User:MacGyverMagic/Deletion/Debates
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] November 30
[edit] December 8
[edit] December 10
[edit] December 11
[edit] December 14
[edit] December 15
[edit] December 16
[edit] December 19
[edit] December 21
[edit] December 23
- 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 1st Street (Taylor, MI)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streets in Taylor, Michigan. Article doesn't tell anything about the road which cannot be gleaned from reading a map. Wikipedia is not a road map. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oooh, you were doing so well until the vote! Bugger, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as NN streetctuft. I said this was going to happen. :) Jamie (talk/contribs) 10:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Hit the road, Jack. (couldn't resist - but certainly should've). PJM 15:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment the M25's just a road, but it has an article... Jcuk 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment there's a different between an article for a major thourougfare and streetcruft like this. There were a bunch of AfDs a copule of months back about various streets in Toronto. The net result was that only the major arterial roads (and not all of these), as well as "important" shopping and cultural steets were kept. And even after that purge, Toronto seems to have a loweb bar for street notability that most other cities on Wikipedia. According to the article, ths little street runs 4 blocks, and was the article was likely created only because someone found it as a redlink on List of streets in Taylor, Michigan (which is also on AfD). I would suggest that a good guidline for streets might be that if there is nothing more to say about them than can be learned from a map, then they don't deserve an article. But perhaps we should have a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion on notability for steets? Jamie (talk/contribs) 02:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, very nice. Well done. Have a biccie; you've earned it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete No sense having an article on every bloody paved road in the world. Search4Lancer
23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) - Delete per User:Apjake. Not every road in the world is encyclopaedic. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and Apjake. Wikipedia is not a road map in prose. --Metropolitan90 15:41, 24 December 2005 (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.
[edit] December 27/28
- 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 of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Voice of the Borg
This doesn't deserve its own article. Perhaps a merge into Star Trek: First Contact. Delete, JHMM13 (T | C) 
07:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, too trivial, we don't have articles for "man on bus" or "newspaper salesman" for other movies. -Drdisque 07:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Star Trek: First Contact, according to the guidelines in WP:FICT. Far too short and trivial for a seperate article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedydelete (it's already tagged as speedy now) --Quarl 08:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)- Speedy delete Jeff Coopwood wrote this about himself. -- Perfecto 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:Jcoop, who created this and Jeff Coopwood, left me a message saying he's not him, so please disregard the last claim (but not the vote, see below) as you see fit. -- Perfecto 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Star Trek: First Contact JoJan 09:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Hmm, this is interesting. On one hand the "voice" of something is definitely not deserving of an article. On the other, since the Borg is a hive mind, the "Voice of the Borg" is the closest anyone can get to describe the collective Borg consciousness... which is, I think, notable. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 10:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: after delete, redirect to Borg --Quarl 10:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's an assertion of notability there (he's the Famous Voice of the Borg!), so I don't see how it can/should be speedied. A merge and redirect seems to me to be the most appropriate action here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedied because it's a sub-stub: what else can be added to the article? Speedied because there is no such topic as "Voice of the Borg". Let's likewise create "Voice of Kermit" (saying it's Jim Henson), and "Voice of Bart Simpson" (saying it's Nancy Cartwright) since the two are more encyclopedic than this. I agree with Quarl, there's nothing to merge. -- Perfecto 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- You may find it useful to re-read WP:CSD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mark, it's between A1, A3 and A7, unless I'm mistaken. -- Perfecto 00:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedied because it's a sub-stub: what else can be added to the article? Speedied because there is no such topic as "Voice of the Borg". Let's likewise create "Voice of Kermit" (saying it's Jim Henson), and "Voice of Bart Simpson" (saying it's Nancy Cartwright) since the two are more encyclopedic than this. I agree with Quarl, there's nothing to merge. -- Perfecto 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge as per Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Essexmutant 12:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge, anyone who performs the voice acting of a world-famous voice, like Borg or Dalek deserve to be covered somewhere, regardless of who wrote the entry. If it's merged, the fact it's a substub will be irrelevant. -- Mgm|(talk) 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Quarl - the Borg article already contains all the info from this article, nothing to merge. Tufflaw 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nothing to merge. Renata3 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge it as suggested --TimPope 14:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. nn. Incognito 05:40, 5 January 2006 (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.
[edit] January 1, 2006
- 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 of the debate was no concensus --Ichiro 07:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Childlove movement Pedophilia advocacy
moved to Pedophilia advocacy on the basis of consensus forming here. AfD template still directs here -- not trying to circumvent process. James James 10:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete or merge with pedophilia. Neologism. Euphemism for pedophilia coined by Lindsay Ashford. Google shows virtually all the hits for "childlove" are from dupes of the wikipedia article and from Lindsay Ashford's puellula.org website. The article is inherently POV, and largely written by Ashford (who is on wikipedia as User:Zanthalon). The title is non-neutral as it is a euphemism. Homey 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep This nom is in bad faithComment There has been over a year's worth of work done to keep this article NPOV. The points you argue have already been gone through in the previous AfD and you haven't brought up anything new. Ashibaka tock 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)- You may disagree with the nomination but the accusation of "bad faith" is hot air. As for the previous nomination, I was unaware of it as there is no note about it at the top of the Talk:Childlove movement page as is required (why is the old page not in the AFD archives?). Homey 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, there is. I retract that it's in bad faith, since you didn't see it, but seriously-- what would you do with this article, merge it into pedophilia? You might as well merge... well I won't stir up anything by drawing comparisons, but they are both very long articles and a merge would shorten both considerably. Ashibaka tock 19:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- No there isn't. Look at Talk:Star Trek and pedophilia to see what the required tag looks like. It's clearly not at the top of Talk:Childlove movement. Homey 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- That thingy is a template to make it easier to see old AfD discussions, but back in the old days we didn't use templates for any old thing. Also AfD used to be called VfD. Ashibaka tock 20:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ah ok, I was looking for the template - I see there is a notation made as an ordinary post. Homey 20:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- That thingy is a template to make it easier to see old AfD discussions, but back in the old days we didn't use templates for any old thing. Also AfD used to be called VfD. Ashibaka tock 20:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- No there isn't. Look at Talk:Star Trek and pedophilia to see what the required tag looks like. It's clearly not at the top of Talk:Childlove movement. Homey 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Because it itself was deleted. I've restored it. Uncle G 20:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, there is. I retract that it's in bad faith, since you didn't see it, but seriously-- what would you do with this article, merge it into pedophilia? You might as well merge... well I won't stir up anything by drawing comparisons, but they are both very long articles and a merge would shorten both considerably. Ashibaka tock 19:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- You may disagree with the nomination but the accusation of "bad faith" is hot air. As for the previous nomination, I was unaware of it as there is no note about it at the top of the Talk:Childlove movement page as is required (why is the old page not in the AFD archives?). Homey 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, now that that's settled, I'm going to vote keep. The biggest problem with the article is the name, which I agree is a distasteful euphemism, but it's used by many pedophiles to refer to themselves, and it was already decided that the name should stay. Any other perceived problems can be cleaned up. Ashibaka tock 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- "it was already decided that the name should stay". Decisions can be revisited and reversed. That we "already" decided it doesn't strike me as sufficient grounds to keep the name if not the article. Homey 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neutralitytalk 19:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why?
// paroxysm (n)21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why?
- Keep. Movement is real. If anything is POV, NPOV it. Clayboy 19:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete title, merge contents with Pedophilia. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete We shouldn't have a new article every time someone comes up with a new euphemism. This is a duplicate/fork. Choalbaton 20:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, but this is not a normal "euphemism." It has established usage, and, at any rate, we are not describing this alleged euphemism, but what it refers to -- activism for the acceptance of pedophilia and ephebophilia, a very real and notable phenomenon.
// paroxysm (n)21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, but this is not a normal "euphemism." It has established usage, and, at any rate, we are not describing this alleged euphemism, but what it refers to -- activism for the acceptance of pedophilia and ephebophilia, a very real and notable phenomenon.
- Added comment' I'd like to suggest that the salvagable parts of the article be moved to the "Advocacy of pedophilia" section of pedophilia. I'm wary of simply renaming the article Advocacy of pedophilia as, unless we include an equal amount of information against pedophilia advocacy the article will be unbalanced and POV while including said information will likely end up in a duplication of pedophilia. Homey 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- The "childlove movement" is not simply advocacy of pedophilia. The title childlove movement is inclusive and accurate, as that is what they refer to themselves as.
// paroxysm (n)21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- The "childlove movement" is not simply advocacy of pedophilia. The title childlove movement is inclusive and accurate, as that is what they refer to themselves as.
- Strong keep. What a ridiculous proposition. "Childlove" was not coined by Ashford, it is derivative of boylove and girllove, more specific terms designating a type of pedophilic or ephebophilic attraction. Even if you don't want to believe it, or the thought of pedophilia makes you squirm, that is not relevant here, so I would ask anyone to consider the notability of this subject carefully before kneejerking with delete. To say that this was "largely written by Ashford" is false in itself; it's been edited extensively to keep POV out since its last kneejerk nomination, which, as is apparent, resulted in a keep. Merging this with pedophilia is not a good idea, as the childlove movement is not at all completely composed of pedophiles, but also ephebophiles, and as jd420 tells me at least, normophilic people as well. The "childlove movement" article is already long enough. Moving on... if you're the type of person who judges notability by a quick tap into Google, please note that "childlove" is a rarely used term. "Boylove" and "girllove" are used much more often, so as to segregate the sexual attractions. "Girllove" gets 18,700 hits, if we exclude all pages containing the keywords "wikipedia" and "encyclopedia." "Boylove," seemingly more popular, receives 332,000 hits. These are only pages Google has spidered. There are thousands of websites dedicated to this crusade, several organizations (everyone's heard of NAMBLA or MARTIJN at least). The movement is notable: it has thousands of members, usually well-masked behind a shield of anonymity. Activism happens, whether the public likes it or not; ranging from promoting what they see as the correct use of the word "pedophile," to advocating the abolishment of age of consent laws. To say that "childlove" is a euphemism is POV itself. It is a term invented by the movement to describe themselves (in fact, it's basically just using the root Greek meaning of "pedophilia"). We have articles on organizations within the movement itself. I find it almost obscene that someone would propose deleting this article and not NAMBLA. The FBI has even acknowledged the existence of a large movement working to "legalize child molestion" in a newspeice on Ashford I seen recently.
