an elaborate fraud behind such materials as this. (ii) is the kind of explanation that I for one generally tend to avoid; (iii) seems least problematic to me; (iv) would imply that the list within the article should be deleted as a copyright violation. Have I overlooked something here? ¶ You seem to appeal to this URL for the authority to claim both that (i) Orient Longman has long been teh premier publishing house in this region and that (ii) Einstein is very much there in the original volume. It's an article from The Hindu, titled Orient Longman, Trinity College tie-up on English language exam. How does it back up either claim? -- Hoary (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep.Being an author myself who has published several books,I can say that anyone with any knowledge of book publication woudl vouch for the very high standards espoused by Orient Longman as its published volumes woudl testify.Having grown up in Goa,I know I read sevral volumes published by them.
But I shall concentrate on two points:
a.firstly,if a book has been recalled for any reason,and then republished ,the judgement shoudl be based on the latest version and not the recalled version.I know how I had to force one of my publishers to recall a book of mine.I think we are judging the book on the basis of statements from a volume that has been recalled.I can see the photograph of Einstein in the Orient Longman volume cover.
b.I looked through the Royal Society Library Archives: [23] Somehow I do not believe the Royal Society would keep "turd' in its reference section.
Regards.Dinesh (Dineshdsouza (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)) — Dineshdsouza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Strong keep I was fascinated to note a few names who I had never heard of-Zohary,Donders etc.Keep for the reasons stated by Gene(Banarsibabu (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)) — Banarsibabu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Oversimplification! User:Barnasibabu's list of contributions may be short but it is most interesting; it includes the editing of Dineshdsouza's user page -- Hoary 14:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Some points raised by recent posts
- (1) The Book Guild edition is surely the original. The Indian publisher lists its edition's publication date as 2002. [24] Furthermore, the Book Guild volume makes no mention of any previous editions, as would be customary were it a reprint. And "...From the Dawn of Time to 2000AD" would be a pretty silly title for a book published significantly before December 1999!
- (2) As I already pointed out, the University of Rochester has made a simple mistake about the identity of the author. Barker the archaeologist was living in a nursing home in England by the late 1990s,[25] not lecturing in India as the dust jacket and Indian publisher claim the actual author was. [26]
- (3) There is indeed a copy in the Royal Society library. [27] Vr/Venkat has previously claimed to have consulted this copy, and said that it was the first edition [28] Yet the library lists its copy as having been published by Book Guild in 1999 - in other words, the same one I'm looking at now. Why has Vr failed to notice until now that it was actually a reprint, and if it was indeed withdrawn by the publisher (as opposed to merely sold out or pulped), why does the library still stock it? For that matter, if it was recalled, how did I manage to get a new copy from Amazon (I clearly have too much money) a week or so ago?
- (4) None of this addresses the primary reason for the deletion, which is that the book itself is utterly non-notable, and that the copy of its contents page is unencyclopaedic, and of no use to Wikipedia.
- (5) Why have so many accounts with even worse spelling than mine suddenly turned up claiming to know the detailed publishing history of this obscure book? Does someone know the author, perhaps? Is there a conflict of interest here? Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- At least I do not know the publication history of the book!But the question remains unanswered-was there a mistake committed by the University of Rochester?If so where is the evidence?And whatever I know about the book comes through the net!And I do not see any evidence of a "mistake" by the press officer!Should we operate on presumptions?Being in a remote village in India,I can hardly be expected to know the author!Moreso if he is dead!!But I do believe the contents of a recalled book should not form the basis of this debate-only the existing edition!Only Vr can answer the quetion you raise.But I do find your disparaging outlook towards a respected publishing house unusual to say the least.Hence I would go along with Gene Nygaard and vote Keep (Cbhatia (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)) — Cbhatia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Cbhatia, you ask But the question remains unanswered-was there a mistake committed by the University of Rochester?If so where is the evidence? as if this were a new and unanswered question. The University of Rochester has done nothing. Either (a) some careless writer(s) working at or for the department -- a writer who for example also wrote Contains a forward [sic] by former President of the The British Society for the History of Science Ludmilla Jordanova -- made some dumb mistake. Alternatively, (b) that writer didn't make a mistake, and the book was indeed written by somebody who was in a nursing home in Britain while he was roaming the Indian subcontinent. Other possibilities involve a ghost and an impostor. All of this is explained above, for those who care to read it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No meaningful evidence of notability and either way, the list itself doesn't belong in the article (it's a wanton WP:COPYVIO for starters). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would be a copyvio, but according to the OTRS template at the top of the talk page, someone (presumably the author) contacted OTRS to give permission for it to be used. However, I note the book's fanclub thinks that it was written by someone who died five years before OTRS was contacted. If I believed this, I'd ask somebody from OTRS to re-examine the ticket, as I don't think that ghosts retain the rights to the work they did while they were alive. ;-) Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- NO, the list is not a copyvio, its not a reproduction of the book, but just the contents of it. The book talks about the material, which is fair comment. The list of subjects covered in a book is not copyrightable except for arrangementDGG (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think the list is long enough that it does represent a copyright violation as to content and arrangement, note also, someone else thought enough about it to get a copyright waiver (however uncertain) through OTRS. However, my comment on copyright was only an aside, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article was originally deleted as a copyvio, so there seems to be some uncertainty on this point. [29] I'm not a lawyer, but I would have thought that in the UK at least, a list like this would be covered by copyright under the same principle which protects sporting fixture lists (see here for want of a better link in a hurry). I understand that US law is less restrictive, so I'll defer on this point. Regardless, it's a minor point - as you say, the book is very non-notable, and that's reason enough. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- NO, the list is not a copyvio, its not a reproduction of the book, but just the contents of it. The book talks about the material, which is fair comment. The list of subjects covered in a book is not copyrightable except for arrangementDGG (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete - the subject of the article is the book. and that book does not meet our notability requirement. That it serves as a useful source for expanding our coverage of scientists is not relevant to its notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable book. --Itub (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please note Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vr. Colin°Talk 18:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- final comment from me we are not asked to decide about the quality of the book--we are asked to decide on whether it is notable, and the answer is that it is not, because there are almost no libraries that have bothered buying it, or major sources reviewing it. End of story. Those who want to work on notable scientists, should join us on the History of Science Wikiproject. DGG (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete per DGG's variey of comments above. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- KeepI think it is a matter of opinion who should be there.I note the talk page whre on eperson wanted the infamous Abdul Qadeer Khan to be included!I concede that if Einstein is not there the list would have no credibility but it appears that he is there in the valid edition.I woudl like someone to look at the valid edition and see if Einstein is actually there-he appears on the cover though!I would change my vote to delete if he is not.And I do not agree with DCG's comment-the book appears to be in the Royal Society Library-and it appears in the IIM,Ahmedabad library as well.(Shonali2000 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
-
-
- This user account's contribution history began only yesterday. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Delete. The book is not notable per WP:BK because it has received very little public notice. I have only found one review, and that one was only nine sentences long. Furthermore, even though the author apparently gave permission for his list to be included in Wikipedia, I would recommend against keeping the list even if the article is kept. Including the list would seem to give undue weight to the author's opinions, some of which are apparently idiosyncratic as can be seen by the prominent scientists who were omitted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree with DGG that we are not here to debate about the merits of the book but the contents of the article nominated for deletion.But as the two issues have been so closely intertwined by Iain's arguments that it is difficult to sperate the two while deciding which way to vote.
I sincerely hope the voters would take into account some factors:
-that most of the arguments based on a recalled book are invalid.I do not know the reasons for the book being recalled but whatever they may have been,the book can be preseumed to be invalid.
-it does not matter at all whether the book was first published by which publisher or whether they were published by both simultaneously!The point is that contents of a recalled book cannot be considered valid.For that you need a current edition.
-the current edition has been published by Orient Longman:
And I would draw your attention to the following paragraph:
ORIENT LONGMAN is India's best known and most respected publishing house. Incorporated in 1948, the consistent emphasis of our publishing has been on quality
-Einstein appears on the cover page of the book therefore must be there. [31]
I agree with Shonali200 that wiothout him the list would be invalid and would probably change my vote.
