Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.

This page is an attempt to make a collection of precedent-setting Votes for Deletion decisions. These decisions are either a record of the first time Wikipedians have confronted a certain issue, or the first time a convention-breaking decision was reached. It only includes those decisions that have the potential to decide the fate of large numbers of articles.

While pages like What Wikipedia is not play an important role in VfD decisions the body of precedent also plays a crucial role. However those precedents tend to be only vaguely remembered and only by veteran Wikipedians. It is hoped this page can act as a quick reference to remind old users and educate new ones of previous VfD decisions.

It is also hoped this page can also help reduce the arbitrariness of deletions by creating a more concrete body of examples of what merits inclusion.

Note that some of these precedents are long outdated and should probably be revisited, after that is done this page should be updated.

Contents

[edit] Neologisms

[edit] Could an article with 1430 Google hits merit inclusion? - Yes

  • Affectional orientation
    • Ed Poor May 28, 2002, because : only one Wikipedian advocates the term; I\'ve never heard of it (could be reduced to a single sentence or even a clause in Sexual Orientation article
Wow! This wikipedian must get around, I found 1,430 webpages by searching for this term on Google. --maveric149
I agree; I think this article has to be kept. --Daniel C. Boyer

[edit] Should a term that is used in scientific articles but has no formal definition have its own article? - Yes

  • Quantum flux The definition is absolutely wrong. "Quantum flux" is not a term used in any branch of physics I'm aware of. -- CYD
    • The term is used in at least one journal article I found on google (abstract: [1]), but I can't glean enough information from that usage to figure out what it means. Some searching through the physics SPIN journal database indicates that it's been used in 41 indexed articles in prominent peer-reviewed journals over the past decade, so it appears to be a legitimate but not very common term. --Delirium 05:10 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I've got full text access to those SPIN hits, here's what I found. The SQUID people (like what Delirium found) seem to be talking about a magnetic flux -- some kind of magnetic effect which is inherent to the device rather than externally applied. There's a paper in Phys Rev D called "Quantum flux from a moving spherical mirror". They use it to mean particle (or probability) flux. It's closer to what Reddi's talking about. I'll quote some of it at Talk:Quantum flux. -- Tim Starling 05:44 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • The SQUID term refers to the magnetic flux quantum, which is a magnetic flux that is quantized due to the presence of a supercurrent. Using "quantum flux" to refer to it is okay, but it's not a precise technical term. The mirror stuff is obviously referring to a flux of photons. I'm putting up a temporary page, but I still think the page should be deleted -- there's really nothing to say except that the term "quantum flux" is confused. -- CYD

[edit] Defining the Dict. Def.

[edit] Should dictionary definitions that have potential to become real articles be kept? - Yes

  • Reason
    • Vicki Rosenzweig July 8, 2002, because : wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is essentially circular
      • It isn't much, I agree, but I don't know that an article with so many links to it should be deleted. Why surrender so easily? I just grabbed the article on Reason from the 11th (every encyclopedia in the house has an article on reason or reasoning), so I'm sticking that in there. Ortolan88, Monday, July 8, 2002

[edit] Can articles on words with extensive etymology and usage sections be valid - Yes

Than

  • Dicdef --Rlandmann 05:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think we should allow dicdefs to be speedy-deletion candidates. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:49, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information on contested issues of English usage is valuable and encyclopedic. Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded with etymologies, reworded. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, transwiki to Wikipedia where its new expanded form will fit well. Warofdreams 18:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a description of language, not a dictionary definition. Jamesday 00:36, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Now redirects to grammatical particle, should it be deleted from this page? Circeus 19:46, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could an article on a word that originated in German be valid? - Yes

  • Verboten - Dictionary definition. Can't think of any conceivable encyclopedic content that could go under that name. Delirium 04:44 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Axe It! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 12:09 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • This is linked from List of German expressions in English, which encourages the creation of such pages, and coexists with many similar ones. Arguably, the entire list is more a thing for Wiktionary than for Wikipedia, but while it exists, I see no reason why this individual page should be removed. --Eloquence 16:53 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Ah, didn't notice that. Perhaps the list has some place in Wikipedia, as a documentation of German influence on the English language through contemporary word-borrowing (rather than common heritage). However, I don't think there need to be separate pages for these words, since that'd degenerate into a dictionary. So I'd support deleting essentially all the pages linked from that list. -- Delirium 02:21 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't delete them. We should move them to Wiktionary instead. Emperorbma 07:47 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Are some famous phrases encyclopedic? - Yes

  • Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet
    • "The article is not actually about evil reptilian kitten-eaters from another planet, in which case it would be patent nonsense; it's about a locally memorable political incident that marked or caused a turning point in political affairs. This probably falls under the same category as Checkers speech, above the threshold for being encyclopedic."

[edit] Are some prefixes and suffixes valid? - Yes

  • Ab-, -oid
    • Wikipedia is not a dictionary
      • And these are not dictionary entries, they are explanations of a common prefix and suffix, respectively. They may be a bit short, but they are not dictionary definitions. See super.