// paroxysm (n)21:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)- First of all, by definition, the term ephebophile (attraction to post-pubescent youth) excludes those we commonly refer to as "children" (ie pre-pubescents) so I don't accept your claim that "childlove" is not a synonym for pedophilia and that therefore "childlove movement" is not a euphemism for "pedophilia advocacy" as we don't generally refer to teenagers as "children". The primary definition of child is a prepubescent human hence ephebophiles are not attracted to children and the term "childlove" does not accurately describe their feelings or behaviour. I don't deny that there are those who wish to legalise pedophilia. My problem is in using a POV term to describe that movement. Homey 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - there's far too much good content here to simply trash all of it because of a few paragraphs or sections people don't like. I don't think this article is particularly POV, it outlines arguments the movement makes, it doesn't make those arguments FOR them. -Drdisque 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete POV fork for it's violation of NPOV core policy. --Rob 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please explain how this is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
//paroxysm (n)21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)- The title is inherently POV (per Homey's comment below). The opening sentence is POV (you confuse claims with facts). Also, this is clearly a POV fork. It's a way you can put in stuff, that might not get as much attention elsewhere. This whole article is written with the basic, and false, assumption the groups seeks what it claims to seek. That of course is rubbish. I would also vote to delete an equally POV title Childhurter movement, even though it would be more accurate in its description than the current title. Be happy Wikipedia (unlike 99% of society) will let you freely and fully particpate and contribute to articles in an NPOV manner, but don't think for a second you'll be allowed your own little POV fork to promote a movement. --Rob 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- If there's a problem with the article, fix it. If the name is wrong, now's your chance to get consensus to move it to Pedophilia advocacy. But you can't delete something from Wikipedia and make it go away. If that were true I would nominate Islamist terrorism for deletion, or merge it into Terrorism, because its activist claims are questionable. Ashibaka tock 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Are you changing your vote to rename?Homey 22:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to rename it, yes (that would be a nice step towards NPOV-ifying), but you have nominated it for deletion/merging. First things first. Ashibaka tock 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- A rename doesn't change the fact it's a POV fork. Many other POV forks have been made for various causes, but removed. Pedophilia is the one NPOV word (as it's advocates and opponents use the same word). We don't have a pro-topicX and anti-topicX article. We have a topicX article. By forcing everybody to edit the TopicX, we ensure people from all sides will work together, counter-acting any one groups bias. The purpose of this article, is to advocate a particular cause. It will never do anything beyond that. --Rob 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I understand you're saying that "boylove"/"girllove" is a useless excercise in euphemisms. Assuming that to be so, I think the fact that pedophiles campaign for political issues is a notable thing which deserves an article, and Pedophilia is very long-- the whole thing won't fit. The "childlove movement" (especially NAMBLA) has a long history tangled up with the gay rights movement etc. There needs to be a general article to describe this, so take this one, NPOV it, and move it to your favourite title. Ashibaka tock 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- A rename doesn't change the fact it's a POV fork. Many other POV forks have been made for various causes, but removed. Pedophilia is the one NPOV word (as it's advocates and opponents use the same word). We don't have a pro-topicX and anti-topicX article. We have a topicX article. By forcing everybody to edit the TopicX, we ensure people from all sides will work together, counter-acting any one groups bias. The purpose of this article, is to advocate a particular cause. It will never do anything beyond that. --Rob 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to rename it, yes (that would be a nice step towards NPOV-ifying), but you have nominated it for deletion/merging. First things first. Ashibaka tock 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Are you changing your vote to rename?Homey 22:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- If there's a problem with the article, fix it. If the name is wrong, now's your chance to get consensus to move it to Pedophilia advocacy. But you can't delete something from Wikipedia and make it go away. If that were true I would nominate Islamist terrorism for deletion, or merge it into Terrorism, because its activist claims are questionable. Ashibaka tock 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- The title is inherently POV (per Homey's comment below). The opening sentence is POV (you confuse claims with facts). Also, this is clearly a POV fork. It's a way you can put in stuff, that might not get as much attention elsewhere. This whole article is written with the basic, and false, assumption the groups seeks what it claims to seek. That of course is rubbish. I would also vote to delete an equally POV title Childhurter movement, even though it would be more accurate in its description than the current title. Be happy Wikipedia (unlike 99% of society) will let you freely and fully particpate and contribute to articles in an NPOV manner, but don't think for a second you'll be allowed your own little POV fork to promote a movement. --Rob 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please explain how this is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
- Comment on euphemisms and "what a group calls itself". Holocaust deniers prefer the euphemism "Holocaust revisionist" or "historical revisionist". Wikipedia, as a rule, uses the term "Holocaust denial" rather than the euphemism. Similiarly, white supremacists prefer the term "white nationalists" but we use the former term rather than the euphemism. If we simply have a default where we use whatever euphemism a group prefers to use for itself that would open a whole POV can of worms. Homey 21:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as per the reasons given above 80.177.152.156 21:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: anonymous votes do not count. Log in to your user if you want to be counted. Clayboy 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- The above Strong Keep vote was by me, JCUK. I hereby reiterate it, and attach my name to it. Jcuk 18:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Jesus H. Christ. That's all I have to say. That's my vote. Jesus H. Christ. Herostratus 22:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Jesus H. Christ I second that vote. --DanielCD 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Largely written by me? Rubbish. I have not edited on this article for almost a year. And no, I did not coin the word 'childlove'. It was around long before I became an activist. Zanthalon
, 23:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC) - Keep Whether we agree with the movement's views or not, this is what the movement is most commonly known as - not just within the movement but outside it - and as such, it is the correct title. And the article itself is definitely encyclopaedic, although some sections may be construed as POV and may need a bit of work. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- "is what the movement is most commonly known as - not just within the movement but outside it " Really? I've never heard of non-pedophiles refer to this movement as "childlove". Please provide some mainstream citations. Homey 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's normal to break out subarticles. I'd have no problem with a move to paedophilia advocacy if the antis really insisted, but adding it back into pedophilia serves no purpose except to allow outspoken conservatives to direct our editorial policy. James James 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep based on excellent arguments above. I'm not convinced the nom has really thought this through. -- JJay 03:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. ZERO Lexis/Nexis hits, which means ZERO media coverage employing the term "childlove". NONE of the references use the word "childlove" in the title. This seems to be a POV fork. At the very least a title change is in order. Gamaliel 04:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Zero hits on all common news sources? Then it obviously should be a sub topic on pedophilia. The article in it's entirity is based on the idea that same childlove movement that isn't covered in that sense by the news. prove it to me otherwise. Lotusduck 04:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you would support it as a subtopic, then vote to rename and rewrite rather than just to delete the information. Ashibaka tock 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- If there isn't any press coverage under the movements prefered name, then it doesn't need it's own article. Lotusduck 05:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is press coverage on the childlove movement; it's just not referred to as the childlove movement in their reports because media can apparently not stand to use the word "love" when describing pedophilic or ephebophilic attractions. As I said above, even the FBI has acknowledged the childlove movement. It has thousands of anonymous members and several organizations dedicated to forwording the childlove agenda. There is even a boylove charity. Come on, what kind of notability are you looking for?
// paroxysm (n)05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is press coverage on the childlove movement; it's just not referred to as the childlove movement in their reports because media can apparently not stand to use the word "love" when describing pedophilic or ephebophilic attractions. As I said above, even the FBI has acknowledged the childlove movement. It has thousands of anonymous members and several organizations dedicated to forwording the childlove agenda. There is even a boylove charity. Come on, what kind of notability are you looking for?
- the kind of notability/verifiability of at least the name childlove is per wikipedia standards: it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. So if newspapers have articles but no third party publisher calls the movement what the movement calls itself, then we don't have some verifiable source calling it that, then wikipedia can't call it the childlove movement either, because we can't verify how widespread the term is, or it should be left to publishers of original thought to determine the occurance of the term "childlove" not original research on wikipedia. Lotusduck 07:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- So why not just move it to pedophilia advocacy? Tell you what, I'll do exactly that. Surely you accept that some people do advocate for paedophiles? James James 09:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I've moved the page to pedophilia advocacy. Would those who voted to delete on the basis that the term does not exist be willing to reconsider? I think there is clearly a reasonably sized group of people that does advocate for social acceptance of pedophilia, and covering them, and detractors of them, would be legitimate in my view. Lotusduck, you've been fairly outspoken here, and I accept your view that it is pretty much only those within this movement who call it the "childlove movement", but will you accept my counterargument that whatever it's called, the advocacy does exist and is a legitimate subject for the encyclopaedia. The argument whether it should be broken out from pedophilia is quite separate, but would merging such a long article back into its parent be a really good idea? James James 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- So why not just move it to pedophilia advocacy? Tell you what, I'll do exactly that. Surely you accept that some people do advocate for paedophiles? James James 09:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a term in wide currency. - SimonP 07:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, but merge some of the important content into pedophilia (movement exists, apprently, but it's not notable enough for it's own article.--Sean|Black 08:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Rob, Gamaliel and SimonP. Like Sean above, I think whatever useful content there is within the article should be merged into pædophilia. --cj | talk 09:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- The Childlove nee Pedophlia movement is a culturally and socially significant phenomenon. I would not merge the article, Pedophilia and the actual pedophilia movement, as pedophlia has a long history, most of which does not include the modern pedophlia movement. The two subjects are related, but not the same, and should be kept separate, but link to one another. MSTCrow 09:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, move or delete - The title is unacceptably euphemistic. No comment on the content, but the title can't stay. Kosebamse 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've moved article to pedophilia advocacy. Does that work better for you? James James 09:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, dispicable yes, but it's what they are commonly referred to. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also per paroxysm's reasoning who cited external sources. It is also in line with the naming of NAMBLA it's the NAtional Men Boy Love Association. If pedophilia advocacy was at all used (and not a neologism) it would've been named NAMBPA (National Men Boy Pedophile Association). It is covered by outside sources, but gauging notability by google or Lexis Nexis hits makes no sense, when you know there's a lot of censorship going on about the subject. - Mgm|(talk) 11:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry for the repeated comments, but I've done some Google searches:
- I think that makes it clear the suggested rename is the POV neologism here. - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- "pedophile" isn't a neologism. It's a well established term. "advocacy" is also a well established term and joining them in a phrase is simply done for descriptive purposes. the word "childlove" however does not exist in any credible dictionary. Homey 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- In the search "childlove movement" on Google.com of the 146 uniques, the top hit is Wikipedia, the wiki mirrors domininate the other results (this article itself, plus all the others they've worked the term in). There is little non-wiki serious usage of the term in the results, with much of it being the usual "scraper sights" (e.g. search for anything and you get something on their sight). This actually proves that Wikipedia itself is the biggest promoter of the term. Now, sadly, others will likely follow. This shows the movement had great success with Wikipedia, as we forget how influential we are. Other people doing similiar "Google tests" will now make similiar judgements, to accept this term. Also, I would note, in your first search "Childlove" by itself, obviously has meaningings unrelated to the perverted one being discussed here. Even combined with other words, I expect there are people who use the term in the more literal non-perverted sense it's been used in the old article name (e.g. as in "childlove" means "child love" not sexual abuse of innocent children by people who are mad that I called it abuse). Finally, in all Google tests, keep in mind shorter simpler words, that are easier to spell, always get bigger results, and that doesn't tell you which is the proper term. --Rob 13:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- As a patron of the online boylove community for almost ten years now, I had never heard the term "childlove" until Wikipedia renamed its "boylove" article into "Childlove movement" (if I remember correctly). I remember it as a conjured-up term to merge articles on "boylove" and "girllove". I have since noticed "childlove" being used quite often, when wanting to denote the collective boy- and girllove communities (and I've also noted many in the boylove community shunning the term "childlove"). So either I was ignorant of the term before the Wikipedia rename, or Wikipedia itself has contributed significantly to the usage of the term. Clayboy 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or move to something like Advocacy of pedophilia. — Matt Crypto 12:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep With the original name, it's the name of it. See Mgm's comments. Garion96 (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)I did some more googling. This time with all different spellings, paedo pedo etc. Pedophilia advocacy is used in the media more than childlove. So still keep but with the new name. Garion96 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)- If neither is used, what does the news media call it? Just because pedophilia advocacy isn't a good term doesn't mean childlove movement is an established part of human knowledge. Paroxysm- in the news articles you read what do they call it? Lotusduck 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not a term in wide use, hence neoligism. WhiteNight T | @ | C 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Point of view fork. Cyberevil 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable, neutral, true, encyclopedic ➥the Epopt 18:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: For those interested in media coverage of this movement, try http://kctv.com/Global/category.asp?C=73283. Check the videos. Here's the description of one story: "Pedophilia as a political movement? It sounds not just far-fetched but perverse. However, a KCTV5 News Investigation has uncovered such a movement and it’s captured the attention of Kansas ’ top law enforcement official." And a quote from the November 22 "investigation," by Phill Kline, Kansas Attorney General: "There is an effort, a sophisticated effort ... that is funded by [pedophiles] who forword such arguments."