-that Einstein appears in the very first list when it was first created-thus the list was never attributable to the recalled edition. [32].'I note that his name has been deleted now!Why so!It only conveys misleading impression and I am sure those who voted negatively were influenced by it and in some ways misled into voting the way they did.I cannot but wonder if they would feel differently if this fact was known to them.'
Certainly if someone was to establish conclusively that the valid edition does not have Einstein,I would agree that the list carries no merit!
-that it would be unwise to rely on someone's intuition uncorroborated by evidence-we have no conclusive proof that a.Jordanova was duped into writing the forward and is embarassed now!
b.University of Rochester made a mistake.
c.Royal Society made a mistake by placing a volume(Albeit the recalled one) on its shelf!
d.someone who disagrees with him is necessarily having a personal agenda anymore than someone who agrees with him does!(and I sincerely hope I would be spared the nasty messages that I have got)
And I for one am hesitant to rely on Iain's intuition alone when he says so authoratatively that leadng Indian publication houses publish "turd" rejected by UK publishers!!!!!
I would therefore hope that in deciding ,the administrators would take all this into account.
(Delhite (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
- Comment. If you want the list to stay, prove the book is notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps with hindsight I shouldn't have put quite so much emphasis on the book's many deficiencies in my nomination statement, but last time round a number of excellent contributors argued that the list was useful or important in itself; and out of respect to them I wanted to address these arguments directly, rather than give them links to WP:USEFUL or WP:INTERESTING, which I could have just as easily done. But since we're on the subject, I'll happily concede that Einstein was probably added to the Indian edition - after all, he's on the cover, and even a poor publisher would check that people on the cover photo were actually in the book. So the list as originally written was sourced to the Indian edition. But I could find only find two discrepancies between my edition and the original list; and Einstein is only the most glaring of many glaring omissions: according to the original list and thus the Indian edition, James Walker (chemist) and Thomas Melvill are still more important figures in the history of science than August Kekulé, Werner Heisenberg or Carl Friedrich Gauss. I didn't call the book a "turd" - Delhite's confusing me with Colin there - and I have no particular opinion on the merits of Orient Longman because it really doesn't matter - even good publishers publish non-notable books, and the bottom line is that this is a non-notable book. The article fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BK, so even if it were a brilliant book, there would be no reason for it to be kept. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 07:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Delhite says (after a little reformatting): The point is that contents of a recalled book cannot be considered valid.For that you need a current edition. ¶ -the current edition has been published by Orient Longman: [33] ¶ And I would draw your attention to the following paragraph: ¶ ORIENT LONGMAN is India's best known and most respected publishing house. Incorporated in 1948, the consistent emphasis of our publishing has been on quality ¶ -Einstein appears on the cover page of the book therefore must be there. [34] ¶ Uh-huh. That paragraph about Orient Longman is by Orient Longman. Delhite (D) seems to be saying that because Orient Longman says it's India's best known and most respected publishing house, we should believe it is. I hope D is saying something else, for if I do understand D correctly such an approach seems stunningly credulous. ¶ Let's turn to what's said about the book in the page D links to. It clearly says that Territorial Rights: India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, The Middle East. Europe and the Americas are not included. We should therefore not be surprised if Amazon (for example) sells something different. It also describes the author: Philip Barker is a scholar of the history of science and lectures in Nepal, India and Sri Lanka: archaeology is still not mentioned. ¶ Further, the earliest version of the page now on display both (i) lists Einstein, and (ii) gives the ISBN of the Book Guild edition. (The ISBN of the Book Guild edition had been added in this normally hidden version on 08:06, 13 October 2005, by User:Qaz. Perhaps Qaz just guessed it.) ¶ Incidentally, the article was originally created on 5 October 2005 by 202.138.112.252 (talk), who has a fascinating list of deleted contributions. ¶ But all of this is by the way. This article is about an obscure book that outside en:WP does not seem to have generated more than the most minor reaction (let alone any discussion); most of the article consists of an extraordinarily long list that is of no demonstrable significance whatever, and that may have been useful to en:WP in the past but is no longer useful; the remainder of the article says virtually nothing. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The more I look into this, the less encyclopedic it looks. The author is definitely not Philip Barker the archaeologist. I think the mention of this book in a bio for Emil Wolf at the University of Rochester was indeed nothing more than a very careless mistake after a quick Internet search, it may even have been pulled from this Wikipedia article, all the more reason to delete it as so nn as to be misleading. Meanwhile I agree there is more or less zero critical commentary to be found on this book: It has been ignored, even its existence is only sparsely acknowledged. Meanwhile a "ghost" author releases the list (whatever that means) under a GPDL, maybe only to get it into a Wikipedia article. As an aside... Top 1000 Scientists: From the beginning of time...? How could such a sweeping title ever be supported by any careful researcher? Now, when I read the name "Einstein" (or say, "quantum mechanics") outside of a book by someone who at least has a clue about where Albert's algebra took him for a few years almost a century ago, like maybe Max Born (who Wolf co-authored a book with), Steven Weinberg or Leona Woods, I can only roll my eyes. Einstein (and whether or not he is clumsily mentioned in some odd-seeming book) has nothing to do with this AfD. Lastly, Orient Longman seems notable in India more for their foray into English language proficiency testing than for their publishing catalog. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delhite and Shonali200's "without [Einstein] the list would be invalid and I would probably change my vote" struck me as odd. Iain99 reacted to this already, but, for the fun of it and because it seems to be my job, here are some scientists, the absence of each of whom should convince a person with those thoughts to go along with the "delete-crowd": among polymaths and astronomers Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Omar Khayyám, Da Vinci, Huygens (for crying out loud), Cassini, Hooke, and Lomonosov; among mathematicians Fibonacci, d'Alembert, Lagrange, Gauss, Cauchy, Niels Abel, Galois, Boole, Cantor, and Gödel; among physicists Ørsted, Lorentz, Hertz, Chadwick, De Broglie, Pauli, and Heisenberg; among chemists Liebig, Kekulé, Otto Hahn, and Debye; among physicians William Harvey and Edward Jenner; and among naturalists Humboldt, Haeckel, Piaget and Rachel Carson. Not to mention a bunch of inventors and engineers and leaving anyone younger than 100 out. Notice that for most you only have to type the last names to link to their articles (for some this doesn't work because they have units named after them ;-). For me, the book's lack of notability may be the legal, but the list's warped selection the urgent reason for removal. Afasmit (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The more I look into this, the less encyclopedic it looks. The author is definitely not Philip Barker the archaeologist. I think the mention of this book in a bio for Emil Wolf at the University of Rochester was indeed nothing more than a very careless mistake after a quick Internet search, it may even have been pulled from this Wikipedia article, all the more reason to delete it as so nn as to be misleading. Meanwhile I agree there is more or less zero critical commentary to be found on this book: It has been ignored, even its existence is only sparsely acknowledged. Meanwhile a "ghost" author releases the list (whatever that means) under a GPDL, maybe only to get it into a Wikipedia article. As an aside... Top 1000 Scientists: From the beginning of time...? How could such a sweeping title ever be supported by any careful researcher? Now, when I read the name "Einstein" (or say, "quantum mechanics") outside of a book by someone who at least has a clue about where Albert's algebra took him for a few years almost a century ago, like maybe Max Born (who Wolf co-authored a book with), Steven Weinberg or Leona Woods, I can only roll my eyes. Einstein (and whether or not he is clumsily mentioned in some odd-seeming book) has nothing to do with this AfD. Lastly, Orient Longman seems notable in India more for their foray into English language proficiency testing than for their publishing catalog. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- We're not the only ones perplexed by this (these) Mr (Mssrs) Philip Barker. From the Library of Congress Authorities:
-
-
-
- Barker, Philip
- [Author of Life in the aquarium]
- Life in the aquarium, 1960: t.p. (Philip Barker)
- [Author of New Testament lesson of evangelization]
- New Testament lesson of evangelization, 1862: t.p. (Philip Barker)
- [Author of Top 1000 scientists from the beginning of time to 2000 AD]
- Top 1000 scientists from the beginning of time to 2000 AD, 1999: t.p. (Philip Barker) BL AL sent 22 Mar. 2000, no reply received
- [Author of Diatom analysis in the East African Rift Valley]
- Diatom analysis in the East African Rift Valley, 1989: t.p. (Philip Barker)
- [Subject of Philip Barker, founder of Willaston School]
- Philip Barker, founder of Willaston School, 1915
-
-
-
- This is an authority for one person who published New Testament lesson of evangelization in 1862, founded a school in 1915, published Life in the aquarium in 1960, published Diatom analysis in the East African Rift Valley in 1989, and published Author of Top 1000 scientists from the beginning of time to 2000 AD in 1999... at which point someone noticed this remarkable career and - probably with the intent of congratulating his longevity - tried to contact him but received no reply. Tant pis! Pinkville (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment: A little summary to support my "delete" vote. The book has an insubstantial pulication history; its authorship is dubious, to the point of being on the edge of non-verifiability; the contents of the book are faulty and less than banal; the article provides a very thin, essentially useless introduction to those contents, which (again) are faulty and useless. We already have Lists of scientists... I cannot see any reason (except very bad ones) to keep this article. (If this were a hoax it would be a pretty lame hoax.) Pinkville (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not only are many notable scientists omitted, but many mathematicians are included who did no particular scientific work. It did not claim to be a listing of "Top 1000 Scientists and mathematicians..." The two fields are not the same. Should a listing of "Top 1000 Mathematicians" include scientists who were mathematically challenged such as Michael Faraday? I would hardly think so. Edison (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment
On googling I discovered that at least teh following libraries have a copy of this book:
a.University of Cambridge [35]
b.Harvard University: [36]
c.University of Alberta: [37]
d.University ofMelbourne: [38]
Therefore I venture a suggestion:
Suggestion
I think it has become very clear indeed that the conetnts of the bok that is avialbale NOW need to be verified before any reasonable decision can be reached.There is a major dispute whether the artcles as it stands after the latest editings is the one that is actually in the book that is available now!