[edit] Are some articles on idioms appropriate? - Yes

  • Grain of salt, Grain of salt/Poetic interpretations and Grain of salt (philosophical interpretations)
    • Grain of salt is a brief explanation of the English idiom "to take with a grain of salt". Wikipedia should not have articles on individual idioms, even though it might be worthwhile to start an article "English idioms" to parallel [English proverbs]. Grain of salt/Poetic interpretations and Grain of salt (philosophical interpretations) are both redirects to User:Stevertigo/Grain of salt (philosophical interpretations), which contains some interesting but non-encyclopedic speculation about the "grain of salt" idiom --Ryguasu
    • Wikipedia certainly should have articles on some individual idioms. Maybe not this one, but I'd hesitate to delete. --The Cunctator
    • Regardless of one's take on this, I think it is particularly obvious that Grain of salt/Poetic interpretations and Grain of salt (philosophical interpretations) need removal. Stevertigo already has a personal copy of these in the user namespace, so no one should get too offended if we remove these redirects. --Ryguasu

[edit] Names

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies

[edit] Are all surnames valid topics for articles? - No

  • Noyes
    • jheijmans June 28, 2002, because : wikipedia is not a genealogy index
      • Toby Bartels, Friday, June 28, 2002 : I can see arguments for keeping it, but not strongly enough to make them. However, if somebody else does and we do keep this, then all of the alternative spellings should redirect to this article, not be linked from it!
        • Content moved to metapedia. Page is ready for deletion by another sysop. See meta:Noyes
Note: This decision is inconsistent with later practises and should probably be revisited. (See Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames.)

[edit] Are some disambiguation pages for people with the same surname valid? - Yes

  • Lafontaine - a diambig page for the surname "Lafontaine" -- I don't think we should start to create diambig lists for surnames. -- till we *) 18:50, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • I created the page, mostly because it was listed on the requested pages. I think it has for a long time been wikipedia practice, if not policy, to make disambig pages for commonly linked to surnames. e.g. we already have ones like Wesley, Strauss, Schumann, Russell, and Scarlatti, and other pages like Baker and Miller that are mostly lists of people with the surname. - SimonP 19:19, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's fine as disamb. Quite useful. Sometimes ppl just know of a famous person by their surname (Shakespeare). --Menchi 21:06, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
      • I'd keep it. -- Jake 12:06, 2003 Aug 3 (UTC)

[edit] Are all first names valid topics for articles? - No (move to wiktionary)

  • Uwe: a dictionary entry on the personal name. Not anyone by the name, the name itself. -- John Owens 16:19 19 May 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a useful stub. --The Cunctator (from the edit summary when removing entry from page)
    • User:The Cunctator seems to vote against deletion, thinking it's "a useful stub", and that that's enough reason to remove it from VfD immediately and *cough* unilaterally. I disagree. -- John Owens 00:15 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, credit where it's due: that's half right. It is a stub, albeit a microscopic one. It's not useful in its current form, however, and difficult to imagine how it could ever become so. I vote to delete it. Tannin 04:00 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it's a useful stub. You disagree. Does that mean it should be deleted? I think a much healthier policy is to not delete entries that people reasonably disagree on whether it should be deleted. But hey, if you prefer killing information to keeping it, then maybe that should be the Wikipedia Way. --The Cunctator
    • It would be useful as part of an article on Etymology of names or something like that, yes. But Wikipedia entries should be about Uwe himself (if there were one that stood out), not about the word "Uwe". That's what http://wiktionary.org/ is for. -- John Owens 05:07 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree that it's not a finished article, but I think it's a good start. If you think it belongs on wiktionary.org, I'd hope you think you have an obligation to put that content there before you delete it. Part of my bias is that I want Wikipedia to end up being a true encyclopedia, not an emulation of a paper one. I see that you feel it's necessary to leave the ad hominem commentary in. Pity, that.--The Cunctator
    • What harm is this inoffensive stub doing to anybody? Why shouldn't there be enyclopaedia articles about names and their provenance, history, meaning, etc? I'm with The Cunctator on this. GrahamN 05:47 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with John in that I think information on the provenance, history, meaning, etc. of words or names belongs in Wiktionary. Articles such as Timothy or John should continue to talk about people with that name, not the name itself. I vote for moving this page to wiktionary:Uwe and replacing the current page with an interwiki redirect. -- Tim Starling 06:23 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Is there a policy supporting the presence of interwiki redirects? I don't like them. If someone clicks on an internal link in the Wikipedia, they expect to stay in the Wikipedia. To redirect them out of it without their approval is just confusing. -- Oliver P. 17:17 20 May 2003 (UTC)
        • I don't like them either, not least because they are difficult to edit. I won't mind if someone deletes it altogether. But it is only an orphan, so internal links are rare. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest we move to Wikipedia talk:How to use redirect pages. -- Tim Starling 00:28 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Note: This decision differs from current practice and should probably be revisited. (See Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames.)

[edit] Are common Chinese surnames encyclopedic? - Yes

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
姓
 This article is maintained by the Chinese surnames workgroup.
More information about this article...

From VfD:

The 22nd most common Chinese surname. Does that mean we can expect 21 more? RickK 20:40, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • There have been lots of surname articles listed on VfD before and all have been deleted in the past. (there, does that satisfy Anthony? No, probably not.) RickK 20:55, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course not. Just because we've broken policy in the past doesn't mean we should do it again now. You can't nominate an article for deletion without a reason. anthony (see warning) 01:10, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This listing is invalid as there is no reason given for deletion. anthony (see warning) 20:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wiktionary —siroχo 20:51, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see the problem. I'd like to see this for many surnames, or even forenames.—Rory ☺ 00:41, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, Wiktionary accepted surnames as entries. As such, transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. A soft redirect would be ok, but I don't think it's that necessary. Geogre 02:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is the 22th most common name meaning that the corresponding part of List of people by name: Zh will soon be spinned off. We just do it a bit earlier. wshun 04:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep surname articles as long as encyclopedic content is provided. This one gives a nice overview of the subject. Everyking 13:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Explaining Chinese anything to English speakers can be a daunting task, and this article explains the name and its context in Chinese culture well enough. Fire Star 20:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This could expand into a list of some sort, thus it wouldn't belong in the Wiktionary. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 03:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. In traditional Chinese society, surnames were one of the most important determinants of social standing. Up until the twentieth century surname-based organisations were the largest corporate bodies in China. Because of their important as a sociological phenomenon, Chinese surnames should be kept. --Jie 13:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since I contributed the bulk of the page, let me explain the value of the page. First, the number of Chinese surnames are very limited compared to those of other cultures. There is a few hundred for almost 1 billion people. There are almost 15 million Zheng/Cheng. If only a small percentage of those people cared to know about the history of their family-clan, then it is sitll a large number of people. Why would they be interested? The family plays a very central role in most Chinese families. The history of one's family-clan is as important to some as the history of one's nation or state. With 15 million or more members, Zheng might be bigger than some states or even nations. One need not look beyond the "Tongs" of the various China Towns to understand the importance of the family-clan to the Chinese. These "Tongs" are organizations that only has the surname as a requirement to join. In the past, these organizations helped Chinese immigrants to foreign countries despite the fact that many of its members are strangers to each other and share only a common surname and family history. Once again, the family-clan serves its role in Chinese culture. Thus, the history of a family is of interest to a signficant number of people. The bulk of information here is probably better than what can easily be found on Google. It took some effort on my part to find even this much -- the rest of it is in Chinese. I don't see why the existence of 20 or so such articles on the the Wiki should be such a problem as long as the content is good. With 20 or so Chinese surnames, you can cover the family-clan history of 50% of the Chinese population, which is 1/12 or so of the world's population (assuming China still has 1/6 of the world's population). Lastly, there is a complete listing of all the Chinese surnames in the Wikipedia. This and other articles serves as an extension of that article so as to give depth to it. Chinese surnames are of great value to anyone seeking to understand the culture and history. Personally, I would love to see the expansion of these articles so that the history of the houses of other cultures can be known. It is another way to tie people into history and generate interest. Perhaps these articles are not the most scholarly but they are certainly of interest to a large number of people. Comatose51 09:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Great!! I've been trying to find more info on the surrname 'Zheng' ( I'm one) and this article provides a good source of info.


[edit] deletion

There is a proposal to create a precedent that names are not encyclopedic. Articles about names regularly show up on various deletion pages and are summarily deleted. Perhaps - since you've been working on an article about a name, you hold a different opinion that you'd like to express. Please do: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames SchmuckyTheCat 17:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People

[edit] Are all parish councilors encyclopedic? - No

  • Rob Fenwick not clear that he was even elected. Is every local councillor going to get an entry (I was a parish councillor once, so think about this!) jimfbleak 17:10 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree, dump it. A quick google search turns up dozens of Rob Fenwicks across the world, none of whom are that particular one (of the pages I've clicked through to anyway). --Delirium 18:04 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • There's probably only a sentence or two of verifiable information about him at this stage. They could go in Don Foster's article, maybe, but the connection is a little tenuous. Hmm. I'll think about it... -- Oliver P. 22:44 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Are some city councilors encyclopedic? - Yes

Stig Olai Kapskarmo is a young regional politician in Norway and judging by the article is a fine member of the local community. I do however contest his current notability in a broader encylopedic sense. I should also note that I have taken the liberty of removing notice of his birth from pages October 27 and 1980. --Ianb 15:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • He seems like a nice young man, but a local council seat isn't really notable. Unless the environmental organization he leads is a lot more prominent than it sounds, he probably isn't notable. -FZ 15:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Update: I note that of the council members for Baerun, only the district leader and Stig have thier own entries. -FZ 15:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed, local government isn't notable enough. Vote to delete.—Rory ☺ 16:24, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Aye, local government is good but not good enough. Delete. Saint will 17:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: too minor. Geogre 18:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral: could someone please clarify "local government isn't notable enough"? Presumably mayors of New York City are notable enough. How about NYC city council presidents? NYC city council members? Their respective equivalents in (say) Seattle? Mexico City (bigger than NYC, but not in the English-speaking world)? etc.? Is there actually a policy on this, or is this just a matter of arbitrary intuitions? -- Jmabel 19:45, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • I considered members of what I consider to be equivalent local government in my locality and decided that they didn't merit inclusion. Others will use their own methods to decide on notability.—Rory ☺ 23:04, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Personally, my line is "effect outside of the local realm." It's the same as a local restaurant. If it affects only the town, it's not encyclopedic. If it affects beyond the town, it is. So the Mayor of New York City is in, because he leads in a number of ways. Borough Presidents, though, affect only their particular 1/5th of NYC. Thus, the political leader of a city, even a small one, gets in, but legislators and office holders usually don't. Some, though, like Eliot Spitzer, or several like him in California, make the news, lead the nation in prosecution, regulate important industries (like the NYSE), etc. I try to distinguish between the purely local and the local but notable. Geogre 00:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Political leader of a city? That would depend how you define 'city'. There are places in the US that have 'city' in their name that are the size of a large village in the UK. Average Earthman 08:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Again, this is my personal criterion. However, all mayors, even of cities with tiny populations, get state duties and representation, have rights with regard to state actions, etc. I.e. they affect the world beyond their towns, and not in the "has many friends" or "was enjoyed by children of all ages" way. Geogre 14:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Bærum and redirect. anthony (see warning) 15:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • My personal criteria is anything that's decent sized (i.e. at least a hundred thousand), the city council members belong. They're verifiable, and I'd say encyclopedic. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:41, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  • Keep. Norwegian version is discussed on the norwegian wikipedia, BTW. --Dittaeva 20:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Elected politician - no matter how local (and local Co. Co. is deserving enough) Various Co. Co. politicians regularly make the news here in Ireland. Wikipedia is not running out of storage AFAIK. If this was a US politician he'd be kept immediately. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 11:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, for pretty much the same reasons stated by zoney. --DMG413 01:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Norway has over 400 counties. at 50 councilmen each that is about 20.000 persons. Also, the environmental organization is a local preservation society. This is non-notable, especially in the English Wikipedia.--MaxMad 13:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I will note that Bærum is one of the largest counties of Norway, with more than 100 000 inhabitants, it is also the richest and one of the most well-known. In comparison has the fylke (province) of Finnmark around 70 000 inhabitants. The vast majority of the over 400 Norwegian counties have only a few thousand or even only a few hundred inhabitants. 14:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Even though Bærum is One of Norway's largest counties, Norway is one of the world's smallest countries. I will still stress the point that this has no place in the English Wikipedia. In addition this guy does not have a long record of council service, or been part of any major decisions worthy of mention, no matter how young and promising he is. If at some point in the future he is elected to the Storting(Norwegian parliament), he would have a place here.--MaxMad 06:28, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have searched through Aftenposten[1], VG[2] and Dagbladet[3], three of Norway's largest national newspapers. None of them have any mention of the name Kapskarmo. He is not notable in Norway, and not notable in the world.--MaxMad 06:28, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • And none of them have public paper edition search archives, and their web-editions are largely replicas of small newsagency articles. So while our search is valid, it is very limited. Also, the english wikipedia is not some kind of world wikipedia, nor is it an english culture wikipedia, it is the wikipedia written in english. Are you suggesting that norwegians aught to place things concerning norway in the norwegian wikipedia (the wikipedia written in norwegian)? There are inhabitants in Norway that don't know norwegian, but do know english, and could find this useful.--Dittaeva 17:36, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Does 955 Google hits and some media attention merit inclusion? - Yes