// paroxysm (n)18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- And does KCTV ever refer to the movement as the "childlove movement"?Homey 19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I am strongly swayed by the Lexis/Nexis result and the fact that no reliable authoritative sources seem to use the term 'childlove movement'. I think that, therefore, talking in detail about the childlove movement breaks Wikipedia's commitment to No Original Research. If there were media coverage or academic discussion on this topic then I'd be saying Keep all the way (and be much less fussed about the name). Yes, it means we miss out on the description of this phenomenon. No, this discussion wouldn't be happening the same way if the topic were Fluffy Bunny Rabbits. However, some reputable source needs to cover this ground before we can. The Land 19:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think more voters should be involved editors of this topic like paroxy and land. While the article is largely written in a similar voice to encyclopedic articles, the lions share of the article is original research. We would lose basically nothing sourced accurately by deleting this article and starting a fresh pedophilia advocacy section in the pedophilia article. I think so, and anyone who thinks this article just needs a little work should consider working on the article before being sure they want a keep. Lotusduck 20:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment-original research If we remove the parts of the article that constitute original research (more than half the article as far as I can tell) sections 2.1 and 2.2 in particular, the remainder should be short enough to fit into pedophilia. I think there remains a strong argument to merge. Homey 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as POV fork, with string suspicions of original research. --Pjacobi 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it needs some NPOVing, but I'm not sure exactly what it's thought it's forking? Articles are often broken out of their parent subjects, but they're not considered to be forks. This is not an article about paedophilia itself but about advocacy for it. James James 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The nomination appears to be an attempt to silence highly unpopular political or social views by refusing to allow them to be described on Wikipedia. No matter how nasty a view may seem to us, we are not in the business of refusing to cover it because we don't like it. --FOo 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- You can make that allegation if you can demonstrate that somebody voted to keep an opposing POV fork, while voting to delete this POV fork. However, that's not the case. Also, you fail to address the serious lack of *reliable* verifiable information to back up this article. Also, we actually do try to "silence" any POV soap-box pusher on *any* side. If somebody wishes to push an agenda, they're free to do so elsewhere, but Wikipedia is not the place. You're partly right though. Their views are highly unpopular, and argueable "suppressed". Hence, they're rarely published. However, Wikipedia does not champion the rights of the unpublished. In fact, we're quite hostile to the unpublished. We don't (or shouldn't) write anything about anyone unless it's been published by reliable sources elsewhere. Is that fair? No. But that's the price of verifiability. --Rob 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Shorten and Merge with pedophilia per User:Thivierr. Seems like a POV fork to me. Jessamyn 02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A real movement. Denni ☯ 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- comment Many of us can agree that this article is filled with nonverifiable information. This article could be uniquely about the activism, but information is continually being added that subtly or not describes pedophilia from an unpublished viewpoint. If this article is not deleted it can be weeded down to its' verifiable components. If the verifiable and scholarly parts of this article don't amount to more than a stub, then Pedophilia Advocacy can be redirected to Pedophilia and the content moved there. People who vote either way should help edit this article, although of course delete voters may have more ideas of what to edit. Lotusduck 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- It clearly would amount to more than a stub. There is advocacy, and it's perfectly sourceable. I agree that it should be uniquely about activism, and responses to that activism, and should it survive this AfD, I'm going to work on making it only about that. As I noted on the talkpage, I hope you'll join me in doing so. James James 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a real subject, and a real movement so should have it's article, provided content can be verified. if nessacary, remove the unverified sections, but keep the article. Silent War 06:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but fix I'm not sure I like either title but there has to be something about this group of people. I really think the pedophilia article needs to stick to medically defined pedophilia. Please don't merge. --Gbleem 08:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to add that there probably nees to be separate articles for those who want to support people who have medically defined pedophilia and those who advocate sex with children. --Gbleem 08:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment The dividing of the articles should be along subject lines, not along lines of POV. "Pedophilia" should be about the medical and scientific ends, with perhaps a mention of any alternate POVs. Childlove...I think "Ped. Advocacy" or something along those lines might work. But I'm not so convinced "Childlove" is so POV as people seem to make it out, or even want it to be. --DanielCD 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think separate articles is a little much, although this article mixes those two issues and several others together rather badly. But I'm unaware of any sources that specifically call for helping people who have medically defined pedophilia in the strictest sense. There are articles proposing possible revisions to how to treat pedophiles in psychology, which is hardly the issue of pedophilia advocacy. I think what you're describing is "Debate over pedophilia treatment" and really there isn't that much of that in the article. Personally, I haven't got the strength. If it is created, I will do my best to read over the peer reviewed journal references and make things as informative as they can be, but it would be better if an article like that was started by someone with the professional expertise to begin with. I mean, it's acceptable to make an article from reliable sources without having the professional expertise, but it's exhausting too. Part of the reason people only read a fourth of most of these journal articles and then make up their own conclusions is because the things are so long. Lotusduck 14:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- What do you consider unreferenced? It doesn't look like "original research" to me, and even if some was removed, there is far too much referenced text to merge into pedophilia.
// paroxysm (n)20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- What do you consider unreferenced? It doesn't look like "original research" to me, and even if some was removed, there is far too much referenced text to merge into pedophilia.
- The mixing of issues and definitions is exactly why I don't want it merged with pedophilia. Pedophilia is a condition identified by a process that is standardized by a group people with fancy degrees while the childlove movement as described is more of a political/social movement.--Gbleem 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I will give an example: In democtatic contries one can find Nazi and Communsit parties. The reasons for they existance are many, including the right of political freedom and the fact that these parties are indicators of the general political state in a given country (i.e. if their popularity start going up, it means that the mainstream politicians do something wrong). A similar argument can be put in the present case. First, if there are peple paying attention to the childlove movement, it is an indicator that it has a political basis, regardless how small it can be. Second, if the arguments of the "movement" are weak, then it will be easy for everyone to refute them again and again. -User:Nllsq (moved from talk page. first edit)
- Keep, no valid reason to delete has been set forth. --Angr (t·c) 10:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep encyclopedic topic. Grue 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It never ceases to amaze me how people want to delete articles simply because the content it distasteful. I had a similar debate at the Erik Beckjord article deletion; the man is an obnoxious ass, but that's no reason to delete the article. Perhaps it can use a bit of renaming/defining. To try and delete this as if it is not an issue in its own right...that is simply crass and POV to the point of absurdity. Even if it is deleted, it will just reappear, as the subject carries a great deal of importance to some people, no matter what their intentions are. --DanielCD 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Childlove movement was nominated for deletion on 2004-08-03. The result of the discussion was "no consensus" with a default result of "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childlove movement/2004-08-03.
- Here are some organizations. I think only NAMBLA still exists. --Gbleem 08:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There is another one that advocates sex between women and young girls. --Gbleem 08:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Paedophile Information Exchange
- JORis
- Danish Pedophile Association
- North American Man/Boy Love Association
- There is also MARTIJN. I believe the women/girl organization you're referring to is Butterfly Kisses.
// paroxysm (n)19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but I might add that this article should be the focus of every decent Wikipedian to crush the POV of sick child molesting bastards. DTC 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- If that's how you feel, you should get right on this article eh? I think that this article is about as non-point of veiw as if the Ex-Gay article was composed completely of information found through Ex-gay organizations. That article isn't, and that article is fine. I think a lot of people are confusing neutral point of view with being positive. Lotusduck 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Eh. To be considered a "child molesting bastard" you usually have to, you know, molest children. Not just advocate its legalization. Maybe you should read the article.
- I would also encourage you to stay away from the article if you're going to let your emotions cloud up your neutrality. All POVs need to be presented, but without endorsement.
// paroxysm (n)02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, I guess that means you, not being a decent Wikipedian as far as I can see, should probably avoid the article altogether, per your own advice. --DanielCD 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Per some of the above arguments, changing my vote from Jesus H. Christ to O... M... G!!!!
Carry on! Herostratus 06:23, 6 January 2006 (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 of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Casualties of the 2004 March 11 Madrid bombings
Tragic, but being killed in this violent way does make the individuals notable. -- RHaworth 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. I recall 9/11 deaths getting deleted, too; that should serve as precedent. ' 09:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Bombings are not unusual, and certainly not usually notable.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, as a whole, are non notable? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A link to an external memorial could be placed on the Madrid bombings page, if required. A WP memorial page is not a useful reference item. -- (aeropagitica)
09:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - Delete - Wikipedia not a memorial, and BTW the 9/11 Memorial Wikipedia should be taken down, or at least renamed so it's not called a Wikipedia. Blackcats 10:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not memorial. Pavel Vozenilek 11:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per 9/11 precedent. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Whats 9/11 got to do with it? Why does the European event have to bow down to an american one? Jcuk 17:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's got nothing to do with 9/11 happening in America. It just happened to be a very well-known and larger terrorist attack. If we have a separate wiki for those victims (all 2000-3000 of them), I don't see why we should mention the victims of the Madrid bombings in Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, as above. Ajwebb 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I found it useful when checking to see if any if my Spanish aquaintances had died
- Keep; I am the person who made this article. I just want to explain why I think the English Wikipedia should have such an article. However, of course, if you think that this page should be deleted, go on. (Interested people can check this information in the Spanish version, if they understand Spanish.)
- 1) Most people argues that "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Well, this article should not be considered as a memorial page, but as a page with additional information about the Madrid bombings. If you consider that the names of the people who died in Madrid are not relevant for Wikipedia, you can delete these names, but at least keep the information about the victims (for instance, why does usually appear the name of Francisco Javier Torrenteras between the people who died, although he did not die in the bombings; or why at first officially the media spoke about 202 casualties, instead of the real number, 190; or the fact that died people of 17 nationalities... etc). If this page is deleted, I think that this information should be added to the Madrid bombings article, but, in order not to excede the amount of information that appears there, I think that the better solution is a page about the persons who dead there.
I understand that, as the names of the victims takes up most of the article, many people could think that it is a memorial, but if you read it, you will see that there is more information (that has to be emproved and expanded, I know).