In particular I think it is central to independently verify if the articles as presented for Afd is the one that exists in the book in the market!
It is crucial to verify if Einstien for one is in the book available now.
My suggestion therefore is that before deciding on this issue we should get a senior respected India based administrator like Bhadani to independently verify if Einstien is there in the book as some votes hinge on that!I think it would be a pity to rule on this issue until this issue is settled as it is not just number of votes that should decide .(Delhite (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC))
-
-
- Lots of libraries have lots of copies of non-notable books. Meanwhile, whether or not Einstein's name (or anyone else's) shows up in some edition of this book has aught to do with its notability, which can only be established by citing independent sources with content such as reviews, industry sales and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- (ec) Comment. An AFD is never decided simply on the number of votes, but mostly on the strength of the arguments that back them. In this case, even if you satiate the concerns of many editors that the book in its original form was simply awful (and thus unlikely to be an authoritative opinion), you still have to deal with the issue of notability, which alone is enough to delete this article. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment DGG said Worldcat showed 55 libraries with the book, and from his experience that was very low. Whether Einstein is in or out is irrelevant in a book that clearly lacks so many other big names. I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the Indian edition almost certainly has Einstein. I agree with the others here that notability is the main objective test that demands deletion. The content is being criticised because several editors claim (or claimed in the previous AfD) that the content is useful to WP in some way. Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books) and see if you can find anything to justify this book's inclusion. Colin°Talk 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Sigh. I see it's been dealt with, but just to reiterate; it matters not one whit whether or not Einstein and Dirac were added to the Indian edition; if they were (as seems likely), all this would do is further establish that this is a subjective list which can be changed on the whim of the author, not the result of an authoritative, one-off survey. Even in the Indian edition, the author (whoever he was) has omitted Christiaan Huygens, Edward Jenner, August Kekulé, Robert Hooke and Ronald Fisher in favour of John Sibthorp, James Walker (chemist), Thomas Melvill and some other rather odd names. Regardless, the primary reason for deleting this article is that the book has no notability. A secondary reason is that with or without Einstein and Dirac, calling this list The Top 1000 Scientists of All Time is inherently ridiculous, and giving it prominence makes Wikipedia look silly. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 14:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Restructure Remove the list and add more meaningful info. Maybe leave the top ten from the list.--The Dominator (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no top ten (it's just presented as an alphabetical list), and there's no more meaningful information to add due to the complete lack of secondary sources. Even the book's preface doesn't say much more about it than I've already quoted. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 07:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment
In response to Iain's point,I agree that the sole criteria for judging the merit shoudl be the
Value of the list.And I think if one looks at the talk page there is enough material to cover the concerns.As stated any list of thsi nature is bound to have ommissions which maight appear unforgiveable to some
Let us take the Nobel list
Do the names Fibiger or McLeod maen anything to anyone!
And let us remember Edisaon and Tesla are missiong from the Nobel list.Besides relativity was not considered good enough.
The concenrns I have is with undue emphasis on teh book teh aguments got defleted!Mnay votes were cast presumabley for taht reason alone.And it is still not clear what teh acyual contents were.Absence of Einstein of course would make it untenable but if he is thre I might add we came to know of names like Alter,Zohary,Klingenstierna who are giants but not pouplarly known-and we came to know only after the lst appeares.
Besides most would consider a book that:
1.is published by a notable publisher 2.has a forward by aleading historian 3.is on the shelves of Royal Society,Cambridge, University,Harvard
not totally devoid of merit.
iIf there was a mistake by
historian of science
Rochester University
I shoudl like to see the evidence.
Let us get independent verification whether Einstein is there as votes hinge on that.
(Delhite (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC))
- No, with all due respect, the value of the list has no sway as to whether the article might be kept here. The only meaningful criteria is the notability (not helpfulness) of the book itself, along with some lesser questions about its provenance and some ambiguity having to do with the author's background. There is no need for any verification of detail about the book's editorial content. Moreover, there is no evidence the Rochester University website page was prepared by a "historian of science." Gwen Gale (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delhite, you are repeating yourself. No, sorry, you're repeating Venkat Radhakrishnan (10:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)): I'm afraid that for some reason your rhetorical resemblances make it hard for me to remember which of you is which. You raise various points. They've all been raised above and answered above; still, I'll take one. You say I agree that the sole criteria for judging the merit shoudl be the Value of the list. It's unclear who it is that you're agreeing with here. Still, let's look -- yet again -- at the value of the list. And let's suppose for a moment that yes, Einstein was in a corrected edition of it, as were the various other eminent scientists whose absences have been noted above. And let's also suppose that this really was compiled by the archaeologist Barker, who was miraculously teaching in India while he was in a nursing home in Britain, and who even more miraculously contacted Wikipedia to authorize the reproduction of his list several years after he had died. Right then: we've posited a super list of scientists as personally created by an archaeologist of note, all within an article on the book. The list shows who this archaeologist thought was of note. But why should anyone care about this? It's not obvious that an archaeologist (let alone one busily shuttling between a British nursing home and the Indian subcontinent) is likely to be an expert on physics, for example. It might be notable if the book were demonstrably notable: it's imaginable that an archaeologist could labor for years on this task, releasing the book to a surprised and grateful public. (Consider the cartoonist Nicolas Bentley's posthumous Dickens Index.) But no such reception occurred. The book is utterly unnotable. Yes, some libraries possess it: libraries buy huge numbers of books and can't vet the quality of each one. The only person (outside the tempestuous teapot of Wikipedia) who seems to have written up this book is Jordanova, but actually it turns out that she (per Barker, "he") didn't write it up either. The redlinks do seem to have been of some use for some Wikipedia editors; what were still redlinks a few days ago are now on the discussion page of this project page, and they will remain there. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Would someone please put this article/AfD out of its misery. No new points have been made for days. This is like a washing machine: a pile of socks going round in circles. I hope the closing admin pays more attention than some folk here and notices that this is a book AfD, not a list AfD. Most of the Keep comments have been made by the same person. Colin°Talk 12:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Please. WP:SNOW. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2008 (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 Merge relevant content to EverQuest. Please note, I will be performing a data dump momentarily; the section I create will require serious cleanup (and will be tagged) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kerafyrm
Poorly sourced, unnotable gamecruft which may have already attracted original research.
The article only has two sources, neither of which are third party nor valid. One source links to a web archive back to a Sony webpage and the other is a link to a post on a forum. Sources must be appropriate with a number of third party sources and correctly footnoted in order for it to be considered notable, especially to non-EverQuest players and the real world.