  • Anibal Verón is an orphan article about an innocent bystander. Although his death is tragic, is he historically significant. Kingturtle 02:01 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
IMO harmless; leave it. -- Infrogmation 08:11 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
His name gets 955 hits on Google (mostly in Spanish), and another 160 as "Veron". He's considered a martyr by some, and there is an Argentine worker's movement named after him, which facts I've added to the text. --Infrogmation 17:34 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Does five Google News hits from local papers alone justify inclusion? - No

After being kept in May 2003 and February 2004 Sarah_Marple-Cantrell was deleted in July 2004. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sarah Marple-Cantrell for more.

[edit] Are ten Google hits enough for a person no longer alive today? - Yes

  • Elizabeth Hawkins-Whitshed is not really an article, and on Google, there are 10 hits, 3 of which are from Wikipedia, while the others seem to be about different people with that name. Adam Bishop 05:09 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Climbing any serious mountain with a skirt seems a bit... --Menchi 05:12 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I bet Bill Brasky did it. Adam Bishop 05:19 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • She was a mountaineering pioneer, and wrote several books. It's true that there aren't many Google hits, but there should be! (There are a couple more under her married names.) I'm sure more information will turn up about her later... -- Oliver P. 14:40 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Does a site that indicates 2 million visitors merit inclusion for its creator? - Yes

  • Jacques Kinnaer - this person does not seem to be a major figure ... yet. olivier 08:37 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • A student in his Masters degree? Doesn't sound very ...professional, yet. Nice site, though. --Menchi 18:24 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I was going to agree with deleting, but that is quite a major and professionally done site, and the counter indicates it's gotten over 2m visitors. If accurate that's probably on the borderline of encyclopedic, though the article should be slightly changed to note that his 'claim to fame' is the website, not his academic work in egyptology. --Delirium 21:45 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree with Delirium--the site would be his best argument for inclusion. A simple article seems like a fitting thing to me (if it became five paragraphs on his contributions to Egyptology, that would be another matter of course). Jwrosenzweig

[edit] Is a person whose death received nationwide attention encyclopedic? - Yes

See Talk:Jamie Murphy (soldier)

[edit] Should an artist from a non-English country that gets 163 Google hits be included? - Yes

[edit] Redirects

Moved to: Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Precedents

[edit] Websites

[edit] Does 14 Google hits necessarily merit inclusion? - No

Puchland, a minor website with virtually no relevant Google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors. Somehow survived VfD back in May 2003 - SimonP 01:16, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wow, went from 14 hits to well, let's see, filter out the Wikipedia clones... about 30, and most of those seem to be for some polish company? Are they actively trying to be non-notable? Should have been deleted the first time. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not a website of its own anyway, just another forum / community thing. Wikipedia is not DMOZ. --Ianb 06:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reading over the May VFD in the discussion page, it was claimed that someone was editing this article. However, as it stands, the article isn't very long and it has been, what 5 months? -- Allyunion 10:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. I'm not sure why it was kept, even with an active editor. Geogre 12:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep again. You can't just keep listing these over and over again. anthony (see warning) 15:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Andris 15:21, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have absolutely nothing against using informed, well-researched websites as a basis for a Wikipedia article, but this excerp from Puchland ahrdly fills me with great encouragement that this is an article of the age, or even the year, the hour, the minute, or the second.

"The community takes pride in the weird names of its members, and the even weirder topics of its discussions and competitions. The Great Rabbi of Trivium and the Hanar (Chief Nerd) are two of the leading figures in this community.

"Trivia competitions, Limerick composing competitions and weird debates (such as one about various kinds of pickles) can be found in the community. Puchland regularly distributes valuable prizes for the winners, which includes "Nekudots" and trips to exotic places. Puchland is mainly a Hebrew-speaking site, although English speaking members also participate."