- 2) Before I made this article, I saw that someone (I don't know who), added in the Madrid bombings article, in the "See also" section, this hidden line:
<!-- * [[Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings]] -->
(as you can see in this edition of an old version of the article), claiming for such an article. - 3) P.MacUidhir argues that "Bombings are not unusual, and certainly not usually notable". I agree, bombings are not notable. But not all bombings are the same! Sadly, ETA is responsible for most bombings in Spain, but the Madrid March 11 bombings were not at all usual. It was the worse Al-Qaida attack in Europe. There died almost four times more people than in the 7 July London bombings. Millions of persons took part in the demonstrations against terrorism the day after (more or less the 28% of the Spanish population). Many poeple think that there was a political change in Spain because of these bombings (they happened three days before the March 14 general elections), and that the authors aimed this change; other people think that the former goverment lied supporting that ETA was the author of the attacks until the last moment, as they could lose the elections because of their support to the Bush' invasion of Iraq (it is still a very hot subject, and I don't want to give my opinion here, I just speak about the opinion of many people). I only want to say that obviously the Madrid bombings are, sadly, once again, a historical event, not only in Spain, but worldwide, such as the London bombings, the 9/11 or the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. I am not speaking in this point about the number of persons who died, but just about the importance and consequences of the event.
- 4) I saw that there was an article about the casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, with the names of all the victims, and I thought that there should be an equivalent article with the Madrid victims. I don't want to think that nationalism should be so important in Wikipedia (when we speak about worldwide events), and the terrorism victims in England should not be more or less important than those who died in Spain. I saw too that there is an article about the London victims in the Spanish wikipedia, without the names (in my opinion this article lacks those names). Nevertheless, in the 9/11 died thousands of men and women, and I think that it is better there an external link, not because those persons were less important, but just because it would be too large; but maybe some persons who died in the 9/11 should appear in wikipedia (the many firefighters who died there? People who saved other people? For instance, William Rodríguez became famous, but he didn't die there). I think that the queston is not as simple as "there should appear all victims of terrorist attacks or none of them".
- 5) I made the article, as every article, thinking about it as a starting point. So, it should be extended and improved by other wikipedians. For example (as in the July London attacks), who died in each place (the Atocha Station, or El Pozo, or Santa Eugenia, or the Téllez Street)? How many? Where were first carried? What does Pilar Manjón (president of the Association for the victims of 11-M) think about the political reactions? These questions maybe could be too much for the principal article, but not for an article about victims, and it could contain interesting information for wikipedia. I think that there should be a page of the same quality as that one about the London attacks, and I hope that it will be so. I only contribute with my knowledge. I don't know many things about the London attacks, so I can't speak about them.
- 1) Most people argues that "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Well, this article should not be considered as a memorial page, but as a page with additional information about the Madrid bombings. If you consider that the names of the people who died in Madrid are not relevant for Wikipedia, you can delete these names, but at least keep the information about the victims (for instance, why does usually appear the name of Francisco Javier Torrenteras between the people who died, although he did not die in the bombings; or why at first officially the media spoke about 202 casualties, instead of the real number, 190; or the fact that died people of 17 nationalities... etc). If this page is deleted, I think that this information should be added to the Madrid bombings article, but, in order not to excede the amount of information that appears there, I think that the better solution is a page about the persons who dead there.
-
-
Well, thank you, principally if you had enough patience to read till here! Eynar Oxartum 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep - Are there first-class and second-class victims? Does it depend on the language the victims spoke? If Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings was not deleted (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings), I can't see any valid reason to delete this one. --Ecemaml 16:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, for Ecemaml and Eynar's well stated reasons. GRuban 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. TestPilot 04:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks notable enough to me. I wouldn't expect to find this in a printed encyclopaedia, but that would be more down to space restrictions than anything imo. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. This has nothing to do with memorials. -- JJay 09:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, even for an event as tragic as this. Sliggy 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, part of a major event. I'm not sure how useful the list of the names is, but deleting that wouldn't require deleting the whole article. And it doesn't provide redlinks for each of the names which is a plus. - Bobet 12:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Primarily a list of non-notable dead people (which sounds a lot like a memorial to me) and some information which, unlike with the similar London bombings article, we already have in other articles related to the Madrid bombings (if I missed something and we don't, merge it).--Last Malthusian 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)- On re-reading the article's actual content, keep the article but the list/memorial/whatever you want to call it should be deleted. Keeping it would lead us to assume that you can't have a list of victims if the death toll is too small to be 'notable', and you can't have it if it's too big to include without disrupting the article. That would be bizarre logic to say the least. --Last Malthusian 17:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per the precedent cited by Ecemaml, however I strongly recommend that a policy be developed to create a criteria for this sort of thing otherwise anytime an event like this happens -- major or minor -- someone will want to do a list article. IMO this type of list should only be created for the most major of these events (and Madrid qualifies). But it could get out of hand if someone wants to create an article everytime a car bomb blows up in Baghdad. 23skidoo 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This article isn't about the individuals. It is an excellent part of the coverage of the event. Bhoeble 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - useful information --File Éireann 18:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- keep as per Eynal and Ecemaml. Cchan199206 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per 3 comments immediately above. --kingboyk 17:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Eynar Werdna648T/C\@ 07:21, 9 January 2006 (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.
[edit] January 2, 2006
[edit] January 3, 2006
- 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 of the debate was REDIRECT to freemasonry since there's no consensus to delete, it has been merged and a redirect is the simplest means of GFDLing it. -Splashtalk 23:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Masonic organizations
- Delete. No content whatsoever: list of links. Contents have also been merged to, & so appear at, Freemasonry's page Grye 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Complete the merge with Freemasonry, there is no point in retaining this page. -- (aeropagitica) 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per reasons above --Phanton 04:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to finish the merge and retain attribution of the info to the contributors of the list (and not just the one person who copy-pasted it into freemasonry). - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as merge has already occured.Gateman1997 20:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand with short descriptions of these organizations. Listing on freemasonry page, which is already too long, is no help whatsoever. -- JJay 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect, merging and deleting is not allowed under the GFDL. - ulayiti (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Eee... that's not 100% correct. There are a several options. The simplest would be to copy paste the history into the talk of the target page, but that one's a bit of a grey area. The next easiest would be for someone to validate all the information themselves and type it in themselves, which would have the added advantage of double checking WP:V and would be on solid ground. The hardest would be a history merge which I have seen done before but don't know how difficult it is. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Mostly correct though. You can't retain an edit history if it's been deleted. It needs to be retained in some form when merged and redirecting provides the least work as it doesn't involve admin intervention. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I know it shows the history of the page, etc, & serves as reference should the page come back, etc. I do not see that talk page as increadibly valuable. A lot of the content of said page is mine, & I would not miss it. Grye 15:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- keep. this information is useful. although it might need some work. Kingturtle 06:06, 8 January 2006 (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.
[edit] January 4, 2006
[edit] January 10, 2006
- 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 of the debate was DELETE, Babajobu 11:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GWYF
Delete non-notable group of kids Drdisque 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't quite meet speedy criteria, but nn definately. - FrancisTyers 00:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Austin 00:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)SirAus Sorry, but I beleive it entirely depends on what one defines by non-notable. This group is one of the most widely known reenacting groups in Virginia. I'm new here, so I don't really understand the criteria for deletion or non-deletion. Is it because this group isn't known outside of the reenacting arena or what?
- Delete as non-notable biography. Why doesn't it qualify for speedy? I don't see any assertions of importance in this article about a group of people. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 00:48Z
- Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination, nn. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If there is an article about Historical reenactment I'd vote merge with that rather than lose the page entirely.Jcuk 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Having just come across Comparison_of_historical_reenactment_groups I vote Keep as there seems to be a precedent already Jcuk 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Tentative keep, according to the article Jcuk mentioned we've got several articles reenactment groups. I'm not sure what would make them notable, so I'll go hunt for mentions in local newspapers, but age alone is a bad indicator for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Delete, no independent sources on which to base an article. Apart from their own websites, found nothing on Google but directory entries, listing in a local paper (which confirms their existence but nothing else), and the blog of someone who joined them. Notability is comparable to school/college clubs and garage bands, which are almost always deleted. --Malthusian (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Comment school/college clubs and garage bands are ten a penny - can we say the same about historical re-enactment groups? - FrancisTyers 20:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Delete, non-significant, Vanity article—LeFlyman 15:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Comment, someone who knows how PLEASE fix the picture. (Yes, I know I could try and go learn how...) --Samuel J. Howard 16:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Not exactly sure what you wanted done, but I've cleaned up the page and added a caption to the picture. Turnstep 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn per above. Eusebeus 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Delete nn per nom Mushintalk 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Keep because it has many entries on Google and is locally notable. -- Eddie 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Delete nn-bio. --Terence Ong Talk 13:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Delete non-notable -.svg/20px-Union_flag_1606_(Kings_Colors).svg.png)
«ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Delete, as this article is non-notable. SycthosTalk 02:40, 15 January 2006 (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.
[edit] January 11, 2006
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 of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Japanese artists
Nearly blank list that is devalued in comparison to its category. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:37ZWeak Delete (added after post AFD edits see comments below) or Redirect to Japanese artists Category -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Strongkeepand protest.It is impossible to measure the merits of a redirected page. This action preempts discussion.Durova 07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Lists can communicate information that categories cannot. At the risk of self-promotion I'll make my own most recent list an example: take a look at List of notable brain tumor patients. A researcher of Japanese art may want information on eighteenth century ivory netsuke artists. An expanded list could make them easier to locate. Durova 08:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)- Protest I agree with, but why keep? This is a useless, forgotten, nearly empty list, and we have a bright shiny category! I mean, c'mon! I hardly ever nominate things for deletion(I think this is my third) and constantly infuriate people by voting to keep, but this one should be easy, really... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not everyone is in the camp that lists must always be ended if there is a category. This list is pretty tepid, but maybe someone can find something to make it as expansive as List of Chinese painters. Although on that there is a List of Japanese painters. Possibly this should be merged with that, or the painters list should be merged with this as artists is a broader term. Anyway point being the Japanese are surprisingly poorly covered at Wikipedia compared to how many of them there are. (I checked this) So if someone can make this a long list of important, but poorly covered, Japanese artists that'd be good. In fact I might do that now.--T. Anthony 08:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly in that camp either, just against the keeping of unattended lists. If you're willing to tend it, that would be great. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I added a bunch of names from Artcyclopedia. Many of them are red, but that's good because it allows for expansion in this area. I tried to avoid painters as we have a Japanese painters list.--T. Anthony 08:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly in that camp either, just against the keeping of unattended lists. If you're willing to tend it, that would be great. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not everyone is in the camp that lists must always be ended if there is a category. This list is pretty tepid, but maybe someone can find something to make it as expansive as List of Chinese painters. Although on that there is a List of Japanese painters. Possibly this should be merged with that, or the painters list should be merged with this as artists is a broader term. Anyway point being the Japanese are surprisingly poorly covered at Wikipedia compared to how many of them there are. (I checked this) So if someone can make this a long list of important, but poorly covered, Japanese artists that'd be good. In fact I might do that now.--T. Anthony 08:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Protest I agree with, but why keep? This is a useless, forgotten, nearly empty list, and we have a bright shiny category! I mean, c'mon! I hardly ever nominate things for deletion(I think this is my third) and constantly infuriate people by voting to keep, but this one should be easy, really... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this list could be much more useful than the category if it gets annotated. Still a bit reddish, but could easily work. Let's see if it can get attention before deleting it. Cleanup or expansion tag first? - Mgm|(talk) 12:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment T.Anthony's actions on the List of Japanese artists page have made me reconsider my redirect suggestion. [20]-> [21] Attempts to influence the course of a AFD by retroactively editing looks bad in my opinion. The redirect, the AFD could have continued without a problem even with the redirect in place. To view the context on a redirected page you simply click at the top where it says "redirected from" then click on page history, nice and simple.