The article itself appears to be gamecruft, which is likely to attract original research and has already been tagged for it, something Wikipedia does not welcome.
An article about a video game boss monster with little sources and lack of real world notability, along with the chance of having already attracted original research, have too many issues for it to be fixable. IAmSasori (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Probably lacks support for a standalone article, but as a significant character throughout the Everquest franchise, might find a place in a list article somewhere. As an additional note, depending on how broadly it is interpreted, deletion or redirection of this article about a fictional character at this time might fall under the request for a halt to activities called by ArbCom. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and there is insufficient sourcing to establish notability.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge somewhere This is probably excessive detail, but a briefer summary would be appropriate. DGG (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge somewhere but not a separate article, per DGG. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to EverQuest, which is the game the article claims the character came from. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into EverQuest. Largely unreferenced and N/N in itself.--Sallicio
22:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC) - keep Sources exist, in dead trees no less that discuss this entity in some detail. See [43] and [44]. Someone with full access to the books should use them to source the article but the basic material looks completely sourceable just from those two pages. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment - that second link is to a gaming manual; doesn't count, even if trees did die. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by calling it a gaming manual. The book is a general book about games not a specific gaming manual for any game. It discusses a variety of different things including the history of this wee little beastie, not how to beat it or anything like that. And the first source is in any event impeccable. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's a book titled Gaming Hacks: a collection of hints and hacks for various computer games, from a publisher of computer manuals. There is one, count 'em one, passing mention of Kerafyrm in the entire volume, on page 104. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It says "Gaming Hacks is the indispensable guide to cool things gamers can do to create, modify, and hack videogame hardware and software"- that doesn't make it a game manual and the book doesn't talk about specific games. Furthermore, the "passing mention" is a full paragraph devoted to the topic noting that it made the people who defeated it "famous" to "thousands of people". That's a pretty decent claim of notability (and again, that's aside from the many mentions in the other reference). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's a book titled Gaming Hacks: a collection of hints and hacks for various computer games, from a publisher of computer manuals. There is one, count 'em one, passing mention of Kerafyrm in the entire volume, on page 104. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by calling it a gaming manual. The book is a general book about games not a specific gaming manual for any game. It discusses a variety of different things including the history of this wee little beastie, not how to beat it or anything like that. And the first source is in any event impeccable. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, the gaming manual not withstanding, the article still is in violation per WP:FORUM as over 95% of the article is the author's thoughts (i.e., original work). The article by itself lacks notability (that is, outside of the parent article) and is definately not a Mario. --Sallicio 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then clean it up and save it! You seem to know a bit (or have a vested interest) about the subject matter. The AfD is not to recruit people to fix articles, it is designed to determine what to do with the article as they stand. If someone feels the need to clean it up (as you seem to do and I have done to a few in the past), then they fix it. So fix it, so it meets WP criteria for inclusion! :) --Sallicio 05:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment - that second link is to a gaming manual; doesn't count, even if trees did die. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Everquest. Non-notable at current page. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge - 2 cites does not prove notability, but it's probably good enough for inclusion in the parent article. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (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 per consensus. Please note-the arbcom injunction sited here is specifically for television episodes and characters and is irrelevant. Consensus here says delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Norrath
Unsourced, unnotable cruft that reads like a game guide.
There are no sources whatsoever on this article. Simply, an article must have third-party sources in order for it to be notable, in which case, it would have little to no notability to non-EverQuest players and the real world.
It contains cruft which is likely to attract original research, something not welcome in Wikipedia.
It appears to simply be a list of locations in a video games similar to a game guide, both of which are what Wikipedia is not.
There are too many issues in this article, and with the lack of activity on it, gives it little likelihood to survive. IAmSasori (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Inactivity is hardly a criterion for deletion. That said, the article does need some extreme cleanup, but AFD is not article cleanup, either. Google Scholar returns 290 hits for "Norrath" [45]. At least several appear to discuss the interplay of real-world people and the fictional geography directly. Often, 10% of Scholar hits are applicable to a topic. In this case, if even 1% apply, there will be ample sources available. I'll see what I can do, but many other fictional countries and places have ample references and support for articles. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to get more later, as I've become involved in a sourcing effort tied to another article's dispute. However, there are a number of sources that discuss characteristics of this fictional country in more or less direct language. There are discussions of its population, economy,[46] law,[47] and language.[48] [49] There has even been discussion about gender valuation in Norrath [50] and mention of changing social structures as the available zones and geography change.[51] Clearly, the massive zone listings will need pared (as WP:NOT a game guide), but that does not invalidate the significance of the topic, or its presence in reliable sources. Serpent's Choice (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - No coverage so fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- keep The community of players of this game is large than that of many small cities, and so media devoted entirely to the game would seem to be as usable for information about it as would a small city newspaper. DGG (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete 1) all of the sources pointed out above and found by myself only mention the subject "Norrath" in a trivial way (fails WP:N), i.e. do not mention "Norrath" as being Norrath, but refer to it in such-and-such a context. 2) All of the information that could be obtained from such sources is better presented in the parent article EverQuest, for example in making the section EverQuest#Addiction a better section. User:Krator (t c) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NOR, WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:N. --MrStalker (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per MrStalker's list of reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or maybe Merge into a related article since there seem to be so many other EverQuest articles. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge (with OR taken out). Although well-written by many wikipedians it still fails to provide any basic referenced and third-party criteria, as well as the following: WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOR, and WP:GAMEGUIDE--Sallicio 22:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- keep the sourcing by Serpent's Choice looks sufficient to me. Obviously, OR should be removed. But the article itself appears to meet WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Everquest is a fictional game. it is therefore similar enough to the other material covered by the injunction at arb com to be included under the injunction, which the arb com has stated is to be interpreted broadly. . The discussion here ought therefore to be suspended for the interim, so it does not get involved in things that will need it to be done over. DGG (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:A. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There is much that is wrong with this article - unsourced, incomplete, no real world context - but these are editorial, rather than AfD, matters. The overriding policy consideration is WP:V. However, the information can be verified since it is available on various listings sites, for example here. Since the content is verifiable we next turn to the debate. Here there was a balance of views between those who consider that the page is unencyclopaedic and unnecessary and those whose view is that it is notable and should be expanded. In my judgement, neither camp won the day on force of argument. The Arbcom injunction quite clearly does not apply in this instance, however there are analogies and the Arbcom decision may contain guidance that could be indicative. Consequently, I suggest that any relisting await the Arbcom decision. Meanwhile, one possible editorial action would be to boldly merge the page into The Steve Wilkos Show where it would fit well and enable the list to be read in context. TerriersFan (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes
Has no source of where the episodes come from, this will just be cruft, most talk shows dont have list of episodes as it will be a very long list. Usually talk shows have recurring episodes not a list of all their episodes. This is an on going show that will have more shows in the future and will be hard to list them all. Should be deleted, and/or sort of merged into the article. TrUCo9311 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The topic is verifiable, as sources for the episodes are out there and easy to find, which brings into question whether the nomination is being made in good faith. It's a nationally syndicated show, and therefore not cruft. Other talk shows' coverage on Wikipedia don't dictate coverage for this one. Being "hard to list them all" is both false and irrelevant. Nominator doesn't seem to be familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and he really shouldn't be nominating things for deletion until he is. It is clear that the nominator doesn't like the list (or the show? And neither do I), but that doesn't matter. I suggest the nominator withdraw the nomination. The Transhumanist 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)*Comment/question I thought pending the outcome of the ongoing ArbCom discussion on TV episodes and characters, that an injunction was in place for NO deletion of these articles until the ArbCom decision was finalized? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I believe this falls under the injunction, yes. I've so flagged it. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Arbcom not withstanding (and since this deals with a talk show with real people as guests I don't think it should be applied to this article), this is talkshow cruft. It also goes back only to November and is just an indiscrimiate list of titles without show summaries. There is no reason for this article to exist at all and no one remembers a talk show topic even days after they've watched the show. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
(Arbcom application has since been reverted) Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Umm. So what if the article does not have summarys. People can build it up eventually, but that most likely won't happen. Mythdon (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's a list of talk show topics right now. They pretty much rotate every three months and then blur together after awhile. There is no need for an episode guide for a talk show. Nate • (chatter) 09:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen no policy or guideline that prohibits talk show episode lists. Mythdon (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's because there is no need for a policy because of common sense. If we had List of The Montel Williams Show episodes, List of The Phil Donahue Show episodes, List of Nightline episodes or List of The Jerry Springer Show episode articles, they would easily each top over a MB of content; note that 32kb is the limit of an article that though not enforced, is advisable for article length. TV shows (or weekly talk shows like Real Time with Bill Maher)work because there's 22-30 episodes a year, but talk shows just do not work at all as far as episode lists. Just imagine four years from now if we had this article up with all of these topics; it would be way too long and uncontrollable to deal with. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then when the show gets bigger, why not make 6 seperate episode lists per season like this List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 1-50, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 51-100, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 101-150, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 151-200), List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 201-250), List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 251-300). Is that good. Mythdon (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is redundant. Talk shows aren't really suppose to have a list of episodes, just a section in the article with recurring theme of shows as sometimes the episode names/themes repeat like on The Jerry Springer Show and on Maury (TV Show). TrUCo9311 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then when the show gets bigger, why not make 6 seperate episode lists per season like this List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 1-50, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 51-100, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 101-150, List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 151-200), List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 201-250), List of The Steve Wilkos Show episodes (season 1;eps 251-300). Is that good. Mythdon (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's because there is no need for a policy because of common sense. If we had List of The Montel Williams Show episodes, List of The Phil Donahue Show episodes, List of Nightline episodes or List of The Jerry Springer Show episode articles, they would easily each top over a MB of content; note that 32kb is the limit of an article that though not enforced, is advisable for article length. TV shows (or weekly talk shows like Real Time with Bill Maher)work because there's 22-30 episodes a year, but talk shows just do not work at all as far as episode lists. Just imagine four years from now if we had this article up with all of these topics; it would be way too long and uncontrollable to deal with. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen no policy or guideline that prohibits talk show episode lists. Mythdon (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No offense, but from a cursory glance, the arguments above seem alarmingly close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't watch Jerry Springer, or Oprah, or any show like that. But, the arguments that this will taked up too much disk space don't really wash with me.