[edit] Do Wikis that have very low Alexa rankings merit inclusion? - Yes

See talk: Talk:Recyclopedia/Delete

[edit] Do Wikis that have very low Alexa rankings merit inclusion? - No

See talk: Talk:McFly

[edit] Lists

[edit] Are some lists where what is to be included difficult to define valid? - Yes

  • List of ethnic groups
    • I doubt this article will ever be useful due to the lack of any acceptable definition of what counts as an ethnic group. (i.e. my grandmother will punch anyone that calls her Italian, but few people actually recognize Sicilian as a distinct ethnic group and language.) The only direct link is ethnic group (a redirect) which should be an actual article IMHO. Tokerboy 04:29 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)
      • A link of perceived (if you will) ethnic groups is quite useful. When I read, Sicilian I want to be able to look it up on the list and see what it is referring too. Lir 05:14 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)
      • According to the Ethnologue, there are 6,800 main languages--virtually all of them (except sign languages, Esperanto, etc) are probably a distinct ethnic group. There are also 41,000 dialects, according to Ethnologue. If even 1/10 of them are also ethnic groups, we're talking about a list 10,000 long. It would be nice, but not feasible. Tokerboy 09:47 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)
      • That sounds like an argument against wikipedia altogether. Yet we already have 90,000+ articles... Lir 01:55 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)
      • Why couldn't we try to work together on a fair, consensual, acceptable definition of "ethnic group"? I believe it will be perhaps hard, but not impossible. --G
        • I tried to start, please follow :-)

[edit] Are lists of trivia sometimes valid? - Yes

  • List of songs with titles that don't appear in the lyrics (and related)
    • This is Everything2ish. While it might be fun, it's trivia and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Also, these lists will necessarily become overwhelmingly long when it's more than the pet bands of a few contributors; if people started adding in all of the songs from many different musical genres and locations. It's not like these songs are a rare occurence, anyway. DanKeshet 21:28 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
      • Who says trivia has no place in an encyclopedia, and who are you proposing should be the judege of what's trivial and what isn't? If you just have a look at the edit history of this article, you will see that a great many Wikipedians consider this a very interesting topic. Mkweise 21:42 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm going by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #11: "List repository of loosely associated topics". As for who should be the judge, I'm not going to propose any new decision-making policy; I followed normal procedures and put it on votes for deletion for discussion. As for the fact that many people find it interesting, that is not and has never been one of the criteria for whether something stays in Wikipedia. Many people on Wikipedia find long, drawn-out debates interesting, but we try to discourage that stuff anyway, because this is an encyclopedia and not a debate forum. DanKeshet 22:08 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not - do not delete this list. It has seen ample contributors and is as suitable for an encylopedia as any other "list of" article.
    • I agree that this should be deleted. The moment I saw this article I burst out laughing. Some lists are useful but this is one step too far. It is irrelevant trivia that hardly belongs in an encyclopædia but some music magazine. What next? A list of left-handed rock stars? People with six toes? World leaders who dye their hair? JtdIrL 21:45 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
      • Gee, you almost convinced me. After all, if we let this one stand then we might have to let the truely useless lists like List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people, Lists of citizens of nations on the American continents, and List of P Funk members stand as well.
        • Encyclopædias do list countries, and do list prominent gay/lesbian/bisexual people. They don't list rubbish like this list. (BTW, I'm sure Susan, Lir and Vera will have no difficulty reaching a consensus either) JtdIrL 22:09 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • I see nothing wrong with the article. Im sure Jtdirl and Stevertigo-Zoe will soon reach a consensus. Susan Mason

[edit] Potentially Offensive topics

[edit] Are sexually explicit articles sometimes valid? - Yes

  • Fisting -- Do we really want to have an article about something like this? If so be advised that it will open up a whole slew of similar things. (206.156.242.36)
    • It may not be an attractive concept, but it exists so yes, we should have it here. ÉÍREman
    • Presumably, we should delete all sex-related entries except for missionary position? Martin 00:03 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
      • Not that I *want* to see an article deleted, and I'm no prude (I could tell you stories!); but if "fisting" is allowed, what about articles on "Reverse Cowgirl," or "Urination Fetishists"? Eventually, you'll start to wonder if they're being made up as jokes or if it's real. (And I assure you, the Urination Fetishists are quite real...there's even subgroups that pee on stuffed animas and the like.) So, what I think I'm trying to get at is this: is there a line, and where is it drawn?
      • Essentially there is not a line that's drawn on offensiveness. Just on quality of the entries. --The Cunctator
      • Where else can one find neutral information on sexual fetishes if not here?. --Steveguy

[edit] Are all articles on hateful slogans valid? - No (redirect to a topic with a more neutral title)

See:

[edit] Are articles on non-hateful slogans sometimes permissible? - Yes, but it might be a good idea to have the world 'slogan' in the title

See: Talk:Slogan 'Jesus is Lord'/Delete. However: Talk:The science is settled

[edit] Software

[edit] Can software used by fewer than 700 people be encyclopedic? - Yes

See: Talk:MineSweeper3D

Note: this decision conflicts with current practice and should probably be reviewed

[edit] Other

[edit] Are personal reviews and commentaries encyclopedic? - No

  • O Brother, Where Art Thou/ReviewSummaries
    • Don't think that reviews should be in Wikipedia, inherently NPOV. Jeronimo
    • Agreed. I had this here before, but user:The Cunctator removed it. I forgot why. But glossing over a review and attributing it to the reviewer (e.g. Roger Ebert) is not the same as including the entire review as an "article" of its own. Collecting reviews is, IMO, not what we're here for. Relevant bits (if any) should be incorporated into the article for O Brother, Where Art Thou? and the rest discarded. --KQ