- Lists of people are generally duplicative in nature, un-used lists are a misuse of database space. This list was created in october and was dead until the AFD. Which begs the question, Why this sudden interest in editing on this page now. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 13:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't that part of the point of AfD? So that when articles come up for deletion, people improve them? Ofcourse it would be a good idea to leave a not on the AfD voting page when it's done. 132.205.45.110 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- This list was not in a category so I was essentially unaware of it until now. I am interested in expanding coverage of East Asian topics, moreso than African ones as East Asia is my interest, and if lists help that I'm positive for that. Granted I could simply create 20 or so articles based on bios I find, but this would eat up more time then I want at present.--T. Anthony 13:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and it might get improved. As wikipedia grows being less complete can actually be a merit of a list, providing the most important people are included. CalJW 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Has potential, and the redlinks indicate articles that might need to be written. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment I did not nominate this article for deletion. I stumbled across it via the recent changes. That being said I think it should be clear exactly how this matter should be looked at from. Until the article was nominated for deletion there was absolutely no interest in the it for the 4 months since it was created. The edits only occured because it was nominated for deletion. I suspect that the interest will go away rapidly once the AFD is completed.
- The purpose of article for deletion is to decide on deletion or not. It is not something to warn people that an article may be deleted so they better rush off and throw some quickie edits on it. I see the actions after the AFD as an attempt to subvert/circumvent the AfD process. In the process this violates the principle that process is important
- Before these edits the list contained exactly one name.[22] Subsquent edits should be ignored for the duration of the consideration of this deletion request. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Your view and actions were in many ways justified as the list was just one name and no interest before AfD. I think you're worried my changes cloud that and make you look somehow bad. My intent is not to make you look foolish. No one should believe your view was invalid. No one should believe it is invalid now. I'm sorry you think my efforts to improve this list are cheating, but I think this is a valid topic and once aware of it I did what I did. Further last ditch save efforts often fail and there is a chance this one still might.--T. Anthony 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's absurd. Editing during an AfD is allowed, and even encouraged, if it addresses some of the concerns brought up in the AfD. Why should we vote for a static snapshot of the page at a point in time? Would you truly vote to delete this article on principle if in its current form it warranted a keep vote from yourself? What would be the purpose of that? Turnstep 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this is what categories are for. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the above is a case for {{expand}}, not VFD. Lists have an important role that categories do not, they serve as reference for missing articles. Articles that don't yet exist (no stub, even) can't be in a category. They contribute references and red links that count towards Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a useful,verifiable list which cannot be replaced by a category. Categories and lists are complementary, not exclusive. Turnstep 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: the nominator should have brought this list to the attention of other editors by adding a flag to expand, cleanup, or verify. There are more harmonious and productive ways to proceed than preemptive AfD nomination. Durova 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You have to weigh the value of what was in the article when it was nominated for AfD, and one name a list does not make. So the Nomination for deletion was ultimately correct see CSD-A1. The issue is he used Article for Deletion instead of speedying it. The people with the sudden interest in the fate of this article have no history of editing oriental art articles, or for the most part art at all. I checked their contributions. They are all however regular contributers to other list articles. I sincerely believe that they are letting their personal opinion of the value of these types of articles, to come between the removal of an article which has limited value, and in this case can be best served with an existing category. The use of Categories is the proper way to go for things of this nature, especially where there is little interest in developing, maintaining, and promoting the list. Several people have mentioned that the lists best indicate articles which need creation. This is true however the process is better served by the request for article process. Non-existent articles links in article content are of a limited benefit to the Wikipedia and indeed can run off newbie visitors. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's wrong of Durova to say this was invalid. As stood it wasn't a list, but possibly an ad for one guy. That said I'm a bit irritated on the rest. I do have a history on List of Chinese painters. Some of that won't show up because what I did was turn red names blue, but some should. Check the edits from October 1 to November 12 2005[23] at the Chinese painters list. Also check List of Japanese painters[24] for January 1, 2006.
-
-
- Not invalid, hasty. The usual procedure is to bring such a list to the attention of the community before nominating it. This list in particular was less than three months old. It is very odd that anyone would introduce a reference to patent nonsense in this discussion. With so much actual nonsense at Wikipedia it seems strange to single this out. I have already addressed the matter of lists and categories in a much fuller manner than SusanLarson's rebuttal suggests. Durova 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
-
comment CSD-A1 is short articles: Articles #1 "Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. A search engine may help in determining context and allow for the article's expansion." One name lists would qualify under that section. As for no history I was primarily speaking of T. Anthony who initially stepped up proclaiming an active interest handling this article. At the time I posted that I did not know others had shown an interest in or stepped up to edit on that article. At this point I am flexible on keeping the article or not. I would suggest that a list should be more than a list and include actual text on the arts in Japan. New question is why can this not be added to the Japanese Art article? -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm more flexible on lists then you might think. If this information could be merged to the article on Japanese art without losing any information that could be okay. I'm not for that in some cases as it ends ups distracting from the article, but it's worth thinking about. Likewise merging List of Japanese painters, with the proviso of putting the new names in the format used here, I think should be considered. Have I even voted on this?--T. Anthony 01:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- On second thought the Japanese art article is already fairly long. However this could be made a link at the bottom of it acting as a kind of addendum of sorts.(And I'm going to put a merge notice on the painters list)--T. Anthony 01:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- 'keep please it can be expanded japanese artists are notable too Yuckfoo 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This list is a stub. Keep and expand stubs. They cannot grow if they're deleted. Wikipedia does not have a policy stating that articles must be in their complete and final form before being posted. Such a policy would be contrary to the nature of a wiki. Wikipedia actively encourages people to post new articles, and actively encourages editors to add new factual content. Fg2 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep and I would have voted the same even if I'd seen it with just one name. Fg2 explains it perfectly. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Fg2, also agree with OpenToppedBus. Dsmdgold 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Valuabe - lists have a use that categories alone cannot fulfill. Look at those artists waiting to have good, high quality articles written (subject to notability, obviously) Cactus.man ✍ 16:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Terence Ong Talk 13:55, 13 January 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Norwegian photographers
Unnecessary list, and it only has one bluelink anyway. Category:Norwegian photographers is perfectly satisfactory as a repository. Stifle 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--MONGO 05:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The list was started only yesterday. Give it enough time to populate before putting it up for deletion. Durova 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As per Durova. DaGizza Chat 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, useful list with redlinks. Why? Because people might come along and create those articles. Punkmorten 09:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, "stifle" is a good name. Punkmorten gets it.--Leifern 10:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As per Punkmorten, it's useful enough on it's own anyway. Jamorama 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, redlinks with promote the creation of articles. They'd be lost in a category. - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Okay, this is going to end up in a keep. I can't request a speedy keep because MONGO has voted to delete. Instead I'm going to come back next month and if it's still full of redlinks and/or pretty much empty, expect to see it back on AFD. Stifle 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Has plenty of red links and also has some dates, which can't be shown in the category. CalJW 14:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral default keep and wait a bit to see what happens. If those redlinks turn out to be non-notable then I will probably support a second nomination. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep because bluelinks + redlinks is a good thing. The blue validates the list, and the red shows the possibility (and need) for expansion. Turnstep 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this can be expanded not erased Yuckfoo 22:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I know this is going to end up as a "keep" anyway, but it makes much more sense as a category, not a list. If we keep the list, do we delete the category, or just have two redundant lists of the same articles? Kafziel 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete better as a category. --Revolución (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Leifern has created seven new supporting articles overnight. Pretty nearly all lists look like categories in their infancy. Let's give this a fair opportunity and support a productive editor. Durova 06:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As Japanese artists above, lists have a use that categories alone cannot fulfill. Look at those photographers waiting to have good, high quality articles written (subject to notability, obviously) Cactus.man ✍ 16:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep encyclopedic list. --Terence Ong Talk 13:57, 13 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Energy_is_a_unifying_concept
Delete. Original Research. Eugman 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's original research; but WP:NOT a how-to guide for basic physics. Merge anything relevant to Energy, then transwiki this to either wikibooks or wikisource -- I'm not sure which would be the best place. bikeable (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I can assure you that it is definitely not new research. It is an attempt to talk physics in very-lay terms to the average person. It reads more like an edu-tainment presentation. Blnguyen 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The underlying concept here is really calculus. Original Research. --Pfafrich 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Another Comment - Well, energy in this case he is considering potential energy, can be related to a force causing it, (this is valid and meaningful only when the force is conservative so that the integral of F in the coordinate space is path-independent) so that F_x = - dU/dx, x being the coordinate and U the potential energy, to give the force in that direction. This means that when dU/dx = 0, there is no force, which occurs when U is at a max/min or a saddle point, which means it can be in unstable, stable, or stable and unstable in various directions respectively. Find any 1st yr universtiy physics book, or a 2ndyr+ classical mechanics book, and this will be verified to be well-founded knowledge, which the author is trying to convey in an informal way for non-physicists. I have no previous experience with the policy of wikipedia towards the suitability of informal pedagogical presentations. Blnguyen 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I doubt there's much information to merge to Energy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 01:34Z
- Transwiki to Simple English and Delete. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm new at this whole thing so any advice to helping out would be appreciated Eugman 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm torn. On the one hand, this doesn't cite references and isn't very well formatted. On the other hand, it's entirely true, and a VERY useful technique I was taught in Physics. He's absolutely right; if energy is conserved you can simply calculate everything based on energy equations and the solution is a lot easier to get. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this is a mini-essay about two very loosely related ideas. Someone who wants to write about potential-based analysis should build on the potential and potential energy articles. Gazpacho 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Energy then Delete DaGizza Chat 07:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this content is already covered well. Salsb 12:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Authors Comment. Thanks for the discussion. I am fully in agreement that this page should be deleted and the contents moved to a new section in Energy. I started it as a seperate page to provoke the discussion, without messing with the main energy page too much, it seems that strategy worked (forgive a noob his sins). This section was not intended to talk about potential energy, nor finding the force on a capacitor. I felt having read the Energy section that were I an intelligent non-physicist, say a government legislator or a bright 14 year-old, I would still not understand why the concept of Energy was so very useful, rather like a treatise on complex numbers that does not mention that they unify solutions of polynomial equations and simplify electrical calculations. This section is intended ultimately to convey WHY people should take the time to bother to use the concept, rather than HOW to use the concept. Does it belong in wikipedia? I've read "what wikipedia is not", and it's not clear about what I'm trying to do. In part, that's why the article is so short and ill-drafted. The intention is ultimately to have one well-chosen succintly described example from each main useful branch of energy calculations (bounds on conversion, force finding, equilibrium finding etc). Where to put the section is a problem. If it grows to lots of examples, it should go at the end for risk of hijacking the main article. However, if it is to fulfil its purpose, that of getting people to spend the time reading the rest of the article, then it should really go up front. I could have spent a lot of time putting together a well-polished section only to be told that it was not wiki policy anyway. So in the spirit of "you can't break wiki, give it a try", I offer the aim of this section up for consideration. If thought appropriate, then I can work on better examples without touching the how part of the article, and referencing them out to the other articles that cover them in more depth. I guess I am really wanting the wiki to be more accessible in this article. We are all familiar with the so-called help screen, which only makes sense if we have enough background to understand its terminology. I feel that the assumed level of knowledge to be able to appreciate the information on the energy section is too high for many of the visitors that may be turning to that page for information. Expanding the breadth of the target audience is not easy. I do not advocate "dumbing-down" of the existing information, but do suggest an additional section which "reaches down" to hook people in, starting with why we should bother with the concept at all. The comment about edutainment is quite near to what was intended. It is possible that in attempting to present or sell physics, it is possible to stray away from strict NPOV, but are there really any other majority concensus ways of viewing the world? Could I go further? In teaching my children about energy, I have used the currency analogy, Joules is capital, energy is rate of spend, friction and other losses is taxes and exchange rate levys, levers and transformers get you between a few high value bills and many low value coins, it's an analogy that can pushed a surprisingly long way before it fails to inform. That's what I want to do, inform on the "would understand physics with just a little more help" level. My apologies if this is the wrong forum for that.NeilUK 09:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOR and redundant per other articles. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Move to user space. Everybody wins. Kafziel 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; transfer any relevant information to the energy article. -MegamanZero|Talk 02:10, 15 January 2006 (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 of the debate was merge and redirect. Redirects are cheap, and we need to retain the page history. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Landscape (disambiguation)
There were two Landscape disambiguation pages, Landscape and Landscape (disambiguation). With the creation of Landscape art (which was Landscape painting), making Landscaping into a disambiguation page, and redirecting all the redirects, this page is now unnecessary. Sparkit 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge the remaining meanings in Landscape (disambiguation) that aren't in the other page, then delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 07:19Z
- Move content then delete per Quarl. -- Saberwyn 07:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. We need to retain the edit history of the page when merging content to abide the GFDL (and to be able to attribute edits to individual editors). That could be done with either a history merge or a redirect. Redirecting is easier. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Boldly Merged into Landscape and redirected there :: Supergolden 17:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete following boldness. Could be done speedily, I'd say. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment why bother deleting it now its just a redirect? :: Supergolden 09:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Because unlike most redirects, which direct an alternate or misspelled name to the correct topic, I would find it highly unlikely someone is going to type "Landscape (disambiguation)" into the searchbox. -- Saberwyn 09:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment why bother deleting it now its just a redirect? :: Supergolden 09:34, 12 January 2006 (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.