- The real question should be, I believe, if this list is verifiable and maintainable.
- Proponent says it is. I don't see the opponents offering any reason to believe it isn't.
- I think Iridology and homeopathy are nonsense. But I don't dispute that verifiable, neutral, maintainable articles can be written about those topics. Similarly verifiable neutral articles can be written about TV shows. All kinds of TV shows. Even those that some people think are beneath notice.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep per Transhumanist. And reguarding the comment above, we should not have that many articles. This one list will do just fine. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Complete and total talkshowcruft. A mention of frequently covered topic might be a good idea, but not a list of EVERY episode with a short summary. What's next a list of NBC Nightly News shows with what was covered on each day? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per current ArbCom injunction. --Willow Wait (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was confirmed that, that injunction does not apply here. There is no sentence that says "list" of episodes, only articles of "an episode".--TrUCo9311 11:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Mrschimpf, Mythdon, and Wildthing61476 --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep until current ArbCom injunction is resolved. --Sallicioif that is the case (as I should be more diligent when researching these afd's) then I change my vote to Very Weak Keep as I have scanned WP:NOT up and down and can find nothing specifically against keeping this. Personally, I want to say, "DELETE" as I agree 100% with user:Wildthing61476 but per WP, I must say keep.--Sallicio 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- sidenote-this article still needs references (as that may be an inclusionary deal-breaker) because all we have to go on is the good faith of the author.--Sallicio 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment - it has already been established that the injunction you cite is not relevant to this topic. It is about articles on specific episodes of programs. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- sidenote-this article still needs references (as that may be an inclusionary deal-breaker) because all we have to go on is the good faith of the author.--Sallicio
- keep per Transhumanist. The list needs expansion and summaries but that is an incidental issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- as explained above. Geo Swan (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per TT/JoshZ. Clearly a notable and relevant topic. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per Wildthing61476 above. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete. I was going to close this, but really, really can't bring myself to, as it would kill me to close an article this rotten as a keep and nobody identified wholly why it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a directory of episode titles. Wikipedia is not your TV Guide. This list of titles has no encyclopaedic value; it is wholly useless, and does not aid understanding of the show. Note the Arbcom injunction is not relevant to this AFD (it's referring to episode articles, not pointless lists of talk show broadcast dates) so anyone saying "keep" because of that isn't really making a strong argument. Neıl ☎ 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is no more related to the arbcom injunction about fictional characters and episodes than I am. (Because we are both non-fictional). That being said, it is utterly unmaintainable and very much a TV guide list that simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I see no consensus here. Anybody else? Bearian (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree there is no consensus at the moment. I would of course favor a relist instead of a close, but I'll admit I'm biased and won't be relisting myself... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:49, 21 February 2008 (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. This was a messy nomination. The statement by the nom that this article contains information that is also covered in other articles and does not go as indepth is silly. Look at Science, Philosophy, Tools, Music etc. This discussion, which was not going anywhere, did not arrive at a consensus which made deletion the proper course of action. It was more of a collaborative discussion of highly-technical content points, the kind of thing that should happen on a talk page, not in a deletion process. So my choices were no consensus or keep, and the very weak nomination leaned me over to keep. They are essentially the same thing anyway. JERRY talk contribs 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Register (phonology)
Delete This article contains information and is on a topic that is on several other wikipedia articles including Tone (linguistics), Tone language, and Vocal registration. The information presented is not as thoroughly or precisly presented as in the other articles and there are no references cited so any merger would be pointless.Nrswanson (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- We need to merge the info you deleted. You claimed the Burmese example of creaky high tone is wrong, because vocal fry is low tone. However, in Burmese it is high tone. We should also bring Khmer back. Unless we keep a separate article, the Vocal registration article needs to be rewritten to cover register languages. It wrongly defines 'registers' as tone, and then lists phonation as examples, while 'register' is something else again - a conflation of tone and phonation. If the term is used to mean phonation in speech pathology, then we need two sections for these contradictory definitions. kwami (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You are incorrect. The register page is correct and the information is well sourced. Vocal fry and creaky voice are the same thing. The references on both the phonation pages and vocal fry page says that, including the ones you listed on the web. They also state that creaky voice is low tone. And pitch is a factor in phonation as certain kinds of phonation can only be produced at certain pitches. The laryngeal function of creaky voice can only be phonated within a certain pitch or tonal area which is low. The term register is closely associated with tone. As the article states, "Registers originate in laryngeal function. They occur because the vocal folds are capable of producing several different vibratory patterns. Each of these vibratory patterns appears within a particular range of pitches and produces certain characteristic sounds." Read the creaky voice (aka vocal fry) article. Furthermore, I have no problem with the inclusion of this information if it is cited from reputable sources. But as it is not only contradictory to the well cited information on other pages and currently is not sourced I have removed it. Also the issue here is not only content but the fact that this page is redundant as the topic exists on the other pages listed above. It seems to me that you are trying to divorce tone from the term register which is not a correct approach from any source listed on the phonation pages that I have seen. Furthermore, although phonation is in a sense seperate from tone they are overlapping subjects that sometimes effect each other. You are trying to draw boundaries where none exist. Show me some references and I will support it but as of right now every reference I have seen doesn't support your hypothesis.Nrswanson (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Also, I believe the terms tonal language and register language are used interchangably. And that article is lot more detailed. If there is a difference let me know but the article contains some of the same information that is on the register (phonology) page. What makes this topic unique? Also, I have no problem with a section on register languages being added to the vocal registration page but the information on this page has no sources and presents highly individualized information that really doesn't explain the broader topic well.Nrswanson (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I just found a definition of a register language in the American Heritage Dictionary. "Register language-A tonal language that uses different voice registers." It seems to me that this topic does belong on the tonal language page. It is my understanding that a register language is a certain kind of tonal language that is concerned with specific types of phonation as well as pitch. A language that only used the modal voice but had different meaning based on pitch would be simply a tonal language. A language that employed other vocal registers (aka vocal fry, falsetto, whictle, etc) would be a specific kind of tonal langauge know as a register language because it uses more than just the modal register. Understand though that those other registers have certain pitch areas. Creaky voice or vocal fry can only be phonated at low pitches as the voice is physically not capable of creating those sounds at higher frequencies. That was why I didn't like your chart. There is no such thing as a creaky voice with a high pitch level. Check out the source you cited in the phonation article. It will prove my point. [ click here http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/phonetik/EGG/page10.htm]Nrswanson (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep I'm a total non-expert but based on the discussion above, and the WP{ article, it seems that this is a particular subtopic, that would be worth an article, if it were developed and sourced. How accurate it may be is for the article talk page.DGG (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- DELETE, I agree completely with DGG, as I too am a vocal layperson. However, the lack of any reference sources is a deal-breaker for any WP article (All WP articles need reliable, verifiable sources for notability and everything else come second). If someone with an interest in the article puts references in it, then I will change my vote to KEEP.--Sallicio 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or merge.