[edit] Is some Internet culture encyclopedic? - Yes

  • You have two cows
    • Chain e-mail jokes, not an encyclopedia topic. Nate Silva 19:24 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I think it is a good example of the internet culture. If we had too many of those, ok. But is just that one (and maybe a few others i haven't seen.--AN 19:50 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)
    • If it's an example of Internet culture, then, great, it should be attached as such, not as a free- standing entry.David de Paoli
    • This is a fine and relevant piece and an article which palpably demonstrates and links to many of the -isms on the display within it. user:sjc
    • An article on this kind of jokes is fine, and one or two examples are also fine, but this many is useless. It is impossible to list all such jokes here, and unnecessary as well. The article should tell something about this kind of joke, its history, importance and give some examples and perhaps external links such that you can find more of them. Jeronimo
    • I believe we should keep it here. As a matter of fact it is an internationally known scheme; it is humouristic, but it has attracted general interest worldwide, and this is what usually an encyclopedia reports. See also new introduction. --Gianfranco
      • This is a real encyclopedia article about a bit of Internet humor. It cleverly incorporates the humor into the article. With all the links in place, it is fine. Ortolan88
      • I would be all against deletion of this page, I think it is good. However, I still think that Wikipedia is not there as a depository of jokes, and as such, cropping the list might well be a good idea. Removing the page certainly isn't. Andre Engels
      • The article used to be a subpage of Internet humor. It has since been moved from its / page. I don't think it should be deleted. --Stephen Gilbert

[edit] Are all source texts encyclopedic? - No

  • Washington's Farewell Address
    • This is original material and not an article about his speech. I think this is not what wikipedia is. -- JeLuF 22:20 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
    • I think this is useful, although I don't know the specific policy about this type of thing. In any case, it could easily be made into an article, but in my view such a speech has historical significance and fits in an encylopedia, but that's just my view. -- Ram-Man
    • I respectfully disagree -- having complete source material of this length is counter to our stated mission: we are an encyclopedia (hence we condense and summarize human knowledge, not regurgitate it), to be NPOV (hence we can't have POV material -- and a speech is inherently POV), we are a wiki (hence people should be able to edit and change material (therefore changing what GW said). Now having an article on the speech would be a very good thing. Then it would be appropriate to extract short passages for explanatory purposes (still not the best for a wiki but less material means there is less text to keep track of to make sure it is what he actually said). See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not number 12. Hosting source material is not part of what we do here. This would make for a very interesting sister project (see m:Project Sourceberg). If we had such a sister project we could call up only certain lines and have those display in an uneditable box. Otherwise the entire speech would be at our sister site and just a click away. --mav


Editor's note: such a sister project now exists, and is called Wikisource.

[edit] Are short almost useless stubs to be kept? - Yes

  • Pluto (god)
    • Food for thought: This was a vandal's nonsense, which was removed and replaced with a stub. But it's an awful stub. It's a single sentence that serves only as a definition. There's actually more content on the redirect page Pluto! This isn't the fault of the person that wrote the stub, really, because I wouldn't expect every vandal's nonsense to be replaced with a functioning stub. But I say that it's better to delete the page outright than put something that's worthless in. Yes, if you really write an article, then that's even better. But deleting is better than a mere definition. — Toby 02:08 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)
    • The short version of this vote is: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Toby
    • I vote against deleting it. There's no need to delete stubs. See also my note at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia policy on permanent deletion of pages - Jeronimo.
      • The reason is that seeing a live link to [A] in the article [B] gives the impression that [A] has been written, which in this case was not true. (Well, it was written at Hades, so I redirected it there. But the principle remains.) [A] should also appear on Special:Wantedpages, which can't happen if a worthless stub is there. A page can definitely do more harm than good if it makes readers more likely to follow a useless link, or makes writers less likely to write a new needed page. If I can't write a good stub (see point 5 in particular), then I'd rather not have one at all, for these reasons — Toby 02:35 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)
    • Don't delete it, but I don't think it needs to be much more than a redirect to Hades; I started trying to add content and then realised that I was just trying to rewrite that page with Greek->Roman name changes. --Bth

[edit] Are How-Tos sometimes encyclopedic? - Yes

  • How to demonstrate osmosis with eggs and How to demonstrate osmosis with potato slices
    • For obvious reasons, I hope. (sign your name please!)
    • Could do with a rename & rewrite, but I don't see a problem -- Tarquin 19:01 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • As the initial author of how to demonstrate osmosis with eggs [but not potato slices]] I can't see what your obvious reasons are. If you'd be kind enough to spell them out explicitly I could defend the page better but: here goes anyhow. Osmosis is an important topic and IMO experiments that demonstrate the principle liven up the topic. This is a particularly simple experiment, which any potential reader who has an interest in osmosis can perform. In writing the article I was guided by the Wikipedia:How-topage which states that instructions for doing things are suitable for wikipedia even if they do not ordinarily occur in a paper encyclopaedia. Theresa knott 20:12 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not really in favour of these kinds of articles. The next thing you know we'll be getting how to boil an egg and how to light your farts. Mintguy 23:34 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with howtos, they can be both informative and fun. Although how to light your farts would probably need a safety disclaimer and/or a link to how to find your local burns unit in a hurry. Seriously, if the osmosis things are real articles, why would we delete them? Puzzled, Nevilley 23:45 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • I am against howtos on Wikipedia, because it is very hard to write them in an NPOV-compliant way. The existing ħow-tos demonstrate this very well. The original author usually has a particular idea how to do a certain thing and does not care to supply or research alternatives. Moreso, an NPOV HOWTO would probably read terrible ("Do this .. but you could also do this. Some people suggest doing that first. But if you do that first, the order of the following steps has to be reversed, at least according to some people .." etc.) --Eloquence 04:22 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • Since there is now the sister project WikiBooks, this is the proper place for HOWTOs IMHO. Andrew pmk 01:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More at: Wikipedia talk:How-to articles