[edit] January 12, 2006
- 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 of the debate was delete. Mgm makes some good points for keeping, but many of the keep arguments have been refuted, and I find it persuasive that most of the users favouring a keep have changed their minds. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Stacey Cochran
Delete, Autobiographical vanity page Will 02:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite Published author [25]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
A reluctant Keep. Although this is a POV vanity article complete with photos from the family album, Stacey does have a claim to notability, so I say we give him 30 days to rewrite - if not, we delete. Madman 04:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to Delete due to this being a vanity page. He certainly seems to know how to spread his name around, but has done nothing notable in my book. Madman 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. He is, unfortunately, notable. Crunch 05:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with tags - possibly inappropriate tone. How do we deal with vanity of someone who is notable? -- Astrokey44|talk</ small> 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable author but contents of page require rewrite to bring the tone of the language in-line with encyclopædic standards. -- (aeropagitica)
07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC) - Keep, published author with several titles on his name. If you think it needs a rewrite, either tag it for cleanup or do it yourself. - Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- And while not enough to make someone notable in itself, I think being a finalist for an Isaac Asimov Award makes it a more than average author. - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also wrote reviews for Plots with guns (major ezine). - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Alexa rank 3,694,914.--Samuel J. Howard 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can't help it that Alexa users aren't reading magazines. - 131.211.210.17 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Alexa rank 3,694,914.--Samuel J. Howard 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- If he's self-published with a PoD publisher, which do show up on Amazon, does it really count as "published?" -Will 04:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. He hasn't won any of those awards, and he's only sort of a published author: it's a vanity press[26] (yes, I know notable work can be published this way, but publishing this way does not make one notable--Samuel J. Howard 12:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- No it's a POD printer. Vanity presses cheat you out of loads of money before printing, Lulu doesn't. Besides, publishing with "a vanity press" doesn't automatically make your book non-notable either. -- Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- either way, the point is the same it's an author mill and publication there says nothing about notability.--Samuel J. Howard 12:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- delete per Samuel J. Howard. Durova 14:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with SJH. We are too lenient on these self-authored vanity projects when a vague case for notability can be made. If the subject is notable, let someone else recreate a less noxious entry later on, but in the interim kill this. Eusebeus 14:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Isaac Asimov award makes him notable. Fight bias against SF writers on Wikipedia! Cyde Weys votetalk 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)- He did not win the award, he was merely a finalist. Shoehorn 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am a science fiction reader and I voted to delete. I would also delete any other self-published non-award-winning writer. Durova
- He won an honorable mention for one story in 1998 in a contest for college undergrads. [27] That hardly makes him notable. -Will 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I won four awards in graduate school and was a finalist for others. That doesn't make me notable. Durova 08:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Changing vote to Neutral per comments on this page (especially the NaNoWriMo spamming). --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup, sufficiently notable. I see enough copies of his books on used sites to extrapolate a reasonable print run. -Colin Kimbrell 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. (1) Notability - One can either believe the claim (made on the talk page) of having several times exceeded the limit of 5,000 copies sold, or ask for proof. I believe the claim as per Colin Kimbrell's and my own observations. (2) Autobiographical - this is discouraged but not forbidden. We always have WP:NOR, WP:CITE, etc. so anyone who does not believe what is stated in the article can ask for references from reputable sources. There is a reason why posting an autobiography is discouraged, but it is not impossible to do an acceptable job. And remember, it's just the start - like all editors, Stacey should be prepared for his edits to be mercilessly edited by others. AvB ÷ talk 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- You say it's "just a start". On the contrary, the record shows he had edited his autobiography of an article over 30 times starting back in September. He shows up on the History page as 12.214.7.234. Madman 06:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, if only because Stacey achieved minor notoriety in 2004 for spamming thousands of NaNoWriMo participants. In spite of his unremarkable writing, he is notable for his relentless self-promotion, which should be reflected in the article. Shoehorn 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)- Strong delete. Let's not encourage authors of dubious notability to spam their way to the pages of Wikipedia. It's my belief that any vanity pages should be speedy deletions. If you build it, they will come-- and if you truly are notable, surely a reader will create an NPOV page for you. Ipsenaut 16:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- He's relentlessly defending his notability on the article's Talk page, too. What happened with NaNoWriMo? -Will 04:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Stacey incurred the wrath of many NaNo users, but I don't recall any official administrative action. I've pasted his spam on the talk page. The best part of the story is his reply to one of his spam victims: "I was just trying to make friends, you jerk." Shoehorn 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Changing to Delete -- He continues to revert changes to the page which refer to his notorious spam episode. Since he is unwilling to acknowledge this episode, he doesn't even deserve this much notoriety. Shoehorn 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Author is not published in the traditional sense; his books are available only via a print-on-demand publisher, and there is no verification that he meets the minimum audience standards for author notability. The Asimov award sounds notable, but it's given only to college students who have never published professionally. In fact, it's not clear that he's ever been published professionally -- his almost-prize-winning mystery novel seems to have been turned down by the publisher that sponsored the prize. (His magazine appearances seem to be mostly in semi-professional magazines.) There are thousands of local bands around the US that have bigger followings than this guy does, but they don't get articles. Monicasdude 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's okay to argue his notability on the number of books he sold, but not being published in a traditional sense doesn't make one non-notable by default. If I had enough info about them, I would write an article on the top 10 Lulu authors. - 131.211.210.17 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- No real disagreement; I was responding to the argument that being a "published" author was notable in and of itself. I don't think being "published" through Lulu is evidence of notability because anybody who wants to can be "published" through Lulu. Monicasdude 14:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's okay to argue his notability on the number of books he sold, but not being published in a traditional sense doesn't make one non-notable by default. If I had enough info about them, I would write an article on the top 10 Lulu authors. - 131.211.210.17 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd argue four things at this point.
-
- 1.) Cochran hasn't stated that his books have sold 5,000 copies per WP:BIO.
- From the article's Talk page: "With regard to the validity of the article, Wikipedia is clear on this: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. I have met this criteria several times over the past fifteen years as a writer". We cannot vote away articles per WP:BIO if they pass one or more "inclusion criteria" (though other arguments can be brought forward to delete an article). AvB ÷ talk 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- 2.) small-magazines are for writers more like what journals are for academics (see: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics) than like the journals envisioned in WP:BIO
- It's probably me, but I keep reading this as an argument for Keep voters :-O AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at the discussion of academics, it's suggested that publication in academic journals, and I think so-called small magazines are similar, is NOT evidence of notability, because of the publish or perish neccesity mutatis mutandis publishing in small magazines is important for "being a real writer" and getting the creative-writing equivalents of professorships (sometimes actually professorships). So more than just the publication in journals, the argument is that professors should be more than the average professor and not just published in a,b,c.--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, that explains it. We simply have somewhat different expectations of the outcome of the discussion of this proposed guideline. But I think your point will be difficult to defend as long as the guideline has not reached consensus and I'm also not sure it is consistent with the 5,000 cutoff point (WP:BIO). AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at the discussion of academics, it's suggested that publication in academic journals, and I think so-called small magazines are similar, is NOT evidence of notability, because of the publish or perish neccesity mutatis mutandis publishing in small magazines is important for "being a real writer" and getting the creative-writing equivalents of professorships (sometimes actually professorships). So more than just the publication in journals, the argument is that professors should be more than the average professor and not just published in a,b,c.--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's probably me, but I keep reading this as an argument for Keep voters :-O AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- 4.)The previous finalists who seem to have articles in wikipedia have other claims for notability Frank Wu's article says he won a Hugo award, Sean Williams is a New York Times Bestseller List author, Mary Turzillo won a Nebula Award, and Dave Wolverton's case is less clear, but it seems he's won and now judges the Writers of the Future award and his article alleges he holds a (minor) world record.
- --Samuel J. Howard 06:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wolverton's had novels published by Tor Books, a major mass market publisher. Clear-cut notability. Monicasdude 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, that just wasn't clear to me from a quick examination of the article. Note that this would, IMO, militate against the notability of Cochran, since Wolverton's notability is established apart from this contest finalist status--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wolverton's had novels published by Tor Books, a major mass market publisher. Clear-cut notability. Monicasdude 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- --Samuel J. Howard 06:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- 1.) Cochran hasn't stated that his books have sold 5,000 copies per WP:BIO.