- 'Register' is not used in phonetics the way the the term is used in the Vocal registration article. Rather, it is a conflation of tone and phonation. I think Nrswanson and I have come to something of an understanding at Talk:Register (phonology).
- We could merge under 'tone', but note that the reason there is a separate word is that some argue that these are not tonal languages, or can't agree as to whether they are phonemically tonal, phonational, or a conflation of the two.
- I agree that refs are needed. Unfortunately I am not at home and don't have anything available. I'll see what I can swipe from Google Books. kwami (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus between merging and keeping, so default to keep. Neıl ☎ 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Playscape
Neologism and unwanted fork of the playground article. The author Gardens for Living is a "landscape architect". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Playground. I agree with the assertion that it is an "unwanted fork" of the playground article, and a lot of it seems to be written w/o NPOV, but the concept shouldn't be ignored. Move the basics into the Playground article and redirect Playscape to playground.--Nkrosse (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect - per Nkrosse's suggestion. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect- Nkrosse said it all. Very cut and dry, actually.--Sallicio 03:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I just don't see what you guys are talking about. This is a well-written article with numerous sources. And is a playground really that contentious an issue that we have to be on high alert to watch for factions who try to undermine the global playground community with their radical dangerous natural playscape talk? I mean cummon! Might as well try to find some way to call this a coatrack! It's just an article about a notable term which describes the term encyclopedicallly and provides loads of sources. It has pictures, and should even be linked on the mainpage. This is nuts. JERRY talk contribs 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment, as for myself, I'm not saying that it's not well-written, unreferenced, or anything else. I feel it is simply a redundant article. If Playscape were a better article than playground then it would become the parent article and playground would probably be merged. As a sidenote, I've never even heard of the word playscape (but that is irrelevant to its inclusion). Cheers!--Sallicio 04:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, as for myself, I'm not saying that it's not well-written, unreferenced, or anything else. I feel it is simply a redundant article. If Playscape were a better article than playground then it would become the parent article and playground would probably be merged. As a sidenote, I've never even heard of the word playscape (but that is irrelevant to its inclusion). Cheers!--Sallicio
- Keep per Jerry. Sourced, notable, not the same as a Playground. Merging would seem silly. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - While maybe a neologism it points at a clear and referenced concept, namely that of a place to play that looks and feel like a natural environment. I found also another journal source [62] that actually uses the term. -Tikiwont (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2008 (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. Consensus was clear for keeping the article. Inappropriate content issues are not issues for WP:AFD, they should instead be referred to WP:Edit. JERRY talk contribs 04:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Contract year phenomenon
It is a buzzword, and I am not sure it warrants an article of its own. It also was a magnet for WP:BLP-violating abuse, because users would just list their favourite hate player on that page. I would either delete or merge with some more relevant article relating to sports contracts. Onomatopoeia (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Leaning Keep I'm finding articles supporting the term, (and I will add them in presently,) so it seems to be worth a valid stub. Besides, according to WP:VANDAL deleting an article because it's being vandalized is not wise, because it emboldens the terrorists. -- RoninBK T C 15:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looking back through the history of the page, I do not necessarily agree that all the claims you edited out rise to the level of a BLP violation. While there were certainly some claims that were not sourced, others were. BLP is not to be used to remove sourced claims, no matter how unflattering. I'm posting a comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for another set of eyes. -- RoninBK T C 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point, but an entire section of the page was called "Erick Dampier", as if Dampier's only contribution to NBA history was his overpaid contract. That needs to stop. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looking back through the history of the page, I do not necessarily agree that all the claims you edited out rise to the level of a BLP violation. While there were certainly some claims that were not sourced, others were. BLP is not to be used to remove sourced claims, no matter how unflattering. I'm posting a comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for another set of eyes. -- RoninBK T C 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep if rewritten and referenced - As it stood, the entire article was a string of logical fallacies and unsupported bald assertions of bad faith behavior. Iff the article is rewritten and referenced to refer to the probably-encyclopedic accusations that some players engage in this, then it should be kept. But if it's refilled with said logical fallacies and pissed-off-fan accusations, then it must be nuked. FCYTravis (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fair point. I'm not defending the status quo diff per se, and I certainly don't object to removing unsourced claims. I just prefer the surgical scalpel to the AfD cleaver. I've tossed in the {{rescue}} donut, to see if someone is willing to help this one out more than I already have. -- RoninBK T C 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We had a similar discussion with Ball hog. IIRC, Kobe Bryant was called a "ball hog" by ESPN.com in one particular game, but his detractors used it to justify putting in a pic of Bryant with the caption "Kobe Bryant is considered the prime example of a ball hog". For similarly flimsy reasons, Dwyane Wade and Allen Iverson were listed. All are obviously incorrect. In the end, all names were kept out but the article remained. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fair point. I'm not defending the status quo diff per se, and I certainly don't object to removing unsourced claims. I just prefer the surgical scalpel to the AfD cleaver. I've tossed in the {{rescue}} donut, to see if someone is willing to help this one out more than I already have. -- RoninBK T C 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - another whining sports-fan buzzword, and one I doubt has risen to the level of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep or Transwiki to wiktionary.--Sallicio 03:16, 21 February 2008 (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. And a hearty thank-you to Torc2 for the in-depth anaylsis and neutral presentation of the content of the sources in the article. This debate came down to 1 issue: is there substantial non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to support context for notability? This was clearly shown to not be the case. I was convinced that parties on both sides of the debate made extraordinary efforts to locate sources. Perhaps the subject of this article will have sufficient sources available in the future to rewrite the article, if the claims of his sucess and influence are anywhere near accurate. JERRY talk contribs 03:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pablo Bertorello
- – (View AfD)
This is a tough one.. the vast majority of the editing seems to have been done by a single use account, who has been adding a massive amount of sources. Perhaps trying too hard to prove a point? Does 28 sources (mostly blogs?) and make someone "notable", and "entrepreneur", and "inventor" and "famous"? Maybe I'm being pedantic.. Rehevkor (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not looking through all of these right now, but a blogspot blog, and especially a self-published one, is very far from being a reliable source.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - An article on "Pablo Bertorello" by an SPA named Pmrbertorello? Clear COI and violation of WP:AUTO. Even putting that aside, there's no notability established and the sources are almost all blogs, trivial mentions, or make no mention of the subject at all. There's a little bit of material on what he's done, but really nothing about Bertorello himself.Torc2 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. 12 patents verifiable at US Patent Office make Bertorello a notable inventor; articles in Wall Street Journal, Career Journal, and several other print magazines (that could/should be produced if notability is still an issue) should remove any doubts; multi-million user adoption verifiable at skype.com for products created by the company founded by Bertorello make him an entrepreneur to watch. Your careful edits of the entry to remove lesser blogs is appreciated. Please note that SkypeJournal is a reliable source, as are others taken out. Are more feature print articles necessary to address notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmrbertorello (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The patents themselves are irrelevant; anybody can file them and their acceptance does not establish the inventor as notable. Reviewing the current references one by one by WP:N (and WP:V) standards:
- The WSJ article is a trivial mention in an article about a different subject, not significant coverage.
- The Nividium.com PDF (which, incidentally, is marked "confidential") seems to be an internal memo and doesn't mention Bertorello at all.
- YouTube cannot be used to establish notability as it is not independent and not a reliable source.
- Download counts of a program do not establish notability for the developer; it's not independent coverage of the topic.
- The patents are not independent coverage and do not establish notability of the inventor.
- The second WSJ article is also a trivial mention and only mentions Bertorello's name once.
- The Spanish links:
- The first is an interview on a webpage. This is probably the strongest source, but still looks like it's some form of blog with a minimal audience.
- The second is just a translation of the second WSJ article.
- The third is a snippet that mentions Bertorello. It has no byline and doesn't appear to be anything more than a press release.
- The fourth is a brief mention in a some kind of government newsletter.
- Gigaom.com is a blog and not a reliable source.
- This looks like an email or press release of some kind, and isn't about Bertorello himself.
- Gigaom.com is still a blog.
- The Oracle press release doesn't mention Bertorello at all.
- In other words, there's a lot of trivial mentions about products and companies Bertorello worked with, but not about Bertorello himself. And none of this addresses the WP:COI issues and that this article seems to be little aside from self-promotion. Torc2 (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The patents themselves are irrelevant; anybody can file them and their acceptance does not establish the inventor as notable. Reviewing the current references one by one by WP:N (and WP:V) standards:
- Keep. One significant Wall Street Journal reference, and another using him as an example, which implies he is notable enough to use as an example. Should be enough to satisfy notability concerns. The main issue is content, and specifically avoiding the problems of WP:Autobiography. I think if User:Pmrbertorello will agree to make further suggestions on the talk page rather than edit the article directly (except for typos and WP:BLP issues, of course), there shouldn't be any problems. As for SkypeJournal, you may be right, but the one I looked at could really be used only for background information. Gimmetrow 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Most of the sources are non-reliable, the rest are trivial mentions. Patents are irrelevant. --L. Pistachio (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. This isn't Bill Gates, but the two WSJ mentions are enough to establish notability. The other refs don't need to establish notability, and may or may not be useful background info. Gimmetrow 06:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Each article only mentions his name once. One seems to be a blog or blog-type article at that. They are both trivial and do not establish notability. —Torc. (Talk.) 07:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Which WSJ article are you claiming is a blog? One WSJ article mentions his "remarkable achievement". The other uses him specifically as an example of an Argentinian launching a startup. If he weren't notable in some degree, that wouldn't be a very useful example, now would it. Gimmetrow 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- The "Career Journal" one. And no, it doesn't matter if they say that he's made "remarkable achievement"; the article isn't about him, and his name is only mentioned in passing. It isn't "significant coverage" as required by WP:N: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" - Does either WSJ article do this? —Torc. (Talk.) 09:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well, I don't see how the first one is a blog. And the second one, despite your assertion that it "only uses his name once", seems to have some extended discussion, and seems to use his name three times. Gimmetrow 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're talking about this being the second WSJ article, right? I only see his name once. Neither one is addresses the subject directly in detail; only some of the work with which he is associated. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wait, the first one has his name three times, quickly in succession. The only thing actually about Bertorello himself though are the words "Argentinean-born inventor". That's not sufficient detail to meet WP:N. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Read this carefully. Name is there three times, including quoting him. Seems a non-trivial mention to me. Gimmetrow 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, OK, they don't use "Bertorello ". This still isn't non-trivial coverage of the individual, and is definitely not "significant" by any stretch of the imagination. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Again, this isn't Bill Gates, but the one WSJ article addresses the subject in some detail, giving where he worked and his wife's name. Would it matter if this were an article about Verosee (the company) rather than him? Gimmetrow 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, OK, they don't use "Bertorello ". This still isn't non-trivial coverage of the individual, and is definitely not "significant" by any stretch of the imagination. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Read this carefully. Name is there three times, including quoting him. Seems a non-trivial mention to me. Gimmetrow 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see how the first one is a blog. And the second one, despite your assertion that it "only uses his name once", seems to have some extended discussion, and seems to use his name three times. Gimmetrow 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- ←"Less than exclusive" means the coverage can be about more than one topic; the example given in the footnote illustrates what they mean. If this article had "significant coverage", it wouldn't be excluded just because it also covered another party. I'm not saying that the reason the coverage is trivial is because there's more than one person mentioned; I'm saying it because the coverage isn't about Bertorello personally to the level required for WP:N. The WSJ articles, which seem to be the only ones that are being considered, and which actually are only linked to in reprinted form (they're not on wsj.com), include this as their total coverage of Bertorello personally:
- "Argentinean-born inventor"
- "...Broadreach chief Pablo Rodríguez Bertorello to return home after nine years in the U.S. and launch a start-up..."
- "...who launched Broadreach with his savings from six years as an Intel Corp. engineer and that of his wife Elizabeth..."
- That's every word of personal coverage. I'm sorry, I just honestly don't see that as "Significant coverage"; I don't see that as "addressing the subject directly in detail". The Verosee question is less clear, but I'd still lean towards 'no' - the second WSJ article doesn't mention it at all; the first one does, but is it enough? I don't think so. Another relevant quote from WP:N is in its definition of 'sources': "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." That says to me they're expecting either greater detail or a lot of different articles if the coverage is this brief. —Torc. (Talk.) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- We have an article called "Argentina's High-Tech Chance". The first example given is "Broadreach Software", including the statement: "The factors that allowed Broadreach chief Pablo Rodríguez Bertorello to return home after nine years in the U.S. and launch a start-up are the same ones leading many technology companies to Argentina." This is followed by citing two of Bertorello's opinions: one as a paraphrase and one as a direct quote. It seems to me that he's not just someone random guy being quoted, but an Argentinian businessman notable enough to quote. The other WSJ article (by a different author on a different topic) refers to him as "Argentinean-born inventor", which seems to be what he's known for, and describes his "remarkable achievement". These are more than the "one-sentence mention" described in the footnote of the WP:N guideline. Gimmetrow 04:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- The "one-sentence mention" isn't a minimum threshold; it's an example of the extreme. It's a "well, obviously not this" example. That same footnote states that "the 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial" - you don't think the real aim is somewhere in between? That maybe notability doesn't require two full-length books, but it might require more that three dozen words total? I don't think there's much more point to us debating this; we obviously disagree over what constitutes minimum independent coverage. This as coming anywhere close to what the minimum requirements are; coupled with the clear self-promotion and WP:COI and WP:AUTO violations, I really don't see how this could be kept. —Torc. (Talk.) 04:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you are accusing me of COI and AUTO, it's not an issue. I suspect there is systemic bias at work against non-English sources. The nomination and the first comment pertain to an article in a bizarre state. You've done nothing to improve the article, and you didn't even read the two WSJ articles correctly. Two mentions in the Wall Street Journal are quite enough for a stub. Gimmetrow 07:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's clear I'm not, and although you have edited the article since it was posted, I still think its creation represents COI and AUTO violations. I've "done nothing to improve" an article I believe has no place here. Is that supposed to be criticism? It's not even accurate. I did search for other usable instances of his name and found none. I took the time to review each link one by one to see if they met WP:RS and WP:N. And it doesn't matter how prestigious the WSJ is, or that I didn't notice that one of the articles referred to him as "Rodríguez"; what matters is the content of the articles themselves and the nature of the material. What matters are mentions are scarce, superficial, and trivial. —Torc. (Talk.) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I see two WP:RS articles with two or three paragraphs on him, and I consider that enough for a stub. (P.S. I'm the one who converted Verosee into a redirect.) Gimmetrow 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's clear I'm not, and although you have edited the article since it was posted, I still think its creation represents COI and AUTO violations. I've "done nothing to improve" an article I believe has no place here. Is that supposed to be criticism? It's not even accurate. I did search for other usable instances of his name and found none. I took the time to review each link one by one to see if they met WP:RS and WP:N. And it doesn't matter how prestigious the WSJ is, or that I didn't notice that one of the articles referred to him as "Rodríguez"; what matters is the content of the articles themselves and the nature of the material. What matters are mentions are scarce, superficial, and trivial. —Torc. (Talk.) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Delete - not-yet-notable businessman. Maybe in a few years he'll become notable; but at present, he simply doesn't qualify. (I've also given the author the standard COI warning.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- You should not have given the COI warning. That issue was pointed out to the user quite a while ago. Gimmetrow 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As far as I see through this conversation is that you are arguing whether or not he was mentioned in a significant fashion in a news article or not. As far as I see, whether he was mentioned once or twice in an article or whether he had a whole article to himself, the only notable thing he did is the Skype file transfer program. Unless I missed something about some hidden patent amongst his twelve total, he does not seem notable, regardless of his news coverage. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- So if he was discussed in 20 articles, it wouldn't matter? No point discussing this further. Gimmetrow 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
weak delete there WSJ mentions seem small and don't quite WP:BIO but I'm really on the fence on this. If anyone can find other sources that would likely make me change my mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Changing to weak keep the Spanish sources seem to maybe be ok although one of the three appears to be more or less simply a translation of a WSJ article. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- This version included some non-English sources. Gimmetrow 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you translate them for us possibly? I see his name mentioned. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Nevermind, Babelfish gave a decent approximation. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)- The problems with the foreign-language links were discussed above in my post of 07:23, 7 February 2008. One is a WSJ reprint, one is not from a reliable source, and two are trivial mentions. —Torc. (Talk.) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- This version included some non-English sources. Gimmetrow 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep, speculation of whether this is a self-written article is a irrelevant. Although I personally feel this person is non-notable, he does barely fall within the guidelines at WP:BIO#Basic criteria. --Sallicio 03:37, 21 February 2008 (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 Redirect to parent article. If there's any suitable material that isn't OR, it can be merged in. Black Kite 00:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gonna Tell Everybody
- – (View AfD)
- Delete - A cancelled single by Christina Milian, it didn't chart on any official charts and it doesn't need its own article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 00:53, 02 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into parent article, is not notable on its own.--Sallicio 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ViridaeTalk 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect/merge per WP:MUSIC. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - completely non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 20 February 2008 (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. SorryGuy Talk 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Redflecks
- – (View AfD)
Article was tagged for CSD A7, but I've declined speedy (even though I could have deleted it myself) and send it at AFD as I don't think it meets quite enough speedy deletion criteria. The main concern for this article (and based on the tag) is the lack of notability per WP:MUSIC. JForget 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I see a scattering of things here and there, but nothing that seems to indicate that they meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep multiple sources, appear to meet music notability guidelines through extensive touring. Catchpole (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete Seems to fall JUST short of WP:MUSIC. Jonathan (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Very Weak Delete concur with Jonathan. If the author (or interested party) can find one of 12 criteria for WP:BAND, I will change to KEEP. Well-written article.--Sallicio 05:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ViridaeTalk 07:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete Just barely fails WP:MUSIC. The article mentions significant tours, but I was unable to find any reliable sources. If such sources are found, this would meet the criteria. --L. Pistachio (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canyouhearmenow (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:09, 12 February 2008 (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.
{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }} Keep, per WP:SNOW, nominator concurred. Non admin close. Xymmax (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Daedalus Encounter
This is just the plot of a video game, in loving detail. Delete per WP:PLOT. Tony Sidaway 05:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this article on the notable video game, but delete the excessive plot summary. Jfire (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, looks like it was a finalist (didn't win) for an award called the Codies some times in the mid-1990s. Precious little else about it, except the hiring of actress Tia Carrere (later known as the woman from Relic Hunter). Is this enough for an article? Maybe a redirect to Tia Carrere's article? --Tony Sidaway 07:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it was reviewed by Entertainment Weekly[72] and got 4 stars in Macworld[73]. I've read it was reviewed in the July 1995 issue of PC Gamer magazine and also in the November 1995 issue of GamePro magazine. Help could be enlisted at WP:VG/M. --Pixelface (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, I seem to remember reading about this in some gaming mags when I was a kid. Coverage certainly exists. Lankiveil (complaints) 12:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC).
- Keep Full-motion video (FMV) games are sort of the genre that time forgot, as unlike adventure or fighting games they never really picked up much of a cult following among retro games enthusiasts and as a result don't get talked about much anymore. But this was notable in its day as a big-budget example of its genre, including starring Tia Carrere of Wayne's World fame. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah I think I'm convinced. Would somebody like to snow this as a keep? Who was she in Wayne's World? ....Garth, is that you? --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable game with notable cast members, award finalist, groundbreaking game for its time. If the plot summary is too long, that's a content issue, not an AFD one. 23skidoo (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2008 (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blackblack
- – (View AfD)
Deleted twice as a7, once as prod, notability issues. The prod was contested so I am putting it here as a standard procedure. No opinion from my side. Tone 11:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MUSIC, then suggest redirection to Black Black. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as failing WP:MUSIC and because notability is not inherited. Redirection as above could be fine.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletefor lack of notability. Redirection doesn't make sense to me, the subjects are unrelated. — X S G 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)- Keep - I was unaware of the Alex Greenwald connection, which is pretty clearly a criteria for notability. — X S G 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because the band is notable for containing guitarist Alex Greenwald of the notable band Phantom Planet. According to WP:MUSIC, this is grounds for notability. Also according to WP:MUSIC, the band page should redirect to Greenwald's page, but I believe this is not necessary because Blackblack have enough achievements of their own to at least make them above "side project" status. In the event that the page is deleted, I think redirection to Black Black is really not necessary because they are completely unrelated. I think if the page is deleted it should redirect to Alex Greenwald and a section should start on his page about the band. -Lamarcus (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:MUSIC criterion #6 clearly applies. Given there is a reasonable amount of cited material here, I would agree with Lamarcus that a merge with Alex Greenwald would not be a good idea. However, a merge would be more sensible than deletion. WP:MUSIC criterion #4 may also apply, although the article does need more citations. Bondegezou (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless the author or interested party can find notable references (someone's blog doesn't count as notable) and third-party citations.--Sallicio 09:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and place {{Verify}} tag at the top of the page. If no sources are added within the next few months I suggest re-AFD'ing it. D.M.N. (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - meets WP:MUSIC. matt91486 (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This doesn't fail WP:MUSIC, it explicitly meet criterion #6. Keep it tagged per D.M.N. --L. Pistachio (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for passing criterion #6 of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Two tours and a semi-notable member is just enough for WP:MUSIC, isn't it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (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 merge, NOT performed by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Frankie Falcone
- – (View AfD)
Minor character in The Godfather novel, and no role at all in the film. Not notable enough for a separate article. Blueboy96 17:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Without getting into deep literary criticism I would say he is an important character in a major novel. (What's "No role in the film" got to do with it?). Is sub planning to dismantle the comprehensive coverage of the Godfather in WP? Which character will be next? Annamonckton (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge or delete if no merge target can be found. No context, does not meet notability guidelines by far. – sgeureka t•c 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No need for literary criticism. The question is are there multiple independent WP:RS about this guy? A sentence on the books page is fine.Obina (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect, I think that the character is notable enough to be merged into the parent article. Deleting is a bit much.--Sallicio 09:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and Comment I also think a lot of the articles located in this template should be deleted too. D.M.N. (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into a suitable article for the minor characters; construct one if necessary. It does appear that nothing specific has really been said about him as yet. DGG (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect; concur that the whole template deserves a closer look. JJL (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2008 (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 redirect to Link TV. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kim Spencer
- – (View AfD)
No comment on Link Media's notability, but Kim Spencer's work doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO as he doesn't appear to have been much of a groundbreaker in the fields he's worked. This reads like a resume with a touch of Wiki is not LinkedIn and there don't appear to be many sources available to re-write, hence my doubts on notability. Travellingcari (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Link TV. I added a source there that mentions him. Jfire (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect per Jfire. D.M.N. (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP, a cursory web search seems to show that it meets basic and additional criteria through WP:BIO. However, there has been allegations that the text was cut and pasted from the Link TV website; if this is true, then Speedy Delete.--Sallicio 18:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't care that the person has a high profile: the "biography" here is a curriculum vitae, and Wikipedia is not Monster.com. We do not house CV's. If this were a biography or about the person, then it would be written like a biography or a discussion of a person. Instead, it is a business listing. Nor is there some point in saying, "Leave it alone and wait for a biographer to emerge in the mists of time," because every day that it sits like this is a day that another executive gets the idea that he should enter the same bland boasts into Wikipedia. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Link TV. There don't seem to be any secondary sources that mention him non-trivially. – jaksmata 19:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Warrior4321talkContribs 00:39, 13 February 2008 (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.