[edit] Are conspiracy theories sometimes valid topics? - Yes

  • Bush family conspiracy theory - for all the rewrites this is still a ludicrously paranoid fantasist's dream article. It is neither encylopædic nor NPOV just some garbled wacky theories from those who believe the Bush family should really be renamed the 'Antichrist' family. The fact that after various attempts by competent contributors it is still bordering on the looney suggests this is an article that deserves the bin or its own page on the 'nutty conspiracies' website, not a page in a credible encyclopædia. (The fact that it has me defending the Bush family is indicative of how nutty the page is, for I am not exactly a fan of the political version of the Brady Bunch!) FearÉIREANN 02:33 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • As it stands now this article doesn't seem to me to be anything like as bad as you are making out, Jtdirl. These conspiracy theories certainly exist, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to have an article about them. Maybe it needs some work, but then which articles don't? I vote to keep it. GrahamN 13:17 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks okay to me. I say keep it. -- Wapcaplet 13:44 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Not only is this a widely held and common theory, its also true. Keep it. Pizza Puzzle
      • It isn't widely held, it is not a common theory, stating it is true is POV and the article at present in paranoid rubbish. If it is worth keeping (and I very much doubt it is) then it needs a fundamental rewrite, major NPOVing and dramatic culling. As it stands it is a paranoid joke. FearÉIREANN 21:03 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I really don't think it is appropriate to infer that I am "paranoid" for believing such "rubbish". Just because you support Bush, doesn't mean everybody does. And yes, we have very "paranoid" reasons why we don't support him. Pizza Puzzle
    • As an actual US resident, I can state authoritatively that various conspiracy theories are indeed widespread among the Democrats, and it should be Wikipedia's duty to at least list the claims and the factual tidbits on which they're based, as well as the other facts tending to discredit. It's hard to find NPOV writeups on many of the theories, this is the kind of thing that would make Wikipedia stand out on the web. For instance, my wife the Bush-hater hears some of these theories from her friends, and I'm always wishing for an objective source that explains the situation. Stan 21:26 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Can a town with a population of 1 be encyclopedic? - Yes

  • Ervings, New Hampshire
  • New Amsterdam, Indiana
  • Hibberts, Maine
  • Lost Springs, Wyoming
    • places with a population of one. Not encyclopedic.
      • How are these so much different from the places with a population of 0, 2, 3, etc.? Twombly, Maine could easily become a town with 1 person, if someone moves out. The above might become a town with 0 people. I think these are pretty interesting articles to have (though hard to keep accurate). -- Wapcaplet 01:54 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep 'em. Are the articles about places with no people (eg Gulf City, Florida) okay, and places with two acceptible, but not one? Why is it not "not encyclopedic"? They are harmless, and if anyone ever comes across some reference to one of those places and wants to find out something, possibly usefull to someone. -- Infrogmation 05:19 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • I see absolutely no reason to remove these places. Wikipedia is not paper, we don't have a problem with space, why not let them stay? -- Zoe

[edit] Should Wikipedia duplicate the work of other sites like IMDb? - Yes

I suggest that all articles about movies and tv shows be scrapped, and instead have the links point to the apropriate page on the Internet Movie Database. www.imdb.com Their database is already amazingly thorough, and appears to be around to stay. No point in rewriting copious amounts of information which already exists in a well organized form elsewhere Vroman 23:12 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

  1. Descriptions at IMDB don't link back to other related articles on Wikipedia (such as interesting locations, years, film technologies, and people other than cast and crew)
  2. IMDB's license is restrictive
  3. IMDB data won't be directly available in an offline edition of Wikipedia
  4. IMDB is available in English only (and possibly partially in Italian and German, though the links don't work), so that wouldn't help the many other languages Wikipedia is available in.
It's certainly appropriate to link to IMDB for additional information, but it doesn't replace free, integrated descriptions. --Brion 23:37 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
There is never a good reason to delete perfectly good material from the Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't paper. We can create perfectly good NPOV articles, something IMDB doesn't even try to accomplish. -- Zoe
I agree with keeping those articles. If we have a britannica, why do we want a different one from scratch. -- Taku 00:10 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Agreed, no reason to delete any of them. Forever free, not tied to any commercial concern, etc. etc. One thing that could certainly be said about Wikipedia's articles on movies and TV shows, though, is that they would benefit from some standardization (especially in terms of the nice things that IMDB does, such as links on all cast and crew), but that'd be hard to implement in the Wikipedia format (since we prefer linking on commonly-used names; disambiguation would be a nightmare for larger collections). A wiki devoted just to movies and TV shows would not be a bad thing. We're probably not there yet, though. -- Wapcaplet 00:58 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. Would it be possible to write a bot that would automatically translate IMDB pages into wiki articles, like the city pages from census data? Vroman 09:51 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
No, because IMDb is copyright, and they are unlikely to license their content under GFDL any time soon. -- Tim Starling 10:17 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
we could bot-ify their filmography lists, since they are plain data and not copyright as such. But please, anyone who does this: reverse the lists into forward chronological order when you do this, ie oldest first, newest at the foot of the list, so it reads in the same order as other chronologies on Wikipedia -- Tarquin 10:34 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'm afraid not - lists are copyright too. The moment you organise data into a list (for example, in alphabetical order) the list can be copyright. What we really need is a boilerplate layout for film pages. CGS 17:56 2 Jun 2003 (UTC).
I don't think that is correct. Lists are only under copyright if there is some creative process in either selecting or ordering them. Putting things into alphabetical order is just about the least creative way to order them, and as such does not fall under copyright. Alphabetical lists, chronological lists etcetera are not under copyright, unless either the items in the list are, or the collection is. Andre Engels 16:34 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Are some common household objects deserving of articles? - Yes