- Some great edits have been made, but I think the case for notability is weaker than it was when this was first listed. We can't find a precedent for award finalists and he's self-published. This all came up after the original listing on AfD, and some of the original Keep votes were made under the assumption he won those awards and he was truly 'published.' If any are still paying attention to this, coming in and reevaluating might be helpful in getting this wrapped up. -Will 23:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Seen it too. He placed himself above Pulitzer winners on the list of alumni of his alma mater as an 'award-winning novelist' (we have established he hasn't actually won any awards). He has gone so far as to denigrate esteemed authors (e.g. Philip K. Dick) with completely unfounded comparisons to himself. Ipsenaut 00:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- He[29] is deleting the spam paragraph:
In November 2004, Cochran won the ire of writers worldwide when he sent private messages to thousands of NaNoWriMo participants, on the NaNoWriMo forum, pleading to place spurious reservations for his books at booksellers so he would be assured a sum of money per reservation. [30]
He produced a new justification for each time he reverted it. I'm not going to push myself over 3RR with this, but if he feels there's a problem, he needs to put up a factual accuracy boilerplate instead of deleting arbitrary paragraphs. Will 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep.At this point, I see nothing left in the entry that is questionable, and his short fiction publications meet the eligibility criteria regardless of whether or not his novels are self-published. I am a new user on Wikipedia and wondered how information was monitored. Now I know, and I'm glad to see that the article has been cleaned up. I believe he is notable, however, and the article should remain. --jlgssk 09:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have reason to believe the above is a sock puppet account created by the estimable Mr. Cochran, or else someone affiliated with him. Is it typical for new users-- who coincedentally teach writing and research in a college-- to start off their Wikipedia careers with obscure AfD discussion pages, and make no other edits? Ipsenaut 16:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- jlgssk, see WP:AFD: "Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." AvB ÷ talk 16:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for me, I am actually a real user, not Mr. Cochran. I'm obviously not very good at this. I've followed this discussion for awhile (and the discussion on NaNoWriMo in Nov. 2004 because my students sometimes participate in it). The constant NaNoWriMo references seem to violate NPOV, and the article with the bare facts simply didn't seem inappropriate anymore. And AvB, thanks for the link. I'm learning the rules as quickly as I can, but there's a big learning curve. I'll keep my comments to a minimum. --Susan,jlgssk 17:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Something is rotten in the state of Wikipedia: All of jlgssk's contributions show up under 'recent contributions' for 12.214.7.234 [31], the IP address that Cochran has been using to edit himself into other articles, as well as create the Stacey Cochran article. (S?)he is lying; this user is not a separate one from Mr. Cochran. If an admin can sort this mess out, I would be much obliged. -Will 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is getting absurd. He changed his name in the above post from 'John G' to 'Susan.' [32] We all forget things occasionally, but I think this is adequate evidence of shenanigans. -Will 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well spotted Will. Sock puppet hadn't signed in so got caught red-handed. Can be added to the article as another example of "harebrained schemes". jlgssk's Keep vote should be disregarded. AvB ÷ talk 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Something is rotten in the state of Wikipedia: All of jlgssk's contributions show up under 'recent contributions' for 12.214.7.234 [31], the IP address that Cochran has been using to edit himself into other articles, as well as create the Stacey Cochran article. (S?)he is lying; this user is not a separate one from Mr. Cochran. If an admin can sort this mess out, I would be much obliged. -Will 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for me, I am actually a real user, not Mr. Cochran. I'm obviously not very good at this. I've followed this discussion for awhile (and the discussion on NaNoWriMo in Nov. 2004 because my students sometimes participate in it). The constant NaNoWriMo references seem to violate NPOV, and the article with the bare facts simply didn't seem inappropriate anymore. And AvB, thanks for the link. I'm learning the rules as quickly as I can, but there's a big learning curve. I'll keep my comments to a minimum. --Susan,jlgssk 17:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Susan's my wife. Her vote should be disregarded. You can't imagine how much trouble this has caused her and I today. Please delete the article. Stacey12.214.7.234 00:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I believe you and retract the "sock puppet" designation. Most other Wikipedians will, however, view Susan as your straw man now... Anyway, the AfD now has to run its course and outright deletion is not possible. But even Adam Curry's article isn't as harsh about his faux pas - it may well serve as the template for moderating the language about your perceived misdeeds later on, should the article be kept. AvB ÷ talk 11:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, seems notable enough, despite hairbrained schemes. --King of All the Franks 17:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Pure vanity: vanity article, vanity edits, and vanity publications. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Note that he never actually won any of the awards cited, he was only a finalist. All of his books are published by a 'vanity press' publisher. The subtext here is that he couldn't find a regular publisher to take him on. Atrian 04:53, 17 January 2006 (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.
[edit] February 2, 2006
[edit] February 3, 2006
[edit] February 6, 2006
- 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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Richard Ashman
Non-notable as written Avi 01:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Royboycrashfan 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, he's an international cricket umpire - notable enough. QazPlm 01:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ruby 01:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per QazPlm. Staffelde 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. International umpire and first-class cricketer see Cricinfo [33]. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per QazPlm. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Test umpire who did 14 tests. Dr Debug (Talk) 02:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Really pushing the boundaries of notability here chaps... IMO Test Umpires are not inherently notable, unless e.g. seriously prolific to the point of record breaking (like 100+ tests) or famed for their character / personality. No problem with an article about Dickie Bird, for example... I don't envisage a significant, seriously informative expansion to this in the future so I'm going with delete. ++Deiz 03:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — Per others. Dead 40 years and still listed on several cricket web sites. Notable enough for a non-paper encyclopedia.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ] - Keep. If he'd played 6 games for the Boston Braves, then become a baseball umpire this wouldn't be up for deletion. Monicasdude 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes it goddamn well would. Not all of us are monosyllabic Americans with beer helmets. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 06:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please avoid ad hominem attacks and remain WP:CIVIL during AFD discussions. Hall Monitor 18:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Perhaps there is nothing particularly special about this umpire, but he is a lot more notable than other sporting figures.Blnguyen 05:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. At the least, he was a professional (test-level) athlete in his sport. --Kinu 06:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, he played cricket (professional sportsman) and he was an umpire in several international test cricket matches (major sporting event) which is similar to being an umpire during Wimbledon for tennis or the Superbowl for our American friends. Certainly notable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep since I am prepared to extend the definition of competing in top-level sport per WP:BLP to include umpiring test matches, even if he hadn't had a prior career at the top level; I'm not completely convinced that playing for Orange Free State qualifies there. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 11:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep sports geeks worldwide need information like this RatherConfused 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep International cricket umpire. --kingboyk 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Our job is not to decide whether we think umpires are notable, but whether this particular umpire is considered notable by third-party sources. The answer would seem to be yes, so keep. Turnstep 15:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments. Seems to be notable enough for a comprehensive non-paper encyclopedia. - N (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this international cricket umpire is worthy of note. Hall Monitor 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I have added reference from Cricinfo.com. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:11, 10 February 2006 (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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of accounting software
Delete Redundant to Category:Accounting software Karnesky 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: we also have a comparison of accounting software. (unsigned comment by JzG)
- Redirect to comparison of accounting software. I've already merged the few unique programs from this list to the comparison. I don't see any reason to keep this list now!--Karnesky 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Change to keep per Nelson Ricardo's comment. Royboycrashfan 01:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)- Keep. Categories are inadequate. They cannot hold red links for future articles, for example. If the aerticle is voted for deletion, then the deleter must ensure the list is copied back to the main accounting software article. --Nelson Ricardo 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, they can; include the red links in the commentary section of the category page. It just is not common. As for me, delete - Skysmith 12:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note There are no red links in this list. Furthermore, I've added the appropriate cat tag to all articles in the list. If, in the future, people want to request articles on accounting software, there are already mechanisms to do this without using this list. -- Karnesky 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Tricky, page has been around a while with plenty of activity but Wikipedia articles are not just lists of links, internal or external (WP:NOT 1.5.2). On that basis this is delete as (re: Karnesky) the info can and should be found elsewhere. ++Deiz 02:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Rather than having a red link in an obscure list, it would be better to simply create a stub article on any program to be added to the category and let it be fleshed out later. Stubs are much more encyclopedic than red links.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ] - Delete since that's what categories are here for. -- 9cds(talk) 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. As long as we're citing wp:not, "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This list article has structure not reflected in the corresponding category. There is no policy or consensus against having a list and a category with the same scope. I don't understand the reasoning on this AfD at all.Melchoir 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note. I agree that lists can be fine. I made no complaints about lists of links in the AfD. However, the only "stucture" this list lends is in licensing. So why not create two subcats to the main category accounting software? The reason for this AfD is that the cats are more maintainable than this list & the list, itself, adds very little (licensing). --Karnesky 08:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- It would be harmful to sub-split a category with only 34 articles. This list page is the only way to have all the items on one page, yet still sorted. Okay, so it currently sucks. It could use further breakdown by purpose, or maybe a short description of every item. It can be improved. Melchoir 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Why would it be harmful? I actually think having a cat of Free accounting software would be useful, as it could be cross-listed under the Free software cat. -- Karnesky 08:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Because there would no longer be a single place where you could see all the items. One of the purposes of a category is to guide the reader between its articles. Splitting it would make it less efficient. Melchoir 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Why would it be harmful? I actually think having a cat of Free accounting software would be useful, as it could be cross-listed under the Free software cat. -- Karnesky 08:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- It would be harmful to sub-split a category with only 34 articles. This list page is the only way to have all the items on one page, yet still sorted. Okay, so it currently sucks. It could use further breakdown by purpose, or maybe a short description of every item. It can be improved. Melchoir 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note. I agree that lists can be fine. I made no complaints about lists of links in the AfD. However, the only "stucture" this list lends is in licensing. So why not create two subcats to the main category accounting software? The reason for this AfD is that the cats are more maintainable than this list & the list, itself, adds very little (licensing). --Karnesky 08:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The reason categories exist... ComputerJoe 08:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a harmless list article. JIP | Talk 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep.(changed vote, see below) Categories don't make lists obsolete. Lists allow for organization which differs from alphabetical order and annotation which categories can't. Needs some explanatory info added, but otherwise okay list. - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Can I interest Sir in a comparison of accounting software, one careful owner, only slightly shopsoiled? ;-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, merge and redirect to comparison of accounting software. - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can I interest Sir in a comparison of accounting software, one careful owner, only slightly shopsoiled? ;-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
Deleteas written, redundant per category, will change to keep if some encyclopaedic information is added (e.g. modules available, whether it's tax accounting or small business book-keeping or whatever) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 11:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Yes, lists add information categories cannot. In this case, I do not think that a list is necessary. Lord Bob 18:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Ouuplas 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, a list which provides information the category cannot, together with the category, is more beneficial than the category alone. --bainer (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant to category. I do not see what information that a category doesn't provide. If you want to make the division between free and proprietary, use subcategories. There is no information on this page that couldn't be put on a category page. Stifle 11:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Lists and categories are complementary, not competitive. Seems like a useful, verifiable list with a well-defined criteria. Turnstep 15:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it seems like it until you compare it with comparison of accounting software which is massively more useful and contains encyclopaedic content as well as the links which would be provided by a category :-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, that's a good point - the two lists are certainly competing, aren't they? Since one is a beefed-up version of the other, I'll switch to merge duplicated information (if any) and delete. Turnstep 12:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems like it until you compare it with comparison of accounting software which is massively more useful and contains encyclopaedic content as well as the links which would be provided by a category :-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
- Delete. Good arguments on both sides. Currently, this list is more flexible than the comparison table, and (perhaps not a coincidence) there is now another red link on the page. However, the list is essentially duplicated by the comparison table. Suggest the comparison table article doubles as the list article. If necessary to have items which are not within the table, these can be in a separate section. Slowmover 17:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note that the redlink was for Peachtree Software, which did have an article. --Karnesky 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Siva1979Talk to me 15:13, 10 February 2006 (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.
[edit] February 9, 2006
- 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 of the debate was keep this crap. Ifnord 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Crap
There is already an entry on Wiktionary for crap. This article has been and remains marked as Move to Wiktionary. If it is already on Wiktionary than it should be deleted from here in favor of the Wiktionary entry. Further, I do not see that this article is anymore than an elaborate dictdef as was purported when the prod tag was removed. James084 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Although some may be offended by this article, wikipedias goal is to have an article an anything useful. i used this to see if my my girlfriend loved me (dont ask)
- Keep. There is a section at the bottom that can be used as a dis-ambiguation page for the uses of the word. Georgia guy 01:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Royboycrashfan 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Reasonable article especially with dab aspects. Move to Wiktionary tag removed. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete DicDef, not enough crap there for a full-up encyclopedia article Ruby 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, crap.(Sorry, I've always wanted to type that on AfD.) Change to disambiguation page, agreeing with Georgia guy. The rest is properly Wiktionary content, not Wikipedia. Barno 01:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)- Delete This dicdef is a piece of... garbage. And don't you dare insult Thomas Crapper!!! --M@thwiz2020 02:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Change bottom section of article to disambiguation page and delete the rest of crap. --FloNight 02:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disambig or redirect to feces. Peyna 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to feces. -Jetman123 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Disambig; its a dictionary def --Bletch 03:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As per Flonight. Mike (T C)
04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC) - Keep it does not look just as a dictionary entry --Angelo 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is more than a dicDef. Particularly the information dispelling the myth that it derives from Thomas Crapper. Paul August ☎ 04:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Disambiguation possibilities are stretching (since none of them are actually the word "crap". Fagstein 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep interesting article. I learnt something new today! Jcuk 09:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
DeleteI meant keep, of course, per the very good Paul August. ENCEPHALON 10:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)- Keep per Paul August. Not all the useful information is in Wiktionary, nor should it be. The Etymology and myth dispelling is encyclopedic Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it's a common word and if deleted it will be recreated. Elfguy 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep per above ComputerJoe 14:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this crap and have a disambig and link to wikt. instead. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per above. Neither wiktionary nor disambiguation are appropriate if either mean the loss of information. Smerdis of Tlön 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The article is an extended dictionary entry and WP:NOT and all that. Mikkerpikker ... 17:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is a very common word. If the article is deleted, it will likely be created again. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per above. Ibn Abihi 18:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this necessary crap. It is a very common word, likely to be recreated. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this is not a dictionary definition really Yuckfoo 19:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- delete disambig page would get absurd....per nom not an encylopedic entryAnlace 22:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disambig this should be nothing more than a page linking to other approprate pages... all other content is in Wiktionary... Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Topic is encyclopedic, and article is more than a dicdef. --Allen 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep based on the precedent of Shit. If etymological discussions of dirty words is encyclopedic as retention of the cited article indicates, then certainly crap should stay as well. Carlossuarez46 00:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The discussion is encyclopedic, not lexicographic, in tone and scope. Ikkyu2 02:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per Carlossuarez46. Forbsey 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Shamed keep - it is an encyclopedic topic too, and it can be expanded upon.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep there's encyclopedic information about the word too. Car salesman 14:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- delete per norm. 3H 05:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this article is way more than a dicdef. Turnstep 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep according to precedents with articles like fuck and shit. If they can exist, "crap" certainly can. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:08, 14 February 2006 (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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] King levitation
At Ellusionist.com you have to BUY this. You have to PAY money to know the secret. Its terrible that people can search this site for the secret, while others pay their hard earned money. CrazedNakedFooll 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep It may not be that encyclopedic but I think it can be improved to be of encyclopedic quality. The nominee's reason is invalid, though. --M@thwiz2020 02:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. For those who are interested, there is a very extensive discussion of the pros and cons of publishing the "secrets" to magic tricks at Talk:Out of This World (card trick). This is a minor twist on the so-called Balducci levitation, and might be comfortably merged there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would not call this a "minor twist" on the Balducci. I can understand how a layperson comparing the two methods in a few minutes might be led to that conclusion. But consider creating your own levitation illusion from scratch. It took Corey King more than a year to develop this "minor twist."Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Reason invalid. But, if you come up with a better reason, I'll change my vote.--Muchosucko 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete or merge two sentences to Balducci levitation, advertisement for commercial website. Google search shows this is real, but I question its notability (separate from the intellectual-property issue). Frankly, if I paid a dollar (let alone $19.95 or more as the website offers) and someone taught me this supposed "magic trick", I'd ask for my money back and contact the Federal Trade Commission. Barno 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Generally only magicians think that this trick is worth paying that much for. This is partly why magic tricks are SOLD. Magicians normally feel that only people who respect magic as an art form should know magic secrets. People who do respect magic will pay for an effect, where as a layperson won't, thereby restricting the secret to someone who truly has use for it.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Muchosucko. Royboycrashfan 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This has been done to death. Kuru 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
KeepRedirect back to where it was pointing before. It's obviously NOT a secret, or it wouldn't be so widely published. Peyna 03:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- So should be publish all magic secrets, just because people can't keep their mouths should and share the secrets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs)
- WP should publish everything that is verifiable and encyclopedic. Peyna 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's not verifiable without buying the product. - Mgm|(talk) 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Many of the magic articles here on WP (including this one) seem to be used for the explicit purpose of exposing the secret of an effect. Exposing magic secrets is not encyclopedic. However, I believe that if the articles can be improved to reflect all aspects of the effect (author, effect, comparison, history, and method), it may justify keeping them.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Ardenn 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak weak Delete I have to think that somehow this could come back to haunt us. Despite how basic the trick seems, it was some magicans hard work/"trade secret", and we're basically stealing it by posting it here. Mike (T C) 04:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just to reiterate; something cannot be a "trade secret" if it is not a secret. This is not a secret, because it has been published. Peyna 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Harmless. --Aaron 04:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete- I don't care about the fact that money is being charged for this, I just don't feel that it's worth an article. Reyk 06:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it's delete-worthy but not with that rationale. Try again. --Agamemnon2 07:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you think it should be deleted, vote delete. Other rationale has been presented by other contributors, and there is no reason to let a bad article survive due to a technicality. Reyk 07:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, second choice: merge as Balducci variation if kept, just because someone puts it up on the net doesn't mean it was legal to do so. Maybe it's not a "trade secret", but it's certainly someone's interlectual property. In Dutch, this would be called "inkomstenderving", an action that prevents someone from getting paid for their product which, as far as I know, is illegal. Besides, it's not as widely known as the Balducci levitation, the cups and balls or the floating lady. - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- IP rights are granted by the government in the forms of trade secret, patent and copyright (in the US, where Wikipedia is located and where ellusionist.com is located. Trade secret protection doesn't fly here, because it's not a secret. It hasn't been patented, so there's no rights there, and copyright only applies to a particular expression of an idea, which is not the case here. Wikipedia is under no threat of legal action for posting this page. Peyna 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as long as the secret is revealed, as it currently is, then it's worth keeping, and followed the "all information wants to be free" motto. Some people keep reverting it to try to hide the information and that shouldn't be allowed. Remember if we delete it we do these people a service since the secret will be lost. Elfguy 14:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't understand this reasoning. You're saying that this article only has value if the secret of the effect is revealed. This would suggest that nothing else related to the effect is important. Not the person who created the effect; not the facts of its development and history; not the place it is sold or the people who use it; and certainly nothing about how it fits into the history of magic levitations. Even if the page had all of that, if it didn't include the method it would be worthless? Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- keep. Good short article in the vein of our other magic articles. Knowing a secret is not hard work. Brighterorange 15:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Terence Ong (�?喜�?�财) 15:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as scoring only 98 unique googles, but BJAODN the nomination :-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The secrets of stage magicians, like the secrets of secret societies, are not anything Wikipedia should be censored to respect. Smerdis of Tlön 16:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Writing this article without respect for magicians makes the article biased (against magicians) and should not be allowed. I don't see any reason magic secrets should not be included on Wikipedia. However, I think there is a right way to give away secrets (with detailed information on other aspects of the effects), and a wrong way (with a brief introduction half the size of the explained secret).Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia is not censored for magicians. Dr Debug (Talk) 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Siva1979Talk to me 17:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep What Agamemnon2 said --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This trick was revealed on one of those "Secrets of Magic" shows on TV at least 3 years ago. I've been freaking kids out with it for years. I've never actually heard it called by this name, but David Blane and others have been doing it for years. I applaud Ellusionist.com's sense of capitalism, charging for a trick that is freely available online. Maybe people paying for it should take the time to do a little more research. Wikipedia isn't in the business of keeping illusionists' secrets, so the article should stay.--Isotope23 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- A lot of companies make A LOT of money providing services to information which is freely available. Lexis Nexis and Westlaw have been very succesful at this. While we can't reprint their copyrighted contributions to that material, we certainly can publish all of the government works that are already public domain that they provide for a fee. It's the "other" services they offer that add the value (searching, ease of acces, support, indexing, etc). That said, I'm not sure what value Ellusionist.com adds to their products, other than neat packaging. Peyna 19:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite, the product (variant trick) was there before people posted it to the net, so ellusionist isn't marking free information. The people posting it are ripping off a commericial product. - Mgm|(talk) 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- A ha! But, ideas are not copyrightable. Peyna 23:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note that this effect was not exposed years ago. The illusion Isotope23 referred to is called the Balducci levitation, which has in fact been exposed for much longer than 3 years. I learned the secret when I was a child from a children's television program over a decade ago (really). The King levitation however was developed just in the last few years, and has not be widely used or exposed. Whereas you can say the Balducci has been popularized by magicians like Blaine, you can say nothing of the sort about this levitation, which hasn't been around long enough to be widely publicized to the layperson.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Duly noted... Your latest rewrite makes clear the difference between Balducci and King's variant. Nice rewrite by the way.--Isotope23 21:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite, the product (variant trick) was there before people posted it to the net, so ellusionist isn't marking free information. The people posting it are ripping off a commericial product. - Mgm|(talk) 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- 'keep please this is a important magic trick Yuckfoo 19:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep provided issues of verifiability are adequately resolved. The "money" issue is irrelevant; Amazon.com charges $4.95 for Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, while Project Gutenberg provides it free[34]. Encyclopedia Britannica charges money for information that can be obtained free in many places, notably Wikipedia. The local Blockbuster charges money for videos that can be checked out for free from our public library. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is certainly nothing secretive about this illusion. It's one of many ways to go about creating a levitation effect, and absolutely should included in the wikipedia. Stevemarks 00:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- All magic effects have an element of secrecy. They are not legally secrets, but they are known only by a limited number of people (mostly magicians). It is not a secret to any of you, simply because you all regularly read Wikipedia articles, and have read this article. Remember though that just because everyone in this community may know the secret to this effect doesn't mean that most people in the world know it. I doubt that even 1% of the population knows how this effect is done.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it seems notable and I agree with Peyna that the legal issue is phoney: want to know may square miles is Italy: buy an atlas for $20, subscribe to Britannica.com for whatever the price.... or...gosh, it's free on Wikipedia, and someone lost some money. Carlossuarez46 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as no valid reason for deletion provided. Stifle 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - it can be improved upon, probably.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think I will take the initiative and improve it right know.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - The article lacks references, and the trick described is not noteworthy in the least. Kleg 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Remember that just because you don't have a particular interest in the effect doesn't mean no-one else does.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - "you have to pay money to learn this somewhere else". Well then, I guess you'd have to delete almost the entire Wikipedia database, because you have to pay to get the same info from Encyclopedia Britannica. Free information is the whole point of this place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.100.60 (talk • contribs)
- Keep per DrDebug. Turnstep 01:50, 14 February 2006 (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.