  • Cooking pan. It is hardly an encyclopædia topic, the article is a barely encyclopædic stub, the item in question is called a frying pan (or, if referring to something else (quite what he is referring to is unclear, a cooking pot.) Are we really going to have pages of cooking utensils now? It sound like it belongs in a cooking dictionary, not here. (This seems to be one of a number of cooking utensils entries this user seems to be creating, BTW) FearÉIREANN 00:43 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • And how is it that cooking pans are less important than, say, altar rails? There is actually quite a lot to say about cooking utensils, and they actually matter to me, unlike altar rails which are utterly irrelevant. And speaking as an amateur classicist, I can say that researchers today really really wish Varro and the Suda had seen fit to say more about the mundane items of everyday life in ancient times. Stan 04:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Your agenda as always is hilarious, Stan FearÉIREANN 06:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I support cooking utensils on Wikipedia (see Talk for reasons) Martin 18:21 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Are some articles on specific polls valid? - Yes

  • 100 Worst Britons I am not going to argue the case. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 00:28 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Discussion moved to Talk:100 Worst Britons. Summary: Jtdirl defended the lists as being "compiled in valid surveys by reputable media organisations that were the subject of major public debate", and KF agreed. SimonP pointed out that they were "basically primary sources". I brought up the matter that the lists might be copyrighted by their compilers, but Jtdirl dismissed this, saying, "There are no copyright issues with these polls." -- Oliver P. 07:09 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Is a religion with a web-site but no other proof of existence sometimes encyclopedic? - Yes

See Talk:Yoism, Talk:Brianism

[edit] Are all articles on non-standard theories and pseudoscience encyclopedic? - No.

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reciprocal System of Theory

[edit] Are 'year in' articles for individual countries sometimes valid? - Yes

See [2]

[edit] Should all stubs on individual episodes of television shows be kept? No, they should sometimes be merged into one article

[edit] Are high schools encyclopedic? - Yes

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was

Brookfield High School (Ottawa)

Non-notable school. And it has a cool taxobox and everything! RickK 06:11, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: It is the duty of the article to establish notability, not our duty to go off and try to find any possible reason to keep the article. Many of us will go help out out of the goodness of our hearts, and that's a wonderful thing, but VfD doesn't write articles for people. This is a decision phase. Delete for lack of notability. Geogre 12:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Dunc_Harris about the criteria for including schools and Geogre about establishing notability.—Rory ☺ 14:19, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, VfD has spared high schools for years, and by now we have hundreds of article on them, many with valuable information and of high quality. While this article is a fairly poor stub, that is not justification for deletion. - SimonP 15:16, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. anthony (see warning) 15:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Notable" is a dubious and subjective rule of thumb. At least merge and redir to its municipality. The information is useful, if trivial -- which makes accurate information on the topic hard to find and is reason enough for inclusion. I urge you to read Jimbo Wales' comments about this topic here: Wiki is not paper. Davodd 18:02, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in present form. Improvements by SimonP and Dhodges have made it OK. It is the duty of the article to establish notability when first inserted. The bar should be set low, but it should be there. Notability is important because topics that are not notable are very unlikely ever to get verified and may not even be verifiable. Saying "all high schools deserve entries" is, I think, equivalent to saying anything goes. Either anything goes or not just anything goes. I'm darned if I see a principle that would rule that "high schools are in but primary schools are out," whereas I have no trouble with "notable ANYTHING is in, and non-notable ANYTHING is out." I just re-read Wikipedia:Wiki_is_not_paper and saw nothing there that would argue that low-information articles on non-notable trivia should be kept. The only time these articles grow is when someone brings them to VfD. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It is the duty of the article to establish notability when first inserted. This is not Wikipedia policy, and it begs the question as notability is what this page is all about determining. Notability is important because topics that are not notable are very unlikely ever to get verified and may not even be verifiable. Notability is important because if something isn't notable then it's not worthy of note, so by the very definition of notability it shouldn't be included. But as for verifiability, all high schools in Ottawa are verifiable through government documents. I'm darned if I see a principle that would rule that "high schools are in but primary schools are out," whereas I have no trouble with "notable ANYTHING is in, and non-notable ANYTHING is out." Non-notable ANYTHING is certainly out. This follows from the very definition of notable. But if anything notable is in, then all high schools are in, because the decision has been made that all high schools are notable. Would you similarly argue against a rule that "all US Presidents are in"? anthony (see warning) 18:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Please point me to the place where it says that "the decision has been made that all high schools are notable." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It says it right above your statement. anthony (see warning) 03:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough.--Dittaeva 16:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 00:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough Spinboy 03:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Are high schools encyclopedic? - No

Note that the above result is an anomaly -- most of them do in fact get voted for deletion, and only a few, depending on who shows up to VfD, and sometimes particular facts about the school/article length sway things. --Improv 06:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which ones get voted for vfd is a precedent, not a fundamental truth on a subject's worthiness. I've seen many school articles up for vfd, and I've never seen one without potential. I've never seen a school article which would confuse or misinform users actually looking for information on a different subject, and I've never seen a school article with no notability, no way to verify facts, or inherent, incurable bias (which would always be good reasons for deletion). --L33tminion | (talk) 23:40, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it is true any longer that most of them get voted for deletion. Philip 04:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • High schools are currently on heavy debate. Universities are by nature notable, but for high schools this is doubtful. Radiant! 22:37, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • All secondary educational institutions are inherently noteworthy. Then when you take into consideration that we have plenty of room on Wikipedia for minor Star Trek characters who appear in a single episode, Pokemon gymnasium instructors, minor Nintendo power-up items, and Star Wars planets, technologies, battleships and even Star Wars laws, it really begs to be asked why we're even discussing the notability of high schools. --GRider\talk 19:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Just in case it is unclear, the preceding paragraph is GRider's personal opinion, not a statement about precedent. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, most of whats written on this page is not precedent material, nor is it coherently presented. --GRider\talk 21:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In late May 2005 someone did a review of the last 64 nominations of high schools. Not one of them had been deleted. CalJW 05:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are all articles on 9/11 victims encyclopedic - No

See talk: Template:VfD-911victims

[edit] See also: