The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete as unsourced and seeming WP:COI. Primary claim to notability is not established by reliable sources. The Xuzo article, conveniently created on 11 Nov 2006 and unattributed, fails the WP:RS test. Userfy on request. ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep e-commerce is a big part of modern life and that makes him notable; though the article is in dire need of wikifying. Rlevse 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it does not. What would demonstrate that xe is notable are cited sources to demonstrate that this person satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. This article cites no sources at all, and it is not enough at AFD to take an unsourced article at face value. If this person truly is the inventor of electronic commerce, sources will exist recording this. John Lake looked for sources below, using Google. Please do the same and look for sources yourself. Please actually do the research. Uncle G 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That's why I said it needs wikified.Rlevse 19:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You appear to be confused as to what wikification is. It is nothing to do with you doing the research and citing sources. Moreover, doing the research to substantiate the claims is something that you have to do yourself. Uncle G 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I have wikified the article, and formatted about as much as I am willing to do. I still think that it is afd material. --evrik(talk) 20:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per submitter. I don't think the article really establishes notability. Tempshill 18:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete What we have here is a failure to establish notability, it failed google hits and the writers name is mighty similiar to the article name.--John Lake 18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What we have here is a failure to establish notability ← You should propose this for the next WP:BJAODN title... ~ trialsanderrors 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as soon as possible. None of the things he claims about himself make him notable. Wavy G 19:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete article is a vanity article (considering the user himself submitted it) and fails to meet the standards of WP:BIO.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unsourced, nn notable.--Dakota 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute...at least don't speedy-- I found this: "John Seely-Gant, F. Gordon Zophy, Gary Heiselberg, and George Fonda, consultants at Booz- Allen & Hamilton established the first U.S.Government electronic commerce system in 1981. This system, known as Automation of Procurement and Accounting Data Entry (APADE) was developed and fielded for the U.S. Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania." in an article about "Ecommerce and its implications". There may be something to this. 24.73.183.101 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The above post was me-- I don't know how I got logged out. OfficeGirl 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment The "Ecommerce and its implications" article is not a reliable source. See my comment on Xuzo belo Bwithh 23:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Here, it seems he was a preseter at a major Defense Contractors Conference: "DEVOR. R. E. and J. SEELY-GANT. World Wide Web-enabled my collaboration through dynamically linked engineering testbeds. Defense Mfg. Conf. (Dallas, Tex., Nov. 1995). " OfficeGirl 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If there is something to this, that isn't evidence of it. The web page that you linked to is a straight word-for-word, but not GFDL compliant, mirror of our electronic commerce article. The text that you are quoting was added to that article by Seelygant(talk·contribs), the creator of this article, in these edits. We still only have John Seely-Gant's sole word for any of this. Uncle G 20:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, dear, I had no idea I had stumbled on to a mirror site. However, I don't think John Seely-Gant is the originator of this article. It may be his son or a close relative who is very proud of him. I emailed the subject of this article directly to ask him how we might document his accomplishments. He responded with some initial information and promised to follow-up. What makes me think that he did not write the article himself is a change in language that he asked for, as he said in his e-mail: It may be more accurate to characterize me as a "pioneer" than as an "originator" (though I did devise the first U.S. DoD ecommerce system with some others while at Booz, Allen). While I concur with Uncle G's assertion that we still don't have documented sources, I think I can get real sources before this discussion is concluded and that this man has been a significant player in the history of the development of the Internet and e-commerce. I request that someone notify me before any Admin action to delete so that I can userfy this article and get it into good shape for re-posting as a good article. Thanks. OfficeGirl 21:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:V. No relevant hits on Factiva news database. No hits on google books, google scholar. No reliable hits on main google. Xuzo article linked is hosted by a website which accepts any article submission from anyone who wants "free publicity"[1]. If this guy really had a strong claim to be an ecommerce pioneer, there should be a much much greater internet information footprint than this. Bwithh 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Since his involvement in the Department of Defense E-commerce work happened in the 1980's, then we may well need to rely on print sources for this, not internet websites. I really think the sources are out there. I'll let you know. OfficeGirl 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Well good luck, but its not as if the United States of the 1980s is poorly covered by internet sources, magazine/news articles or books which are archived online. Factiva database coverage goes back to the 1980s for major news sources in US or even 1970s for a few sources. Google Books archives books going back well into the 1800s Bwithh 02:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Note to closing admin If this afd closes as delete, please may the e-commerce article could be purged of related content due to issues identified by Uncle G Bwithh 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Bwithh, did you forget that you are able to boldy edit the electronic commerce article yourself? If no citation is give for the fact in that article, you are certainly acting within guidelines to take it out of the article. OfficeGirl 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion discussion has not closed yet. It would be out of order for me to go ahead and remove the text related to this article in another article when the afd discussion has not been removed. Bwithh 02:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It's okay with me if that's your interpretation of procedure, but I still think you are within policy to boldly edit in that matter. That's a completely different article and no citation of references is always a solid reason to remove an asserted fact, even if the fact is real and true. In any case, please keep in mind that we are talking about a living person here. Let's don't accuse him of things like fraud and a hoax when we have no evidence of that. We don't want to get into a slander an libel situation. All we know for sure is that the original author of this article did a poor job of documenting his sources-- actually didn't tackle the job of documenting sources at all before posting an article. I have begun rather extraordinary efforts to locate documentation of reliable sources for this article and I'm actually quite good at that task. Let's don't jump to a conclusion just because the source material doesn't just pop up instantly on our computer screens. Google isn't the only research tool that there is. I've seen many an AfD turn on a dime when the sources are located and change to "keep." As someone who has had no previous contact with this subject I think I will be able to give a neutral assesment of the documentation, and I will make this into a good Wikipedia article we can all be proud of if the sources turn out to be good. I know good evidence when I see it, and I wont be bashful about explaining that the evidence doesn't pass muster either. If the sources are iffy, I will report the same here on this AfD and advise the subject of the article that neither I nor any of the other editors on Wikipedia can do anything with it. I haven't even voted to "keep" yet-- just requested not to "speedy." A lot can happen in five days. I'm not just arguing a position-- I'm committed to do the work to back it up if this article can be saved.OfficeGirl 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Invented e-commerce but is barely mentioned on teh Internets? That claim is smells so wildly overblown as to almost be a hoax. If you put his name in quotes you get even fewer hits. Plus, Google News and Books turn up goose eggs. JChap2007 00:47, 17 November 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 was delete. Grandmasterka 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This was a stub I wrote a long time ago about a local Baltimore band. It was speedied before I noticed, so I've restored it because it is clearly not speediable under A7. The article claims notability, and cites it (though the link didn't work because the source changed urls, I have found the new url and fixed the link). Whether or not it is enough is another question, so I have nominated it here. Tuf-Kat 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose deletion as it meets WP:MUSIC 6. Tuf-Kat 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non notable garage band. •Elomis• 02:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. One brief mention in a local paper is not enough to be a reliable source. Article doesn't meet verifiability policy. --Wafulz 03:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Stubby little article cites 1 source which is possibly a blog. Insufficient evidence of notability, not very encyclopedic. Edison 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete How does this assert notability? The link doesn't even say who the "prominent musicians" are. "Fascist Fascist is a punk rock supergroup, made up of Baltimore musicians from other notable bands. With female vocals over standard punk song constructions, the band pulls off a sound totally refreshing and relevant." This is 1. a passing mention, and 2. there is no claim that these other bands are notable for Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 08:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Even with the edit it stilll doesnt meet the WP:MUSIC criteria.SkierRMH 09:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:MUSIC states that they must have either a number 1 hit or sold over 500,000 copies. Atlantis Hawk 10:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. I also believe that TUF-KAT, as the article's creator, shouldn't have used xyr admin privileges to undelete the article. He or she should have requested a deletion review instead. AecisDancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, I don't care what the content is. TUF-KAT should not have restored this entry without going through WP:DRV. For shame. -- Plutortalk 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Contested speedy deletions should go to AFD, not DRV in my opinion. Either way, cut the guy some slack for nominating the article for deletion on his own, will you? RFerreira 06:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
But articles in which an admin is involved should not be undeleted by the admin himself/herself, as that is a misuse of admin privileges. TUF-KAT should have let another admin undelete the article following a request on DRV. AecisDancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete It still does not seem to meet the WP:MUSIC standards and its ghits turn up very few results for the band itself.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable band. Tempshill 18:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence that this meets WP:MUSIC yet, but I agree with the nom that this was an invalid speedy deletion and support him for doing the right thing. RFerreira 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Does not appear to come close to meeting guidelines set forth in WP:MUSIC. The article should have gone to Deletion Review before being resurrected. Movementarian (Talk) 09:47, 20 November 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 was Speedy keep, nomination by vandal, nobody else reccomends deletion. Also the issue of the nominator voting after his nomination, and claiming sockpuppets for no good reason. Complain about my boldness if you feel like it. -Amarkovblahedits 01:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep no reason given to delete. Significant teachings of a significant religious movement. ReverendG 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete 9000 google hits. delete. non notalbe not significan. spam. of Wikipdia as platform. possible sockpuppets and single article accounts.--137.146.140.75 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep It is entirely irrelevant how many hits this gets compared to Lutheranism. That isn't a Wikipolicy. Additionally, the anonymous nominator (137.146.140.75) who put this up for AfD is a vandal. [4], [5], [6]. This is most likely a bad-faith nomination. IrishGuytalk 00:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - As per Irish guy, this is probably a bad nomination.... Spawn Man 00:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The AFD article was incorrectly titled and not listed in the daily log. I have moved and listed it. Fan-1967 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This article makes my head hurt. Keep, but cleanup and put it in language that's actually understandable by someone not in the cult. --humblefool® 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep nomination in bad faith? Weak reason, not to mention 9000 seems notable Killerhun00 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. The reasons given in the blurb is an outright non-sequitur (comparing this to Lutheranism? Gimme a break!), and s/he's giving a litany of reasons that mean nothing in the actual cast. I call bad faith as well. --Dennisthe2 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - at this point, I'm going to add to my listing that I suspect the user is also trying to prove a point for some reason (ref WP:POINT). This is strictly by instinct - AMMV. --Dennisthe2 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep and heavy cleanup. Nominated by a regular vandal with no real reasoning. --Wafulz 00:56, 16 November 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 was Delete.--Húsönd 05:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Article is unsourced and probably unverifiable. -- Donald Albury 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - If it had a reference, I'd say keep... Spawn Man 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Try to find a source to reference. I couldn't. -- Donald Albury 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Crystal ballism. Write the article once it's released. Shimeru 00:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Shimeru. Bigtop 01:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Nominator or anyone interested may want to put a single for this album, Mr. DJ (song), up for deletion as well. If this goes, then so must the song. As for "keep or delete", I think this is merely a prematurely made article that may become article-worthy in the future if this rumored album indeed gets released. Whether that means keep and wait or delete and wait, I don't know. —EdGl 01:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the Tweet single "Oops, Oh my" (mmm Timbaland r0x0r!) but this is worth of delete Missvain 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - this is too speculative. - Richardcavell 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete speculative lack of verification and speculative Mrbowtie 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete the words "It has been speculated" come into crystal ball territory. Unreferenced, I googled it and found nothing about it.--John Lake 19:07, 16 November 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 was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 09:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This has been tried as a CSD and a prod, and on both occasions the tag was removed with little or no addition of notability-related material. Essentially, we're dealing with an article which was written by the subject and is about someone who appears to be a run-of-the-mill evangelist. I don't doubt that he's doing good works, just that he's notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Articles subject seems to mostly fail WP:BIO. Tarret 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't see, really, even an assertion of notability. Google comes up with a few appearances (and a few genealogy sites) but not much else. And the article itself is dreadful: promotional, NPOV, possibly vanity COI. Fan-1967 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the lack of an assertion of notability - that was what I'd speedied it for. Turns out it had been prodded for much the same thing, so when the speedy was removed I felt it was time to view it as a "controversial deletion". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Calling him 'run of the mill' is probably insulting to mills. Encise 00:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Encise
Keep He has a legitimate National Ministry across Canada. He is also VP for FCF of Canada, a Canada wide sister ministry of Faith Christian Fellowship International with works in 42 Nations of the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.161.139 (talk • contribs)
Notability has nothing to do with whether he's legitimate or not. There are tens of thousands of people with a "legitimate ministry". Fan-1967 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
keep Notability is the importance of somebody or something, or the quality that makes somebody or something worth paying attention to. Shawn’s work among Canadian ministries and churches make him notable or worth paying attention to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnAnnis (talk • contribs) — ShawnAnnis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Wikipedia has a definition of Notability that you should read. The problem here is that we do not have any external, third-party Reliable Sources that make Shawn Annis look more notable than thousands of other ministers and evangelists. Most of the article reads like personal accounts and descriptions, possibly autobiographical, rather than sourced, encyclopdedic data. Fan-1967 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO, as above. --King Bee 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO and this is an advertisement: "Shawn is anointed by God to help you get where you want to go and is available for vision facilitation and strategic planning sessions." OfficeGirl 01:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as borderline ad. Fails WP:BIO in any case. Seraphimblade 02:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per A7 ta-ta Missvain 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and would add it reads like WP:SPAM (advert).SkierRMH 09:06, 16 November 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 was speedy deleted by admin. --Terence Ong(C | R) 07:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per A7 - peace out! Missvain 03:38, 16 November 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 was delete. Jarandawat's sup 02:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Non-notable school which fails the proposed notability guideline of WP:SCHOOL. Tarret 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep I think it passes WP Schools Killerhun00 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Which part of the extremely generous WP:SCHOOLS does it pass? JChap2007 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The part that says all schools are inherently notable, LOL! Dennitalk 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep but clean up. Encise 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Encise
Comment Any reason for keeping? JoshuaZ 23:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, NN private elementary school. --humblefool® 00:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, NN elementary school with no sources. Shimeru 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, unsourced, private (so it doesn't even meet the "keep all schools because they serve a public service" criteria), rather newly-opened (so it doesn't pass the ridiculous 50-year criterion) elementary school. -- Kicking222 01:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
comment Just because a school is private doesn't mean that it does provide a public service. -- Librarianofages 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And just because a school exists doesn't mean it's notable. -- Kicking222 03:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep All schools are inherently notable, including this one -- Librarianofages 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No they aren't, schools have to proove why they are notable. TJ Spyke 04:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Any explanation of why all schools are notable would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 15:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Whack it with a ruler No reliable sources in the article and I could not find any. JChap2007 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete no schools are notable, especially not this one! Xtifrtälk 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails criteria WP:SCHOOL, has 480 students- I went to one that had 2000 and I'd vote delete on it for the same reason.--John Lake 19:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Utterly fails WP:SCHOOLS3. "All schools are inherently notable" is an opinion, not a fact. Dennitalk 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Make it go sit in the corner - Non-notable, fails WP:SCHOOL, WP:V, and WP:NOT. And I couldn't find anything on it either. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Elaragirl: does not assert notability. Moreschi 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, asserted as a notable Catholic school in Oklahoma. --Vsion 04:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Show me some sources and then we'll talk. RFerreira 05:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Searching for info on the school is not easy since multiple schools seem to have this name. I was unable to confirm the claim that the school is "the largest Catholic elementary school in the state of Oklahoma" which might constitute a weak claim of notability if true. Aside from that I can find no evidence of notable alumni, no evidence of clubs or teams performing at a notable level nor any other claim that could confer notability. JoshuaZ 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Week Keep Largest Catholic school in a distinctly non-Catholic area is a claim of notability. Article needs expansion to provide addition context. Alansohn 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails pretty much any notability guideline, adopted or not. Expanded it and we'll talk. Trusilver 02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Elizabeth Ann Seton and perhaps place a footnote that this school is named in her honour. There is also a school of the same name in Alaska, otherwise I would have suggested redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City. I don't see how this school is meets WP:SCHOOLS by it's own merits. Redirect discourages recreation!Movementarian (Talk) 10:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
keep notable school!!! Audiobooks 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Is there some basis to that claim at all? Adding exclamation marks doesn't make the claim any more persuasive. JoshuaZ 21:39, 20 November 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 was speedy delete as a repost. cholmes75(chit chat) 19:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. This isn't game-guide stuff, it's just defining some terms that the reader might not know. If we had more KH pages link here, it might get better. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 02:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. This would be better off in a gaming wiki. --Wafulz 03:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, WP is not a game guide. TJ Spyke 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, with the suggestion to User:Xer to start a web page with this information - this is better suited to a web page. --Dennisthe2 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Vote changed, see below --Dennisthe2 07:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is not a game guide (just because it's a page that's not on the main page of a game, does not make it a game guide). However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary either and the page can't avoid being a bunch of dictionary definitions with no sources. ColourBurst 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge It does not need it's own page. scope_creep 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NOT (game guide, collection of cruft, dictionary), and has nothing in the article that couldn't simply be merged in (and not much of that). --Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 16:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Recreation. I can assure you that some entries are complete bullshit, such as "Corridoors of Light" and "Chasers". There's a lot of things that were never indicated as such in the games. Interrobamf 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment There's actually very little strategic content in the article, so there's a good chance the strategy wikis will reject them. The game wikis might take them if the licenses were compatible. ColourBurst 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Recreation as pointed out above, also WP:NOT a game guide. Sandstein 19:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per Interrobamf. wikipediatrix 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This defies WP:NOT on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin! RFerreira 05:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per Interrobamf, good call there. Posted the banner, it won't survive the night. --Dennisthe2 07:22, 17 November 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 was merge. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete 27,000 results is a testament to good search engine optimisation skills, not neccessarily assertion of notability. •Elomis• 02:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
*Delete per above nom's Missvain 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge Though it was reformatted and more information given, if this is all the information avaiable, it should be merged. Missvain 15:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete an advert/promo article has no place on Wikipedia. Does not meet notability guidelines either.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 19:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello? This is not even slightly spammy! Merge to International Telecommunication Union or Keep. I was all ready to jump on the evil spammers, but this is CLEARLY not spam! There is no way that an agency of the UN feels the need to spam Wikipedia! This is clearly bureaucratic, governmental jargon, and probably not yet notable enough for it's own article (although the very similar Human Development Index has its own article), but there's plenty of room for it in the article about the agency that originated it. And if it continues to be a UN standard, there's every chance it will come to deserve its own article before long (if it doesn't already). And guess what? I figured all this out with only a couple of minutes of research, mostly without even leaving Wikipedia! Xtifrtälk 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've rewritten the article to make it a lot more clear that this is a UN standard, and I've put some information about the index into the article about the ITU agency, so we can easily go with either merge or keep now. Xtifrtälk 11:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Original proposer - would highly urge a merge with International Telecommunication Union; still nothing to indicate that this should be a stub.SkierRMH 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment in light of a fairly clear concensus to merge, I've fixed the DAB page at DOI to point to International Telecommunication Union#Standards, where the index is mentioned, and moved the original article to Digital Opportunity Index, as a better location for a redirect (and, likewise, a better place for the article if an unexpected last-minute consensus to keep turns up). Xtifrtälk 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Late dissenter: While this is something invented by the ITU, people may come across this out-of-context, and following a link into a much more general article is a confusing experience for the newcomers. Cost of having a separate article is low (I think). WRT comments about 27.000 hits being "search engine optimization": Look at WHERE those hits come from. People USE that concept. --Alvestrand 05:40, 20 November 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 was Delete as unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors 00:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I first noticed this article when I saw users fighting back and forth on the reliability of forum posts as sources- there was a pretty heated debate about the software and neutrality. Anyway, I pointed out on the talk page that this article needs sources to be verified. I've pleaded for sources on the talk page and in edit summaries, saying the page could be deleted if none were presented. None have been, so it's my belief that the article does not meet WP:SOFTWARE and is not unverifiable. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources on Google either. Wafulz 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If we delete it then someone is going to recreate it soon after, using the same sources. So what would be the point? And why does your google link go to the third results page? —Kn0wItAll 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, the Google link was on the page I was viewing. I've fixed it. If the page is recreated, it will be deleted on site and protected from recreation. --Wafulz 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - On the other hand following WP:SOFTWARE "Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users ......."" can be referenced in the WIKI. There do indeed appear to be paid users of this software. I agree its marginal, but I tend to take the view that if there is a community demand for a page, and the editing and talk page discussions evidence this demand, then a page should stay. Timharwoodx 01:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Are there any independent sources to verify anything though? Keep in mind there is currently a neutrality dispute on the page because nobody is presenting any sources about anything. --Wafulz 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This link has no actual information about the product other than stating its website doesn't have spyware. --Wafulz 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - I agree with Timharwoodx. Vodei has 193,000 results in Google. There is clearly interest. —Kn0wItAll 04:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Google hits don't matter if there are no sources. WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, while WP:V is a strict policy. --Wafulz 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Timharwoodx misquotes WP:SOFTWARE. Software with a consistent number of users "may be merged into the article describing their main functionality (for example, an article about a random disk editor may be merged into a section of disk editor.)" There's absolutely nothing in the guideline that would justify keeping this article! At best you could argue for a merge if you could find some appropriate article. Otherwise, this fails bothWP:V and WP:SOFTWARE and should be deleted. Xtifrtälk 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment IMNSHO, Vodei is just a scheme to get you to download something that will then nag you for money. The software isn't particularly useful, and seems notable mostly for the number of people who are annoyed with it. As adware goes, it's actually fairly benign compared to some of the stuff out there. I really don't care if we delete this or not, but I want to point out that we have articles on Cydoor, Zango, and other such nuisances, so I don't see any reason why we can't have an article on this. -- Mcoder 11:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth letting the hounds loose to corral all of these, then, as Merge/Redirects to adware ? -- 62.25.109.196 11:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The WIKI is a community project. I can find lots of pages that do not strictly follow the WIKI guidelines. The bin Laden pages reference unverified anonymous sources (the video tapes), for example, and give them precedence over written verfied interviews from bin Laden. But I don’t seem to be able to persuade anyone to do anything about it, despite the fact it’s a blatant violation of content guidelines. At the end of the day, the case is marginal, I agree, but if WIKI users want the page, and find it useful, why not? Is the server running out of space? BTW, I thought the page was just starting to come together and look reasonable. Timharwoodx 13:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I should remind you that "If article A then article B" is not an argument here. This is about Vodei's verifiability and lack thereof. This case is in no way marginal- there are absolutely no reliable sources presented. --Wafulz 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
if WIKI users want the page, and find it useful, why not? — Because Wikipedia is not a free wiki hosting service. It is an encyclopaedia. And its name is Wikipedia, by the way. Uncle G 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia is a great resource for computer professionals like myself. The article itseld needs tidied up, expanded with more technical detail and sources added. scope_creep 15:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. That's what I've been saying for ages, but there are no sources. --Wafulz 16:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"It needs sources added." is not a valid counterargument to the assertion that there are no sources. Your only argument is to provide some, not to simply assert "Sources need to be added.". Uncle G 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If no one can cough up proper sources in a day or so, they aren't likely to ever be. wikipediatrix 22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This statement is verifiable. The FAQ on vodei.com claims you need a "secondary codec" and instructs the reader to install ffdshow. The obvious implication is that Vodei just passes the video data to ffdshow for decoding. Thus ffdshow is the actual codec. --Mcoder 11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
How is that relevant to this discussion?—Kn0wItAll 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The point being that there are sources for at least some of the claims made. Most of this debate seems to be about the reliability of information posted on the inmatrix forum. So it's worth pointing out that, at least with respect to the file format, the Vodei developers statements seem to corroborate those claims. --Mcoder 03:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So maybe the solution is to edit the article to contain only information found on both the official website and the forum? —Kn0wItAll 06:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No. The official website is not independent, and the forum is not reliable at all. --Wafulz 13:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable due to lack of links to any third party coverage (or to material backing up any other claim to notability). Sandstein 19:38, 21 November 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 was delete - keep socks were noted, also some keeps were on the grounds "what's wrong" and the delete advocates managed to "damage" some of these "keeps".Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Come on, keep it. I don't even see the reason for deleting it. Wikipedia is a free conglormate of ideas, information about anything. And this is something.
An (admittedly cute) animation on YouTube. Best claim to notability is that a bunch of people on Fark and Digg liked it. Disputed prod. —Cryptic 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Kiwi is an excellent animation with a large fan base. There should be a wiki page for it if people want to know more about it. Definetly keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.116.218 (talk • contribs)
Comment User's only edit. —EdGl 14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I loved 'Kiwi!', and I think that on the off-chance that someone hears about it and wants to know about it, there should be a Wikipedia article that will introduce them to it. Please don't delete it. Perhaps someone could make the 'Kiwi!' article more acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbythebeach (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as no assertion of notability. Possibly redirect to Kiwi if appropriate(???). —EdGl 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Wide enough audience for this, I don't believe that it needs deletion. -- Librarianofages 01:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you verify that? Can you edit this article so that it asserts notability? Then maybe I will rethink my vote. But as of now, you haven't convinced me or probably anyone else that it does not warrant deletion. —EdGl 01:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Simply look at the audience on Youtube, perhaps all we need to do is say " as of dd/mm/yyyy Kiwi! had xxx,xxx,xxx views on Youtube alone." Would that be ok with you then? -- Librarianofages 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment No. Needs reliable sources. Random youtube viewers are not reliable sources. ColourBurst 02:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'll agree that YouTube as a primary source should be questioned. In response to that, I've added the director's website as an external link -- it also hosts the video (and at much higher quality than YouTube, I might add). However, using YouTube viewership as a gauge of notability should be fair play. If 2 million views is not some indication of notability, then I don't know what is. Chicago god 08:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Two million views is an indication of popularity, not notability. There are many temporarily popular things that are not notable in any way. This is a perfect example, along with scads of other Internet fads. In a month, no one will know nor care about this thing. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It is notable because it is popular. Your comment about fads lacks credibility: Internet_fadChicago god 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless there are reliable sources verifying this not just a Youtube viewer count. Capitalistroadster 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Capitalistroadster Missvain 03:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wonderfully cute and tragic, and I'm fairly confident that one day it will have sources. However, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and we can't do anything without verification, so for now it can't have an article. --Wafulz 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no sources to write an article from. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not a vote; you must give a reason for why this article should be kept. —EdGl 05:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to make a recommendation on every vote. Brian | (Talk) 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As EdGl rightly said, this is not a vote. With no rationale, and more importantly no cited sources, your bare opinion will not count against the assertions that it is impossible to write a verifiable encyclopaedia article, using non-trivial independent sources, on this subject. Your best, and only, arguments are sources, sources, sources. Uncle G 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course the debate is not a vote (that’s why VDF was renamed). I should have said on my “recommendation” however I did not. On AFD you do not have to make a detailed recommendation all the time. Brian | (Talk) 02:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying, your vote has no weight if you can't tell us your reasoning. —EdGl 02:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as webcontent that fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong(C | R) 07:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I'm not sure if I can vote since I created the article. In defense of the article: 2 million + views on YouTube. If that's not notable, then words have no meaning. Chicago god 07:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've added a reliable source -- to wit: the director's website (which also hosts the video) has been added as an external link in the article. Chicago god 08:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment you can "vote" all you want, but this isn't a vote. We're looking for arguments and discussion and (we hope) some form of concensus. And in this particular case, we're looking for multiple, independent, reliable sources. The directors website is hardly independent, and as a directly interested party, its reliability may be questionable as well. Xtifrtälk 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed speedy delete tag. There is an assertion of notability and a discussion to be had here. For now, I think we still need reliable third party sources. As the director is not a third party but the creator, his website doesn't count. Chicago god might want to copy it across to his talk page until there are sources such as newspaper articles or reviews online that verify its importance. For now, Google News has nothing on it and Google News Archive has lonelygirl but nothing on this. Capitalistroadster 09:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment 'Qubit Field Theory' has no entries in Google News or Google News Archive either, but Jimbo and I both think it's worthy of an article... and it is. Chicago god 10:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. We are discussing this article. Your only arguments are to cite sources. So please cite them. Uncle G 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable independent sources are provided. Wikipedia is not a web directory! Xtifrtälk 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what kind of source information you're looking for. The source stating that it's a film? That it's animated? That it's digital? That's it's under 3 minutes? That it has a plot? That the plot is as described in the article? That it has a director? Chicago god 10:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment ... that it's notable. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment and reiterate Keep There are 500+ hits for 'Dony Permedi Kiwi!' on Google, many of which are reliable, independent sources. Chicago god 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Mind pointing one out? All I see are blogs and forum posts, though I stopped looking after the first fifty hits. —Cryptic 12:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails to assert notability. Having it watched by 2M+ people is not notability. Winning an oscar would. scope_creep 15:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
COMMENT Chicago god has created two keeps. As the creator of this article, these are ineligible. scope_creep 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete - This video must be documented by indepedent sources, however I do know it is very popular on youtube. Valoemtalk 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I watched the video, and it's nice, but it's not really a notable Internet meme. The "external links" to the thousands of comments fail to change my mind on this. 129.98.212.69 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nice little animation, I have to say. Sadly it's not notable as an Internet meme, but if it becomes one we can take it to WP:DRV. Notability would count as a newspaper/magazine article about the item, or a TV report etc. It hasn't reached those standards, yet. --SunStar Net 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - The article does not assert it's notability. Please review WP:V for a better definition. Typically, sir, blogs, forums, and internet sites are not taken as professional external sources. TV Shows, newspapers, magazines, and the like are. To other users, voting without a reason based on a WP:POLICY is usually not even counted by the closing admin, so you are quite frankly wasting your time doing that. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I really like this film, but there's no evidence that it's notable. --Hyperbole 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - unimpressed notability-wise. Moreschi 21:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment The only argument I've heard so far for keeping this article is that it has 2 million hits on YouTube. Big woop. There are many videos on YouTube that have way more hits, and they don't have articles. Why? Because, as said over and over again on here, no verifiable, independent, reliable sourses to back them up. A buttload of hits just means YouTube is popular! My vote still stands as "delete". —EdGl 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment There are fewer than 250 videos on YouTube that have more views than "Kiwi!" does. I guess that's what you mean by many. Of those many, most are unworthy of an article for the reasons you state. This film, however, is deserving an article. Chicago god 03:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, why is this deserving of an article? Here's a tip, take a look at Free Hugs Campaign, an article about YouTube video that actually is notable. See how many assertions of notablity, and how many sources cited? Compare that article to Kiwi!. —EdGl 04:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I'll gladly compare. Thirteen days after Free Hugs Campaign became an article, it still had exactly one source cited (YouTube). One source after nearly two weeks. Kiwi! has 6 sources in 2 days. Chicago god 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.isfat.com/happyjunk/kiwi.php is the only real source (reference) I see in the Kiwi! article. The other links just show where the video is and how many reviews it had. I count eight good ones in the Free Hugs Campaign article, and most of them are news articles. Hey, maybe you can find a few news articles for Kiwi!. —EdGl 04:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
That reference, in fact, mentions that the director may submit the film to some festivals. The news articles will practically write themselves at that point. Chicago god 05:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Saying that the article will have sources in the future means that the article doesn't have sources now, and because WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it can be deleted and restored later when it does get the sources. ColourBurst 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
"Saying that the article will have sources in the future means that the article doesn't have sources now" is both a falsehood and a deviation of logic. The article does, in fact, have sources. Chicago god 05:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think he meant to say that although Kiwi! might have "good souces" in the future (independent, reliable, verifyable...), this article does not have any now and is not notable at this point. Like I said before, I only see one "good source". The rest are "fluff". Get a couple of news articles in there!!! I suggest copy/pasting this article to a user subpage, wait for some news articles, and recreate the article in due time. But this may not happen for a long time, if ever. —EdGl 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment – 5 minutes ago this clip featured on a mainstream New Zealand TV show Campbell Live[7] this shortly now can be classed as WP:NotableBrian | (Talk) 06:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I back the above comment up as I also watched it. Background information was given before the video was played. The video was played with permission from the copyright holder so it wasn't just played off YouTube. Nzgabriel 07:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete Right now there aren't any valid third party sources mentioned so it doesn't establish notability. However, to people interested in keeping the article... I remember reading about this somewhere and it wasn't on YouTube, but I have no idea where I read this. This does mean that there is a third party source out there if someone looks hard enough. --The Way 09:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep "kiwi" "Dony Permedi" give 719 google hits at the moment, and it seems as notable as Lonelygirl15cyclosarin 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a good comparison considering how many independent references Lonelygirl has (including several mentions from prominent news sources, the New York Times, and Associated Press). --Wafulz 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually a google search of kiwi Dony Permedi now seems to give over 12,000 hits, though I see your point and realise that google isn't everything. cyclosarin 10:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
22,000 google hits today. That's 10,000 more than yesterday. Chicago god 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Quality animation, well written article. What's not to like? --Billpg 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the article isn't written well it all. It also contains original research like "There are many parallels that can be found between the film's kiwi and the human condition." The existence of independent sources would help quite a bit. --Wafulz 20:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"Actually the article isn't written well it all." That's your opinion. The presence of one line at the end can be fixed by trimming that line. --Billpg 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No offense to you or the article contributor(s), but this article really is poorly written. I would love to go into detail, but it would take up too much space, and this is an inappropriate place to discuss it as well. If you're still inconvinced, would you like me to spell it all out for you on this talk page? (or the article's talk page?) —EdGl 01:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Edit: May I add that a "quality animation" and a "well-written article" are not reasons to keep an article? —EdGl 01:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
"Well written" and "Quality" are matters of opinion. I happen to like both the film and the WP article on it. You are at liberty to disagree. --Billpg 03:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
EdGl : You're right, this is not the place to discuss the quality of the writing. The article may need improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. Instead of spelling out the problems that you have with the writing, be bold and edit the article (or tag the article appropriately). Chicago god 08:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's a reason to delete! I'm saying that just because (Billpg thinks that) the article is well written doesn't mean that the article should be kept! Sorry for all the exclamation points, but I want to make sure you're reading my posts the way I mean them to say. As an aside, though, I would improve the diction, but since the consensus seems to be "delete", then I'm not going to waste my time. But if it were the other way around, I'd help it out. Or if doing so would improve its notability. —EdGl 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete just complete nonsense that doesn't belong here. Anomo 16:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
"complete nonsense"? This coming from the person who nominated "The Diarrhea Song" as a featured article two weeks ago. Please. Chicago god 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Why must everyone wikistalk me? Anomo 21:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment To summarize thus far: references have been added (secondary source), the video has been run on a primetime television show (notability), it has more than 3 million views on YouTube (notability), has gone from 400 google hits to 24,000 in about 4 days (does not exist in a vaccuum), and has been edited to remove the single line of original research (no original research). Chicago god 04:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Cuteness is not inherently notable. WMMartin 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete - very nice little cartoon, but not yet notable enough, although I suspect that may change if this starts playing festivals. TheRealFennShysa 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - if there is room in Wikipedia for useless articles about World of Warcrap cities and obscure characters from the Star Wars universe, there is room for this. KEEP IT!!! Don't let the lame nazi censors delete it. Windows214218:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Treat this article as a separate issue, please. And stop the name-calling. Can you give any reasons for your keep vote other than "there are articles on here that are even worse"? —EdGl 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. YouTube is notable. And this ranked #1 all-time in important categories. I suspect that YouTube and its succesors are becoming a valid medium for publishing of animation. If this had been made 50 years ago it would have been a short subject at the movies, I guess, and if had won the Oscar for best short subject it'd be notable. So this is sort of the 21st-century equivilant, in a way, I suppose. Herostratus 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying keep the article because YouTube is notable, and that being "#1 all-time" (proof please?) is equivalent to winning an Oscar? —EdGl 03:16, 21 November 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.
delete per nom - speedy delete per WP:SNOW amongst others. - wtfunkymonkey 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Blatant advertising. And the first line of the article is a hypothetical question about the its own validity! Wavy G 02:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Replace with redirect to Moose Jaw, a notable city whose name often gets misspelled. --Charlene 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Seams like a probable misspelling of the city and I am confident that someone typing this is more likely looking for the city. Finally it should not redirect simply to Moose Jaw because that would be a double redirect.--67.71.77.44 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Right you are about the redirect. --Charlene 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, then redirect per above. MER-C 03:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Moose Jaw and, obviously, speedy the current article content as non-notable spam. (In other words, I guess I'm asking for a speedy, protected redirect.) -- Kicking222 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Keep?/Comment I agree about redirecting. The talk page on the Moosejaw page states that they have been featured in various notable publications. I went from their offical website to articles featured in the New York Times, Outdoor, etc. There are valid articles discussing the business. I figure if the page was made to seem less "spammy" and more wiki, perhaps it'd be keepable? They have earned notability. Missvain 03:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Very outlandish claims. If true, well, so be it, but I think some actual citation of sources will be in order. Wavy G 07:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and later redirect to Moose Jaw. --Terence Ong(C | R) 07:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as advertising (possible G11) Amiststalk • contribs 11:19, 16 November 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 was delete. Kimchi.sg 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for pity's sake, this is nauseating. Strong delete, with a motion to salt with extreme prejudice. Now pass me the Pepto-Bismol. --Dennisthe2 05:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. SkierRMH 09:11, 16 November 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 was should have been speedied. Just keep re-adding the tag until a friendly neighborhood admin comes along. Grandmasterka 05:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
violation of WP:BAND, non notable; new (2007) group, 1 'debut' album, no references or citationsSkierRMH 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Marginal speedy. MER-C 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete is there a way we can trick all the garage bands onto a single article and then CSD it? •Elomis• 02:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Even though the main guy has performed with some very cool bands, I'd consider him non-notable and almost even a speedy delete. Missvain 03:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
'Delete, fails WP:BAND criteria. When are all these articles stop being created on Wikipedia, it is wasting space. --Terence Ong(C | R) 07:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Clearly fails WP:MUSIC . This should have been a speedy delete candidate. scope_creep 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Request for Admin attention; someone keeps reverting this page and removing WP notifications. I would suggest Salt the Earth
This was a proposed as a speedy delete but someone removed the tag before it was attended to.SkierRMH 01:22, 17 November 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 was no consensus - there is no such thing as precedent on Wikipedia, but nonetheless, the issue of whether to have an article on every episode of a TV series is mainly a question of whether it falls under 'indiscriminate information'. That question hasn't been answered by numerous centralised discussions and bulk AfDs and it certainly hasn't been answered here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Episode 208 of the Naruto anime. This is just a plot summary, which does not belong on Wikipedia. Delete as indiscriminate information. Prod tag removed, so taking to full Articles for Deletion. -- Phirazo 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)— Phirazo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naruto Episodes. The inclusion of this episode is not indiscriminate as the nominator originally charged, as it's part of the complete and finite set of Naruto episodes who, as a whole, are notable and have survived a deletion attempt with consensus being "Keep". –Gunslinger47 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment The AfD you are referring to was to delete all Naruto episode articles en masse. This is a nomination for a single article. If you want to keep this article, name some reliable, secondary sources. Otherwise, this is original research. Also, WP:NOT specifically says Wikipedia is not the place for plot summaries. --Phirazo 03:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't need secondary sources to say that, for example, Naruto's head disappears at time index 17:51. The primary source should be more than sufficient. The same goes for referencing the plot. What original research are you referring to? –Gunslinger47 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment The original research is a new synthesis - the article is picking out of the episode what is important and what isn't. --Phirazo 04:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Deciding what warrants mention is a critical part of the editing process. You, yourself, are making a call about what warrants mention on Wikipedia by raising this AfD. This is by no means "original research". The alternative, in this case, would be to copy someone else's summary, which I'm sure violates a copyright law or two. –Gunslinger47 05:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... Upon some research, I believe I see what you're getting at. After reading WP:NOT#IINFO, specifically this section,
Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
You seem to have went off on a bit of a tangent. Pay close attention to the final sentence. The set of Naruto episodes are supplementary to the core topic of Naruto and cannot stand by themselves. Individual episode articles are created initially for the soul purpose of indepth plot review and only because such verbose information would be unsuitable for inclusion within already bloated higher-level articles. –Gunslinger47 05:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
CommentGiejdz placed a single purpose account tag after my signature. This is fascinating, since Giejdz's only edits are reverting mine [8]. Pot, kettle, black, etc. --Phirazo 04:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Your user page pretty much declares straight up that this is an extra account of yours for use in protecting your anonymity during deletion debates. Your number of edits on this account is somewhat irrelevant. I don't see why Giejdz added the template. –Gunslinger47 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 07:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the WP:NOT policy. Articles consisting entirely of plot information are not acceptable on Wikipedia.
The fact that they could not easily be merged into larger articles is irrelevant: Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries, and we do not need to describe the plot of such a long work with this level of detail. The fact that these synopses are too long to merge into single articles is not a sign that they need to be placed in individual articles: it is a sign that they should be made shorter. This episode could be amply summarised in 1-2 sentences. — HaelethTalk 11:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries, and we do not need to describe the plot of such a long work with this level of detail. [...] This episode could be amply summarised in 1-2 sentences.
Actually, if you look at the Television Episode guidelines, the list of works following these guidelines shows that this format and level of detail is perfectly common.
Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
Where the WP:NOT policy says "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain [...] not solely a summary of that work's plot", the work of fiction in question here is actually the whole of Naruto, not this single episode. The episode summaries are merely a small part of the 'article set' of this work of fiction (i.e. this work's article set is not solely plot summaries). So as required, they are an aspect of that larger topic. It's not unreasonable to split these into individual articles as per the WP:TVE guidelines.Crashwinder 12:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Two editors have made recommendations to keep "per WP:TVE". WP:TVE is not a guideline, it's the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes which refers editors to what it describes as "the debate on writing articles on individual television episodes." That debate is a centralized discussion which states, among other things, "Elements which are best avoided in any episode article: A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show." In other words, most of this article is devoted to content which a consensus has agreed should not be included. --Metropolitan90 15:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Sorry about using the term 'guideline', it's just that I assumed that was the right term from the list at WP:TVE titled "TV shows currently using these guidelines". Obviously to describe each scene in detail is pointless, but if the level of detail in this article (600 words) is too much, then there is an enormous amount of material listed under WP:TVE that needs cutting. Crashwinder 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Is there 200 odd pages each details an episode, which is hard to find unless you are a fan, and even harder to find if you were a fan and not seen it for yeard, i.e forgotten it. Complete waste of resources. Put all the plot summaries on one page. scope_creep 15:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No claim to notability for this TV episode, WP:NOT a TV guide. Sandstein 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per precedent. There are episode articles for a great many shows. These articles have already survived one deleton attempt and it creates just as much clutter to individually afd each one than it does to keep them. Might as well start AfDing Star Trek episodes. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per precedent. Treima 01:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment What are these precedents? The AfD for all Naruto episodes isn't precedent; quite a few of the objections were about the scope of the nomination, not the articles themselves. A TV episode article should be more than just a plot summary, for example, see Abyssinia, Henry (M*A*S*H episode). How is this article more than just a plot summary? --Phirazo 03:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
CommentMajor Fred C. Dobbs (M*A*S*H episode)... It's one thing to pick the penultimate episode of a season, but can you honestly say any given episode of any given series will have that kind of coverage? – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I used Abyssinia, Henry as an example of what a TV article should aspire to. Interestingly enough, Major Fred C. Dobbs (M*A*S*H episode) is notable, in a "Worst. Episode. Ever." way. Not every episode of every TV show is notable enough to warrant it's own article, and this episode isn't up to those standards. --Phirazo 03:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure what more you want on this and most of the other Naruto episode pages but it's not going to get written if you delete them. While there may not be precedent to keep, you might want to consider the precedent you will be making if you delete. 86.20.30.144 12:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as plot summary. -- Hoary 11:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment many people are voting with unfortunate haste as Horay just did above. We've attempted to explain, without argument, that that single line of WP:NOT#IINFO is being misunderstood in this context. Plot summaries in general are not forbidden, only when an article on a work of fiction contains just a plot summary and nothing else. The work of fiction in this case, is Naruto. This is a sub-article and is not meant to stand on its own. It is an aspect of a larger subject, and therefor does not violate WP:NOT#IINFO #7. There are valid reasons to get rid of this article, but its being primarily a plot summary is not one of them. –Gunslinger47 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment An article should be able to stand on its own. There simply is not enough about the episode as it stands to merit an individual article. If an article cannot stand on its own, then it should be merged (perhaps into List of Naruto episodes). --Phirazo 18:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't make an argument against sub-articles in general, do you? As an article grows in size, it is a natural and encouraged part of its development to fork off into smaller subjects which may or may not have significance outside the context of its parent article. –Gunslinger47 00:09, 22 November 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 was speedy keep (trolling). — CharlotteWebb 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Non-notable article that has some NPOV issues. Additionally, there really isn't much traffic on this page and http://walmart.com has much, much more information. --Nicholas Weiner 01:38, 16 November 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 was: with, as eloquently pointed out by 152 and Garrett, no indication that MPOGD is notable (in fact, an article on the site has been deleted) and no arguments to the contrary, which means MPOGD cannot be said to confer notability through its awards, we have no non-trivial coverage by independent third-party sources or any other indication that this game is notable. Delete, not discounting arguments from anons, since a convincing case for deletion was made that has not been answered. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet the web content guideline nor the proposed software guideline. Google news gets zero hits and the first ten pages of a "normal" Google search fail to show anything like a reliable source that has covered this topic. Searching for the less-specific "Glory Through Conquest" in Google and Goggle news also yield no substantial results. Previous nomination debate actually looked like a clear "delete," so I'd encourage everyone to review that debate as well. The only real point of contention is the "multiplayer online directory" awards for "game of the month". These are not a "a well known and independent award" by any metric that has been proposed. Unless citations are provided that demonstrate notability and provide verification this should be deleted. 152.91.9.144 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I did a quick google search not sure is this should be delete because google hits brings up 1190 hits, and has several guides published. Simpleerob 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Is that really notable though for a game that has won 2 award from the same site in 4 years? I've heard of the game, but then it's the kind of thing I like to play. Robovski 05:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete. No sources outside its fanbase. The MPOGD awards are interesting, but that is rather generic and appears to be based on either IP-specific votes or ins/outs; neither of these methods are reliable or trustworthy. Within four(?) years this article has not attracted any reliable sources, so I doubt it ever will. GarrettTalk 09:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Its bona fides. Its tidied up though, with more detail added. scope_creep 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per anonymous nominator's rationale. Sandstein 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable within its genre, and has to awards to show for it thus meeting WP:SOFTWARE. RFerreira 05:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. --Czj 09:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. I recommend cutting some of the game guide stuff down a bit (mainly the "Species" section). --- RockMFR 20:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd be quite suprised if we ended up keeping an otherwise un-notable game thanks to an unknown award from a non-notable site. Internet awards need to have some provenance if they are to carry any weight. Looking at "mpogd.com" itself to attempt to determine its notability, I'd point out that:
If this game can demonstrate that it's won an award from a notable website, or that it has had non-trivial coverage somewhere else, then this article should be kept. Barring that, it's tantamount to advertising.
Note: I have reopened this debate due to the fact the keep result was controversial and this debate was closed prematurely without a good consensus, and I would like to leave it to a person who is more experianced with the notability guidelines for schools. --Y.Ichiro (会話) 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This isn't a school. --Czj 00:23, 22 November 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.
Update since neither the Wikiproject ND not anyoen else was willing to put any effort into these articles, I closed the list as Keep, and all golf courses as Redirect to their repsective communities. No action on the Association, as it was not marked with an AfD tag. ~ trialsanderrors 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge as above If that's what the North Dakota folks want, then that's no problem with me. Robovski 05:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mer-C. Edison 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, bad faith nomination as this issue has already been addressed. WPND is working on redirecting the smaller articles, but it's slow going. I'm sorry we're not moving fast enough for you BV, but you're always welcome to help with the redirects if that's the case. There is no reason to bring this up again. --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I expect an apology. This AfD was by JChap2007. I simply drew attention to the earlier AfD and defended your articles by saying Merge. BlueValour 12:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - You have it; I misread the nomination, sorry.
And I did not know about the nomination of the one article nor that it had been "settled." I had seen this list this spring. I nominated one golf course (whose name I cannot remember now), which was deleted. Once I saw that went through I planned to nominate the whole list, but didn't get around to it until now. If you want to merge the articles, fo for it. Although including the length of the golf courses in a particular city in the article about that city might seem a little strange. JChap2007 17:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep for now. The process to merge the less notable courses with their relevant city articles is ongoing. Check out which courses I have already merged. There are clearly many more courses which can be merged with their city articles, but just give us a chance to debate amongst ourselves which courses we would like to try to keep and expand and give us a chance to merge more articles. --MatthewUND(talk) 06:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Regardless of what happens to the individual golf course articles (likely merger for most), I hope that we would be able to keep the list of golf courses. It could be greatly expanded and the NDGA article could be merged into it. Having a comprehensive list of golf courses in the state would be a valuable asset. --MatthewUND(talk) 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep the list only. As for the golf courses, only leave the major ones in their own articles. The rest of the golf courses should be deleted. WP:NOT a directory and has no content besides where is it and how many holes are there. We don't need such information on an encyclopedia. --Terence Ong(C | R) 08:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect all one/two liner courses and do it now! ND guys, you can un-redirect specific articles later, there's no reason to keep these stubs around in their present state. Keep the list (I usually hate listcruft, but this seems reasonably well-defined and encyclopedic), Weak Delete for the org. Xtifrtälk 10:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
KeepNorth Dakota Golf Association (and note that some commentators may not have noticed it set off after the main list above).Keep the list, even more useful if others deleted than if not because it connects up course names and cities. Keep Bully Pulpit and King's Walk. If expanded, which could easily be done on the basis of coverage in various golf magazines, keep Red Mike (Links of North Dakota at Red Mike Resort), else delete and keep open for creation later. Keep Riverwood if expanded even a little bit. Despite surviving previous nomination, Hawktree needs to be expanded now, immediately, else delete, since that vote was eight weeks ago and nothing has been done. MergeRay Richards Golf Course with the University, and any other specific courses not kept with cities. Gene Nygaard 11:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Change first one, RedirectNorth Dakota Golf Association to the list, and include some info about it there. As a list, it was inferior, and as an article, not likely to ever have much. Gene Nygaard 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete all, including the list. I don't see any real notability in any of these articles - Arnold Palmer's firm designs a lot of courses, and being named the "second best public golf course in North Dakota"? Come on! Out!!! If someone wants to add the info to the locality articles, that's fine, but I don't think they will suffer without it. --Brianyoumans 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge the golf course articles to articles about the locality as suggested above. No comment about the list. JYolkowski // talk 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep this is an excellent list of ND golf courses. There is NO reason to delete them. Weatherman90 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per BlueValour. If the ND project has already decided that this makes sense, then we would need a good reason to reverse their opinion. Nothing in this discussion appears to rise to that level. Vegaswikian 07:01, 20 November 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.
Non-notable church building. Page was prodded and second prodded. Tags removed by page author MNewnham 01:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep What an interesting old church! Besides, all churches are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 01:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing in Google news to indicate that anything notable ever happened in this church, and a "normal" Google search shows a fair number of hits, but while it existance can be confirmed the normal interpretation of the verification standard looks for more than this. Unless the facts can be confirmed from multiple third party sources, this article cannot be shown to be unbiased and thus violates Wikipedia's core principles. - 152.91.9.144 02:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete-find barely anything on this church, seems not to meet notability or be mentioned in reliable sources. Seraphimblade 03:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I do not agree that "all churches are inherently notable" you said the same think about schools. There is nothing notable about this one. Missvain 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep 160+ year old church. Edison 05:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Most individual churches are not notable. --Metropolitan90 07:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not all churches assert notability. There is really a need to introduce a special criteria for places of worship. --Terence Ong(C | R) 08:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless they can substantiate any level of notability.SkierRMH 09:13, 16 November 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 was speedy delete. cholmes75(chit chat) 03:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(Speedy) Delete per all above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 02:33, 16 November 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 was DELETE. The raw total was 11-3 Delete, with two of the Keeps being Weak. Aside fro Carrottop, nobody much think this article should exist. And Carrottop's arguments, while vociferous, are not strong. Herostratus 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Disputed speedy deletion candidate; contains borderline assertions of notability. Listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
delete - pernom. no sources, no article. --wtfunkymonkey 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
delete Just don't see notability here. Dipics 02:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - First of all I would just like to make clear that I am not Jennifer Hassum nor do I have a personal relationship with her, so this is not a vanity article. I created this article to connect two other articles in which she is mentioned and to provide extra infomation about her to readers of those articles. Jen is notable in both Canadian and toronto-area politics and I wrote a extensive rationale as to why I feel this way, which can be found on the discussion page of the article in question. As far as the issue of sources, I would be happy to add sources and expand the content if the article is allowed to remain. --Carrottop 79 02:36, 16 November 2006
You typically have 5 days to improve an AfD. wtfunkymonkey 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, both Toronto and Canada! Sometimes articles like this come up for politicians that are just notable to make it and this is one, I don't think it's deletable yet but if she falls from the public eye we can delete it then, conversely if she becomes prime minister of Canada we can flesh it out. •Elomis• 02:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I have added some sources for you guys (and any gals), any more input in that regard would be helpful. As far as the notablity, as I mentioned in the discussion page, Jen is currently the president of Canada's largest student union with forty-one thousand members, at one of Canada's top universities and she is the youth wing co-chair of one of Canada's major political parties (and will be for about 2 more years) which at last count had support of 22% of Canadians and in the last election received over two and a half million votes. --Carrottop 79 03:14, 16 November 2006
Weak Keep sourced article with some what established notability. Simpleerob 05:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The subject is not notable. She may have lobbied for a cause, and have supplied quotes, but she has not been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Ohconfucius
Delete per Ohconfucius. We don't have articles about this person's counterparts in the USA, that is, the presidents of the Young Democrats of America or the Young Republicans, nor do I believe that we need them. Being an official of a political party organization does not necessarily mean that a person is of sufficient interest to the general public as to warrant an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 07:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete This woman: 1) was/is active in party politics 2) demonstrated against the Iraq War 3) serves in student government. None of these activities, each a quintessential activity of college students, provides a basis for notability. Allon Fambrizzi 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
Weak delete She may be the head of the largest student union in Canada - but I would not, for example, consider the student body president at the University of Texas (which has, like, what - a gazillion students?) notable. The rest of it doesn't really add up to notability for me, either - the mention of media coverage helps, but doesn't put it over the top, so I'm a weakish delete.--TheOtherBob 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn bio. Tempshill 18:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete These student activities are admirable. But the best objective test of notability is independent published sources, per the great discussion in User:Uncle G/On notability. This page fails the test.Obina 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment It was mentioned that the an official with the Young Democrats or Republicans wouldn't deserve an article but Lauren Wolfe president of the College Democrats of America has an article about her and her role with that organization as do other party officials in gerenal. To suggest that an official of one credible political party of worthy of an article mention and one of another credible party is not, is extremely partisan and if I am not mistaken Wikipedia is not a partisan body user Carrottop 79 14:55 16 November
True - but in fairness it looks from the discussion page of that article that it was marked for speedy deletion at one point, and for some reason just slipped through. So maybe it should also be deleted.--TheOtherBob 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I totally agree with Carrottop on this one. So I have opened an afd entry on Lauren Wolfe. Dipics 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I set out to find ten other examples of existing biographies for youth wing presidents (chairs, co-chairs or directors) of various political parties, if anyone wants more I would be happy to spend more time researching for more, however I feel I have made my point and have demonstrated that there is precedent for articles of this type on even less noteworthy subjects. If you want to go on a delete frenzy, I also saw a great deal of party official in other party wings with articles Carrottop 79 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment FYI two of these has been considered for deletion, with result no concesus in both cases and three others are supported by the Wikipedia Politics and government work group Carrottop 79 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to keep looking for them, please do. This is a good start for preparing AfD's for non-notable bios. Your point -- that the encyclopedia sometimes accumulates articles that really should be deleted -- is well-taken. But I think you're wanting to go the next step and say "and so we shouldn't delete any particular one of these articles." Nah - we should delete them all (assuming they really are all non-notable, which should be decided individually.) What you are showing is that we need to be more active in deleting articles about people who are not notable. What you need to show is that this one particular artice is about someone who is notable, and therefore shouldn't be deleted.--TheOtherBob 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete - Student Council president is not a claim to notability, "continuing to be politically active" certainly isn't either. -- Chabuk[ T • C ] 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:46, 20 November 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 was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Indian relativity - delete - I want this deleted as the phrase is not notable in the field of relativity theory or well-known in popular culture. It doesn't meet WP standards. MP(talk) 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. In fact, the phrase is not even mentioned in the reference given. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete There's been a bunch of articles lately that are Indian perspectives on otherwise notable general theories (there was an Indian Impressionism article a while back, don't know if it is still around). Articles that provide no further details about a general thing by adding the perspective of a culture, race or country should not be included. •Elomis• 02:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete yup. Missvain 04:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Aryabhata's observation is not a statement of the principle of relativity. Instead it is an observation made later and independently by Copernicus. Kindly note that noone credits Copernicus with discovering the principle of relativity. --EMS | Talk 05:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:V, does this really exist? --Terence Ong(C | R) 08:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
See Aryabhata's relativity principle, which is the genesis of this business (and also up for deletion). However, the simple answer in "No". --EMS | Talk 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete agree with nom & ems57fcva.SkierRMH 09:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 11:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete- Somebody has coined two words just for a fun .Good coinage! But no need in this wikipedia.There is no so called popular theory . I have heard of Aryabhatas theory of relativity. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 16:35, 17 November 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 was no consensus ~ trialsanderrors 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy deletion and contested; "unencyclopedic" is not a valid speedy criterion. 9/11 victim with press coverage; that may be notability be default. No vote. Chick Bowen 02:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The article was definitely "unencyclopedic" when it was tagged for speedy deletion. [9] However, it has been rewritten. Grandcolas is one of the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 to make phone calls. Her name is also linked on the United Airlines Flight 93 article. The phone calls are significant, as they give indication of what might have happened on the flight. The topic of phone calls also comes up from time to time in 9/11 conspiracy theories, with some belief that these calls came from cell phones. This call, like nearly all of them, came from an airphone and not a cell phone. --Aude (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
To the extent that the call is notable, information about it belongs on a page about 9/11, for example perhaps in United Airlines Flight 93#Passenger and crew phone calls. Notability of the call doesn't justify an article on her. Pan Dan 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Aude Missvain 04:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete as independent coverage exists but the same goes for a large number of non-notable 9/11 victims and Wikipedia is not a memorial. I don't find the phone calls by themselves convincing, as there were quite a few phone calls made. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep or Merge to the United Airlines Flight 93, although that would require a mrege of any other persons noted in that article.SkierRMH 09:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"...although that would require a merge of [others]" -- why not? Pan Dan 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment The article now includes more details, which I think demonstrate that she qualifies under WP:BIO.
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (including newspaper articles)
Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. --Aude (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree she passes WP:BIO (probably). Responding,
The Some sources of which she is a primary subject are commemorative, like obituaries. They do not show notability as Wikipedia is not a memorial.
No indication that You Can Do It has "received multiple independent reviews" or awards. In light of sources provided by Aude, I see the book has been covered.
Don't think it could fairly be said that she achieved "renown" (and certainly not notoriety). Pan Dan 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
With Ohconfucius' edits, some of the references were (inadvertently?) deleted. I have restored them and added more references, including Publishers Weekly and National Review. In all, Google finds 11,000+ hits [10] when searching "you can do it" + "grandcolas". One could search other combinations, and surely come up with more/different results. There is plenty of verifiable material out there. --Aude (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep due to association with very notable events. (If consensus objections are rasied from friends and relatives, then delete.) --Whiskey Pete
Delete per Amists. Tempshill 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Regrettably, neither she, her husband, not her family passes WP:BIO, the media obsession for info of courage and human interest notwithstanding. The article is so skewed towards her non notable career that one would easily miss the claimed importance of the call she made. Anyhoo, to say that her last phone message to her husband was played in the Discovery Channel docudrama is a far cry from having a 30 minute program about her. This is a best case merge into trivia (of United Airlines Flight 93) scenario. There's already a place for that here - Wiki is not a 911 memorial. Ohconfucius 01:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The article has now been cleaned up as being more like a biography. Nevertheless, I maintain my original vote. Ohconfucius 05:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten, plenty of independent and verifiable sources here to make this worthwhile. RFerreira 06:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:BIO.The only Some sources of which of which she is a primary subject (e.g. in the Post-Gazette) don't show notability as they were published only to commemorate her as a 9/11 victim, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Pan Dan 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Pan Dan's reply to Aude. --Pak21 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Changing opinion to keep as sources provided by Aude show she probably passes WP:BIO as an author. Comment: Because her book, not the call she made on 9/11, is her claim to notability (in my opinion), it should be mentioned in the lead. Pan Dan 20:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. She was non-notable before 9/11, and her book had not been accepted for publication at that time. The book itself is a non-notable contribution to the self-help genre, and, realistically, was probably accepted for publication simply so the publisher could cash in on her status as a 9/11 victim. I'm sure she was a good and nice person, but she was not notable. If we accept this article we start down the slippery slope to separate articles for every victim of terrorism, and, in due course, every soldier killed in the line of duty. Many good and kind people have died in sad circumstances, and every one of them is a loss to their friends and family. Notability derives from activity, not simple presence at a historic event. WMMartin 17:57, 20 November 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 was delete - fails RS. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Poorly written and researched article that does not link to any existing pages, and the only link to such claims is very vaguely stated as "The Epoch Times". The claims lack verificaion to confirm it as a "concentration camp", as no major media besides the Epoch Times has reported the story. --PCPP 10:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Move/Rename as per Howrealisreal's comment above. Lankiveil 01:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
Merge — I believe that the Epoch Times is operated by the Falun Gong, and thus this camp is not reported elsewhere (the Epoch Times is considered by some to be Falun Gong propaganda). I suggest merge into the Falun Gong article. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. It is verifiable that there is controversy about this subject. So are the official positions of the Chinese goverment and of Falun Gong. The existence of the camp appears not to be verifiable from independent sources, so an article fails the policy WP:V. The best independent reliable source I've found on the subject is this Australian news article. There has also been coverage in the Washington Post and press release denials from at least one Chinese embassy. Other reliable coverage shows concern about organ harvesting in general in China, but usually not in contexts related to Falun Gong (and none I've seen in context of this camp.) GRBerry 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. Redirect and merge it if sources are found. --Terence Ong(C | R) 08:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Falun Gong only if there is some verification.SkierRMH 09:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Terence Ong. The Epoch Times may or may not be operated by Falun Gong, but what it definitely is not is a reliable source. Even the better stories are entirely one-sided, and it's not unusual to see an article that runs along the lines of "All the legitimate scientific authorities say that X does not exist. But I read a webpage by some guy who says it does. Why are all the legitimate scientific authorities lying about the existence of X?" Merely appearing in The Epoch Times, I'm afraid, adds absolutely nothing whatsoever to the credibility of an allegation -- certainly nothing that would justify the highly POV title of "Sunjiatun Concentration Camp". -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:31, 16 November 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 was Keep and cleanup. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Over 180 kilobytes of indiscriminate mirroring from sources. Anything worth keeping should be in Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda instead, so no point to keep this. Derlay 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Some of the stuff can be deleted here, but this is a worthwhile and comprehensive timeline of all the claims and counterclaims. Such details do not belong on the main article, which is long enough already, but should be somewhere. Otherwise people will nickel-and-dime this stuff into the main article, as was happening before this article was created. csloat 02:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This is a well written survey of a valid topic, with citations in place. BTLizard 11:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean as per csloat. --Howrealisreal 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep or Merge - TWO HUNDRED AND NINTY TWO SOURCES. I don't particularly care for timeline articles, and this one is particularly badly formatted...but it does not fail any policies except, really, WP:NOT. If there is a way to clean this up, it would make an EXCELLENT research reference. --Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 16:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Its a good article, somewhat long but very interested. It would be quite hard to define this timeline from the other two articles. Needs tidied up, more links. scope_creep 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per all above. wikipediatrix 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Split I fear that this comment may start an argument I don't feel like participating in, but I don't see why this article combines these two topics. I would likely support a timeline focused on Saddaam or al-Qaeda, but why both in one? There is little connection between the two (this is the comment I fear will start an argument) besides both being recent targets of the United States. Combining them is too random, akin to any timeline revolving around to things that are very loosely related. --The Way 09:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - the main problem with the article is organization. some information appears multiple times in the timeline. i agree it's a good reference tool and should just be cleaned up.Anthonymendoza 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not a good reference tool. Newspapers /cannot/ be considered reliable for such topics and the fact that one copies another is no proof of validity. Wait until the topic gets researched by unbiased scholars. Pavel Vozenilek 02:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - what are you talking about? There are numerous sources here (290 someone else counted), certainly many different things besides newspapers including government documents and so forth. More importantly, the topic has been researched by many unbiased scholars. Finally, none of that is a good reason for deletion even if your points were accurate. csloat 05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
DeleteKeep and Clean Way Up Much of this conspiracy advancing travesty of an article consists of nothing more than Conspiracy Theory, Disinfo and Neocon propaganda from disproven Conspiracy Crufters like Stephen Hayes and Laurie Mylroie. (edit maybe 2 seperate timelines - the proven one and the Conspiracy Theorist's version) -F.A.A.F.A. 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I agree, but this page also includes all the refutations of the conspiracy theorists. If we remove this page, the "conspiracy crufters" will add the nonsense back into the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page piece by piece, and someone will need to re-research each bogus claim and include that info (and then once again that page will be twice as long as History of the world). IMHO, this page is not the best solution but it is an adequate one. csloat 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean up, there is over 100+ WP:RS and WP:V sources that are in this article creating the timeline, though there does appear to be items that can be removed to shrink it down. Maybe some that can be added to balance it as well. But overall I think it should stay. --NuclearZer0 13:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep and Clean up. Two words: "Loose Change." FourSix more words: "This has better documentation than that." Jinxmchue 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Obviously, I can't count (or should not add words after I count them in my head). Jinxmchue 19:40, 21 November 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 was Speedy Delete A7 (no assertion of notability) by User:RHaworth. ColourBurst 05:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No evidence provided to meet WP:MUSIC, questionable notability. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 02:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Completely non-notable musician, whose article is entirely about his one-man-band project, which has its own article as well (Mirrorthrone). Totally unencyclopedic tone and appears to be a conflict of interest. Nowadays, it seems like every kid who records a CD in his bedroom has to 1) set up their "official website," 2) set up a Myspace account, and then 3) write a wikipedia article, in that order. Wavy G 02:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete non-notable per A7 Missvain 04:02, 16 November 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 was delete. Jarandawat's sup 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yet another mall. No claim of notability whatsoever. Actually, this might now be speedy deletable under A7. Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete total waste of space Missvain 04:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
DeleteNN mall. Edison 05:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn mall. --Terence Ong(C | R) 06:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete nn, nn, nn...SkierRMH 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as above. wikipediatrix 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, but does not qualify for A7. hateless 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there such thing as "mallcruft"? In any case, delete as failing WP:CORP. Seraphimblade 03:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is what we get for not taking a firmer line on schools. WMMartin 17:59, 20 November 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 was Speedy delete A7. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Non notable student radio station per WP:ORG. DeleteOhconfucius 03:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Unreferenced. MER-C 03:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 04:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn student radio station. Edison 05:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. simply nn.SkierRMH 09:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Oxford University Student Union, as the station is operated by OSSL? The station has had an FM license (under a different name, see [11], and under the Oxide name, see [12]. Has also won Student Radio Awards as mentioned in the article, see [13]. Stannered 09:47, 16 November 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 was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Non notable student society per WP:ORG. Weak assertion of notability (reference to its long but interrupted history.) It is essentially an entirely new club which started in 1997 DeleteOhconfucius 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - 55 non-wiki ghits, quite a lot of which are from Oxford websites. Nothing else of interest found, leading to verifiability problems. MER-C 03:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN with WP:V problems. Not even worth merging into Oxford site.SkierRMH 09:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The Cambridge Footlights is notable but this is not in the same league. Fys. “Tafysaym”. 09:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that one the same grounds you would need to delete the Cambridge University Light Entertainment Society page too. I should like to rebute the claim that it is a new society as of 1997. We do have contact with older members and the society history is recorded in the Bodleian Library societiy collection. There was only an interuption of two or three years. So, I do feel that this would be a shame but if it is in line with wikipedia deletion policy then so be it.
The light blue equivalent is not entirely the same: that article demonstrates its notability by referring to highly notable members. Were there any prominent people in OULES? Fys. “Tafysaym”. 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Please hold for a day or so to let us consult other members who have checked the archives.
Delete. Nothing like as significant as Footlights or OUDS. WMMartin 18:01, 20 November 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 was Speedily deleted as a non-notable group, WP:BIO and {{db-group}} both refer. (aeropagitica) 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Non-notable newly formed student society. Created in 2006, claims notability by having had a notable speaker to address the club. DeleteOhconfucius 03:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Horribly non-notable. MER-C 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete ugh this is getting old. Missvain 04:06, 16 November 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 was speedily deleted by Samir (The Scope). MER-C 09:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. You might also want to look at de:FFF (Musiker). MER-C 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Discography != Notability. •Elomis• 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 04:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Edison 05:52, 16 November 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 was Speedily deleted as a non-notable group, WP:BIO and {{db-group}} both refer. (aeropagitica) 05:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Notability of the organization/website Bellhalla 03:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:21, 16 November 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 was Keep ~ trialsanderrors 04:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Non notable school asserting no encyclopedic content, I don't think there's such thing as "regioncruft" but this articles assertion of "stalwarts like IICT, NGRI, CCMB" is also hopelessly relevant to only the region in which the article is commenting. The style and grammar would require a complete rewrite (with the capslock key levered off the keyboard) and the POV issues if removed would probably result in a 6 word article. Best to just bin it. •Elomis• 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no verifiable sources, very little on Google, no showing of notability. Agree with Edison below, I don't know why sports have anything to do with anything in the guidelines we have, but the Nobel bit is unique and impressive, so changing to a keep. Seraphimblade 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep As irony would have it, I was cleaning away the rubbish as Elomis was listing it. I think we should beware systemic bias. It is probably of interest to people in India. I have also moved the thing. Still digging for sources. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
*DELETE. EVEN THOUGH THE PROBLEMS DESCRIBED ABOVE HAVE BEEN FIXED, THERE STILL REMAINS THE ISSUE OF VERIFIABILITY. ONLY 13 GHITS, THE ONLY THING VERIFIED IS THAT THE SCHOOL EXISTS. (Yes, I was poking fun at the caps lock thing). MER-C 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per below. MER-C 09:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Google did not turn up anything useful Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Gonna go down pleading not paper as I drown in a SEA OF DELETE'S. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Stuff me with green apples and call me a pie. Good job, Alansohn. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
*Delete per MER-C. -- Kicking222 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn. Inclusionists could learn some things from Alan, who, instead of just saying "keep all schools", actually went out of his way to assert notability and include reliable sources. Well done, my friend. -- Kicking222 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of satisfying WP:V and no evidence that the school is notable. JoshuaZ 03:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep per Alan below. JoshuaZ 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment systemic bias?! pfft. I can only assume you are talking about the AfD process often having a common outcome of deleting an article. This isn't systemic bias (or if it is it's easily explainable and satisfactory), if any sensible Wikipedia editor submits an article through the AfD process, of course the chances are it will be deleted. Those that are suitable to the outcome of remaining in the Wikipedia aren't typically submitted to the process! •Elomis• 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"Systemic bias" as in the fact that nearly every school in the USA has a page about it, yet this one gets picked for AfD even though it seems to be quite talked about over there. yandman 16:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that bad articles have been kept in the past is no reason to keep other bad articles. Bring some of those US or British secondary schools up for AfD, and I will happily (in most cases) vote to delete. Xtifrtälk 22:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not Assertions of notability. TJ Spyke 04:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unasserted notability is cruise control for removal. —ptk✰fgs 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, newly added sources do not assert notability. It exists, has a science program, hockey team, etc. Okay, it's a school. —ptk✰fgs 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
*Delete No claim of notability and no multiple independent sources. Changing vote to Keep Sources were added. Sports competition notices in paper are pretty ordinary for a school, but the reference from a national paper showing three Nobel laureates interacting with the students in the science program is impressive enough to allow inclusion. Edison 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn school. --Terence Ong(C | R) 08:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
DeleteWeak Delete no schools are notable! (I'm gonna spread this meme if it kills me.) :) But, in particular, this school is not notable and fails WP:V. Xtifrtälk 10:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Changed my vote to weak, the article is much improved, but I still don't see enough to justify keeping the article--and, while I'm concerned about systemic bias, I would say the same about my own alma mater if it had this little to justify keeping it. In fact, if the high school I attended came up for AfD, I would vote to delete without hesitation. :) Xtifrtälk 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, doesnt pass the (incredibly lenient) WP:School test. I am changing my vote to Keep per Alansohn (good research), I'm trying to keep to WP:School and this article definitely meets it. Amiststalk • contribs 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - no intimation of notability. BTLizard 11:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep It's hard to blame all those above who voted to delete the original version of the article as it appeared when the AfD was created, especially if anyone actually read the article. With a little bit of research, it is clear that the school is indeed notable, and the additional information has been added to the article with material from the school's web site and several references from The Hindu, India's main national newspaper. With its management and operation by the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, the school has a unique science program that allows students to learn from India's top scientists, and to have heard from several recent Nobel Prize in Chemistry laureates. The school competes in, and has won, at the top levels of sport in the state. I strongly suggest that all those who previously voted to Delete should re-read the article and reconsider their vote. Based on fulfilling the coverage requirements of criterion 1 and the fact that the "school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools" in compliance with criterion 4, the school meets and exceeds the requirements of WP:SCHOOL for retention. Alansohn 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn. Accurizer 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Far more notable than most of the school pages we have here. It's even talked about in the "Hindu" (India's "USA today"). yandman 16:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep since it's been rewritten and sourced. Meets verifability criteria, and certainly meets the proposed schools notability criteria. Akradecki 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - if/when this article is kept, will the closing person please rename the article SO IT ISN'T SHOUTING AT US?Akradecki 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: it is already moved. --Iamunknown 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep as per (1) addition of quality verifiable sources, (2) its alumni, and (3) countering systemic bias. (Change to tentative delete. See below.) --Iamunknown 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Rename per convention. Thanks to whomever did the rework. It was in a pretty sad state when it was up for Prod. — RJH (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep this article has been nicely expanded with some notability established Valoemtalk 19:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename for reasons which I hope are obvious. There are multiple indicators of notability here, with thanks to Alansohn for the improvements. Silensor 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I guarantee you that a comparable school in the United States would have more ghits and would be kept. The external links and references assert notability. 129.98.212.69 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per Alansohn. bbx 19:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Just because it's on the Subcontinent doesn't make it less notable. Caknuck 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep High schools are by default considered notable. -- Librarianofages 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Not on Wikipedia, they're not! There's ample precedent to prove this claim wrong. Xtifrtälk 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
*Change of comment to Weak Keep I don't think high schools are considered notable by default per Librarianofages, I don't think anything is notable by default and must always assert it's notability clearly (hence my exclusionist philosophy). Further, systemic bias is a weasely excuse to slow consensus forming for deleting articles, notability is to be independantly asserted, not asserted more than other articles per Arkadecki, voting is evil so anyone who was requesting change of votes either in this debate or via my talk page have earned themselves a rap on the knuckles with a ruler (and a smile for their good intentions) schools always have notable people talk at them (Nobel Laureates included) because important people educate tomorrows important people so that's should be taken thinly when asserting notability. BUT all that said, this article now reads quite nicely and seems to have rushed to attain a high quality quickly while on death row, I say an 11th hour repreive is in order. •Elomis• 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment If you compare this article with all the other articles about high schools, this one should definitley be kept. This article has sources and asserts nobility. Thats a lot more than I can say about most high school articles on here. Clamster5 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
KEEP. NOT ALL SCHOOLS ARE INDEPENDANTLY NOTABLE, BUT THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THIS SCHOOL IS. RFerreira 05:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep I'm opposed to the inclusionism surrounding high schools; I strongly feel that only a small few are notable enough to justify having articles. However, I have become resigned to the fact that I am in the minority on this matter as virtually all high schools are kept. Now if we are going to continue following this policy, then we need to accept foreign high schools as well. See what kind of doors this opens? ;) Regardless, this schools article is decently well written and appears that it may be notable anyway. --The Way 09:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Tentative delete. I have similar sentiments as The Way (see immediately above). I left them at the table before I came to the discussion, because I feel they are minority, perhaps even fringe, sentiments, but I now feel compelled to argue with conviction. I do not think that this high school, though it seems like an admirable high school, merits an encyclopædia article. I had Holocaustsurvivors, Stephen Covey, and wealthy businessmen speak at my high school, but I do not consider that to establish any notability. If a high school were to influence educational standards for a whole national region, or attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement (not, "They delivered N number of cans to FEMA") or fiasco (something on the scale of Columbine), then I would certainly consider it notable as to justify encyclopædic inclusion. --Iamunknown 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have no idea what "systemic bias" is supposed to mean, but I do know how to define notability. Your "tentative" status is demonstrating an extreme version of deletionist elitism as to what schools merit inclusion in Wikipedia. At this school, the Nobel laureates lectured as part of an integrated program with the parent Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, unlike the feel-good appearances by those on the lecture circuit at your school, which had no connection whatsoever to the curriculum. By your logic, Columbine High School should not merit an article, as it was merely the site of a massacre. If the incident had happened at a local fast food establishment, would there be an article Columbine McDonald's that talked about the restaurant's menu and staff simply because a whole bunch of people were killed by two members of the wait staff who worked there after school? Or would there be an article for Columbine Post Office about the hours and services offered at that branch, if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had graduated high school and gotten jobs as letter carriers before they went berserk? As to your "influence educational standards for a whole national region" criterion, can you name more than a handful of schools (if that many) that would meet this criteria? We have to stop sitting up all night trying to figure out new hoops for school articles to jump through. And when did Wikipedia become a US only site that we have to question whether foreign schools should be admitted? Schools, as an integral part of our education system, and as demonstrated by the frequent, in-depth coverage they receive from multiple, independent and reliable sources, are often notable and deserve articles in Wikipedia, should they meet these standards. This school is simply one of the better-qualified for Wikipedia inclusion. Alansohn 17:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Your expeditious label of me as an extreme elitist is merely an underhanded tactic designed to discredit my justification to delete this article. Instead of addressing my points directly, you first prefix an accusation of systematic bias in order to label me as a miscreant and a systematically biased Western bigot. I ask you this: if I were an extremist like you explicitly accuse me of being, why would I be compelled to "tentatively" argue for the deletion of this article? If I intended to systematically delete this and every other article which did not fit in with my bigoted "deletionist [elitist]" views, would I argue to "tentatively delete" this article? No. If I were in fact an extremist as you accuse of being, I would argue vehemently for the deletion of any article which I did not include in the limited corpus of human knowledge I deemed appropriate to include in any encyclopædia. Because I in fact argue tentatively rather than vehemently for the deletion of this article, I am not a systematically biased "deletionist [elitist]" Western bigot as you readily accuse me of being. Thus I loathe your accusation that I am prejudiced by an "extreme ... deletionist elitism."
Further, nowhere did I argue that because Columbine High School was involved in one of the the largest, worst, most horrific school massacres in United States history that it should be priveleged to have data on its corresponding encyclopædia article including hours, staff, address, contact information, etc. My apparently systematicaly biased "deletionist [elitist]" Western-bigoted minority/fringe views which you shamelessly accuse me of compel me to disagree with including the aforemtioned data on the grounds of it being unencyclopædic. If the data could be integrated into the article in the form of compelling, even brilliant prose, then including would be fine by me. But I view that including it in a pithy directory format in an easily accessible table right in view at the top of the page is exactly what Wikipedia is not.
And no, as to my idealistic (but ultimately bigoted and "deletionist [elitist]") school inclusion criterion, that the school "influence educational standards for a whole national region," I cannot name more than a handful of schools that would meet this criterion. But, in the spirit of my alleged systematically biased "deletionist [elitist]" Western-bigoted views, I feel compelled to include only these few schools in any encyclopædia. But I loathe your label; I ardently argue that I am neither systematically biased, nor "deletionist [elitist]," nor a Western bigot when I think that this article should not be included in Wikipædia. A Western bigot would argue that this article be deleted but not articles about high schools in the United States deleted; I argue that not only this article but also articles concerning high schools in the United States be deleted, thus I am not a Western bigot. An "extreme ... deletionist [elitist]" would argue vehemently that this article be deleted; I am not arguing vehemently that this article be deleted, but am arguing tentatively that it be deleted, thus I am not an "extreme ... deletionist [elitist]". (I am arguing vehemently that your accusations and abstractions of my arguments are underhanded, accusatory attempts to discredit my arguments in favor of deletion by labeling me as a systematically biased, "deletionist [elitist]" Western bigot. There is a distinct difference.)
I still stand by my criteria for inclusion of high schools in Wikipedia. (I must note, however, that I do not pretend to hold them as a final decision. Indeed, I quickly summarized thoughts that had been floating around in my head upon which I have neither ruminated nor refined.) I do not use them as a strict policy, but instead I am informed by them, when I choose to argue to tentatively delete this article. --Iamunknown 01:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you claiming that you don't recognize that your argument that only those high schools that "were to influence educational standards for a whole national region" merit inclusion is not elitist? Again, how many schools in the world meet this criteria? It is a justification that is so irrational as to be meaningless. Your "attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement" is another standard that is so arbitrarily unrealistic as to be useless. How many schools on this planet meet this criteria? By what existing Wikipedia standard have you derived these justifications? Please refer to anything, anywhere that justifies your nonsensical vote. Alansohn 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Generally, I would agree with the premise that most high schools (e.g., most on the planet) are not notable. I changed to keep on this particular one, as it has some very unique and special characteristics, and has been verifiably recognized in quite a few third-party sources. However, generally, Local High is not notable, any more then a local Wal-Mart or gas station would be. I would say there should be some additional exceptions, such as historic/event notability (Columbine, for example, or the first high school in a country), exceptional standards or styles of teaching (though if this is related to a "chain" such as Waldorf/Montessori, this should already be covered under the main "X Schools" article and wouldn't establish notability for the school itself), exceptional and historic controversy surrounding the school (of more than just local interest), massive and verifiable influence on teaching standards over a large region or nationwide (not just state/citywide), winning a major national (not local) award and receiving significant press coverage for it, or exceptional and region/nationwide (again, not state/citywide) notability for a program at the school. Seraphimblade 03:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Please immediately stop accusing me of being "irrational," "[voting nonsensically]," and providing "ludicrous arguments." I noticed that again, instead of arguing based solely on the apparent merit or lack of merit of my arguments, you prefix an accusation of irreparable and nonsensical bias. Why do I have to cite specific "standards"'s for my argument? I argued based on my conviction that only a few high schools are notable enough to be included in an encyclopædia. So what? My extemporaneous criteria are elitist. I know that Wikipædia is not paper; but that should never imply that Wikipædia should include everything of little notability and influence.
And why does it matter that my criteria are elitist? Precedent and consensus must start somewhere: an unrecognized and unrespected opinion. Does my argument offend you? Does it frighten you? Why are you so loathe towards my argument such that your reaction is first to alienate my argument, then accuse me of irreparable bias and nonsensical justification? Are you unable to discuss the apparent lack of merits you find in it, so you instead result to name calling? Bingo! That you are accusing me of elitism is again evident of your underhanded attempt to distance me from the mainstream. By attaching a label, you intend to stigmatize and alienate me from the average Wikipædian, based on the virtue that you dislike my opinion. Instead of arguing based on the perceived lack of merit, you attempt to create a divide via an automatic labeling procedure. Please stop.
I still stand by my criteria, even if they are "gasp" elitist. I nonetheless consider them a good set of criteria to apply to the inclusion of articles into an encyclopædia. If you want to discuss the merits or lack of merits of my arguments, instead of merely labeling them with divisive, stigmatizing, and alienating labels, please come back and do; otherwise, any further altercation would be superfluous, appalling, and redundant.
(Note: Consider the following clause from "wikietiquette". The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. You specifically accused me of "[not justifying my] nonsensical vote". I thought this was a debate, not a vote. I argued, either meaningfully or nonsensically, based on my conviction. My "vote" was a mere initial text to summarize my argument. Do you just want me to fall into line and vote strong keep, with little supporting argument, like the rest of the people you solicited to "reconsider their vote"? Perhaps you should cite any "existing Wikipedia standard" for your actions; that is, if you truly do require that to support any individualised action on Wikipædia.) --Iamunknown 10:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not a vote. But the thing you typed where you wrote "weak delete" and tried to explain your justification is so far out of consensus as to be meaningless. Why is your requirement that a school "influence educational standards for a whole national region" or "attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement" any more valid than "all schools are notable"? How can you quote an obligation to "make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments", which are solely based on your own personal biases, not on any relevant standard? If you read above, I detail the criteria by which this article passes WP:SCHOOL and would pass any other relevant test for such an institution. And you appeal to what, other than your own personal whim?? How many schools in the world meet your elitist criteria? Please give us an idea so that we can judge if there is any merit to the standards you've concocted. Alansohn 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment To reply to the above comment by Alansohn, I don't find Iamunknowns justification meaningless at all and it could be construed as a personal attack... His requirements are more valid than 'all schools are notable' in the sense that they are actual requirements that can act as guidelines for determining notability while simply saying 'all schools are notable' is not, at least not in the same way. Rather, 'all schools are notable' is a discussion closer; it offers no further justification and makes the whole idea of notability rather worthless. Now, I am actually with you on keeping this particular article, but I agree with Iamunknown in claiming that this whole every high school is notable is a flawed approach that is not in line with most of Wikipedia's policies regarding notability standards. --The Way 11:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: You got me on that one. Okay, let's try this: a so-called standard that only accepts those schools that "influence educational standards for a whole national region" or "attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement" is no more valid than a standard that specifies notable schools as those with "more than ten students" or "has been open more than two years." One excludes 99.99999% of all schools, allowing about four or five to slip through, while the other includes almost all schools and excludes a few dozen. They're functional equivalents at exact opposite ends of the spectrum. At least those who claim that "all schools are notable" have the intellectual honesty to proclaim their biases out loud, without hiding behind elitist mumbo-jumbo to hide the fact that what they really advocate is "no schools are notable". The plain fact is that a significant percentage of schools, based on the "multiple non-trivial coverage" standard, are in fact notable by any reasonable definition. It's far less than 100%, but it's certainly far more than the 0.00001% that seems to be advocated by some here. The WP:SCHOOL proposal is a reasonable middle ground that is far closer to a rational middle ground than the wacky deletionist WP:SCHOOLS3 or the even wackier, even further away from consensus standard proposed proposed here. As a matter of fact Iamunknown has not listed any school (other than Columbine) that would meet his criteria. I guess any school that wants an article can always hope for a good, old-fashioned massacre. Alansohn 14:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Once again, I would assert that most schools aren't notable (just as the local McDonald's or CompUSA isn't notable, even if in aggregate McDonald's and CompUSA are notable.) The idea of high schools is notable, but very few specific high schools are notable. I think WP:SCHOOLS3, while still a little loose, is a reasonable compromise between the inclusionist "almost all schools are notable" and the deletionist "maybe 0.01% of schools are notable." WP:SCHOOL is not, it allows far too many non-notable ones through the cracks. I'd also add that your argument contains a fallacy-just because two arguments are on nearly-opposite ends of a spectrum doesn't mean equal validity. "Almost no one believes the earth is flat" is correct, "almost everyone believes the earth is flat" is wrong, even though they're opposites on that spectrum. Similarly, I would assert that "almost all high schools are notable" is incorrect, while "almost no high schools are notable" is correct. Seraphimblade 14:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Individual local schools are regular recipients of "multiple non-trivial coverage"; Individual McDonald's and CompUSA rarely receive such coverage. Schools receive national and state awards granted on a selective and competitive; ixnay for McDonald's and CompUSA locations. That said, it's nice to have your extreme deletionist bias out in the open. Wikipedia has a a clear consensus that a significant majority of schools are notable, and a succinct proposal at WP:SCHOOL that offers succinct guidelines to define which are and which are not. Your "no schools are notable" dictate, and the formal definition of this credo at WP:SCHOOLS3, is so far out of the mainstream as to be invalid for consideration. A significant percentage of schools, based on the "multiple non-trivial coverage" standard, are notable by any reasonable definition of the term. It's far less than 100%, but it's certainly far more than the 1-in-ten thousand standard (converting your 0.01%) that you advocate here. If there are 20,000 high schools in the United States, only two would have articles. Which two are they- Columbine and what else? Alansohn 15:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment One would imagine that a local McDonald's or CompUSA would receive coverage for grand openings, and possibly even for sales or the like-especially in smaller cities or towns. The problem and point here is, however, that the coverage is of only local notability. Also, please do not misrepresent me-I said the compromise point should be in between "include every school" and "include 0.01% of schools" (a figure which I made up on the spot anyway), so I never suggested the 0.01% as a correct figure. The criteria I suggested earlier were somewhat lost in the sea of text, but to reiterate-I believe that schools which are the subject of exceptional controversy (more so than just locally), are historically important (Columbine, or the first high school in a country), have a notable and very unusual teaching method, and are not a "chain" such as Waldorf/Montessori in which this is covered in the main article (many charter schools would meet this), have won major regional/national (not state or local) awards and have received significant press for this, or are a verifiably major influence on regional/national (not state or local) teaching methods or standards, are notable and should be included. Some other schools such as this one (with Nobel-prize winners as regular lecturers) may have some unique claim to notability as well, which should be examined on a case by case basis as it was here. Oh, and before you label me an "extreme deletionist", you may wish to note what I voted here. Seraphimblade 16:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have a number of remarks regarding this conversation. They are as follows:
1. Alan, please try to be more civil. Making ad hominem attacks on Iamunknown simply because he disagrees with you is inappropriate. Calling someone's views 'wacky' because they are different than yours doesn't help the situation and only heightens tension. Referring to your arguments as the only ones which are 'reasonable' shares the same problem. I don't see why reason dictates that you are more correct than others. I'm assuming good faith on this matter; I believe that we are all reasonable editors with different viewpoints and our viewpoints all have some validity.
2. This notion that those of us who would normally want to delete high schools are 'elitist' is perhaps somewhat correct, though it's a thinly veiled attempt to demean our position in favor of a more inclusionist one. As far as the way this term is being used in this context, I am of the opinion that encyclopedias are supposed to be elitist; they are not directories to have information on every school, hospital, restaurant and gas station rather they are supposed to discriminate and include information on those that substantially stand out from the crowd. Does the high school have a novel approach to education? If so, keep it. Has it won a considerable number of awards? Then keep it. Is it a typical high school, with a decent but average program? Then it doesn't need to have an article.
3. While this may not be directly on topic, it ties in with my above comments. After looking at WP:SCHOOLS3 I have to say I still find it too inclusionist based on its first criteria and the fact that a school must only meet one. Virtually all schools, including elementary ones (and even many preschools) will meet that criteria. Local newspapers often have several articles on each school in that locality every year. This criteria makes the other three meaningless since it's going to end up resulting in articles for all other schools. I personally, and I recognize this isn't the most appropriate place for this discussion, feel that criteria one should be required in conjunction with one of the other three criteria.
4. Finally, as a matter of self-defense, please keep in mind that I did vote keep in this particular instance. --The Way 20:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I had changed my notes to reflect some begrudging support for this based on the fact that the article had been cleaned up and removed some of the glaring problems that it originally had, but seeing some fellow exclusionists weigh in a little I'm inclined to comment further towards getting the consensus. I am unreservedly elitist in my view on Wikipedia, as an exlusionist I believe that articles should exist representing the top x% of schools. Those which are notable above and beyond the usual collection of schools that all of us (presumably) went to and each of which had their own unique facets associated with them. Some of the following need to be considered before we can reach consensus here.
1. Is this school unique in any way which is unique to uniqueness? This horridly phrased question means, all schools are unique in some way or another. Each has individual personalities, innovative programs and achievements which set them apart from a category or categories in which they may participate. Some have nobel prize laureates give speeches, some have presentations by the Coca Cola yo-yo team (mine did), but by their nature schools do things that other schools don't. Their unique achievements need to be considered in line with this, and should be more unique to assert their notability than perhaps a Safeway or McDonalds should. My highschool in Australia had an annual festival whereby inordinate ammounts of dutch fruit and donut balls were cooked and sold to raise funds, it was very well known in the surrounding towns for it. No other school did this or anything similar but schools do unique things, this doesn't make them notable.
2. Systemic bias is a horrid labelling accusation designed to drag a debate into the mud. It is Reductio ad Hitlerum in the worst possible manner, designed to villify arguments by directly associating them with a widely despised phenomena. Essentially the thin veil of accusations of racial vilification are being used to draw attention away from the fact that the school in question here, and often any school whose notability is up for debate, is hopelessly relevant to only a very select area. We should not feel guilty about this, and we should wholesale reject any Godwin's law-esque accusations designed to make people feel guilty for expressing a valid opinion provided it is backed up with fact.
3. Further on geography, I don't think we should take into consideration the location of a school when deciding on it's worthiness of inclusion. Let's just drag this down to common sense, let's assume that each Wikipedian reading my comments now is a vaguely intelligent person. Let's say they randomly think up the names of 5 educational institutions. For me it was University of Sydney, UCLA, MIT, Oxford and Lund Universitat. Let's assume they think up 10 more, let's assume they are then asked to think up 1000, 10,000, 100,000. Will an average person given ANY period of time, have the Dr. S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School pop into their head? Notability doesn't mean fame I know, but would any 500 english speaking people chosen randomly across the globe when asked directly about the Dr. S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial School know what it was from a source other than the Wikipedia? Now apply the same test to MIT, University of Sydney, Lund, Oxford, Standford, Julliard, University of Toronto, Hiroshima University...
4. This final one is entirely my good-faith opinion, may be entirely wrong and is almost certainly going to be misinterpreted and leave me the subject of personal attacks. I believe that a part of Indian culture is a unified feeling of immense pride in India's educational institutions, particulary those related with the technology industry. While applaudable this sense of pride needs to be considered with caution when evaluating encyclopedia articles on that subject matter, the cultural pride in India's schools may lend itself to editors of articles on them taking criticism of their notability personally. I'm making no comment on the actual quality of India's schools, only that inside of India the opinion held by people outside of India on the notability of Indian schools may be overestimated. •Elomis• 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep- Seems to be a notable educational institution. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
keep and please help avoid systemic wp:bias this is a notable school within india Yuckfoo 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn, but move to proper case title if that hasnt been done already. ALKIVAR™☢ 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The article is almost B class.BakamanBakatalk 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Apathetic Keep As it stands right now, I would probably say delete. However, this article shows a dim promise of notability that might come out if given some time to ferment. Trusilver 03:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep: Well sourced and researched and notable, per comments before, much more than many Wikipedia articles sadly. Kudos for doing the work to further this encylopedia. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep started looking into this because I was instantly suspicious of the slightly hamfisted american-centric perspective exhibited in the nomination. Decided it was a keep. Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia. --SandyDancer 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Let's start looking at this sensibly people. I am sick to death of the systemic bias garbage, being called hamfisted and american-centric (as an-even minded and tactful Australian this is nothing other than a personal attack by any sensible person's reckoning and SandyDancer is to be admonished for it), my reasons for nominating this article are that it is a failure of WP:SCHOOLS so spectuacular that it rivals a new-year's eve fireworks display. That the comments for it's inclusion in the AfD debate are backed with ricepaper-like prose while considered discussion for the deletion of it seemed to be ignored in favour of the volume of "keep all schools rox kthx".
This debate was re-opened because I petitioned the administrator who closed it to take another look, thanks should go to him for being open-minded enough to let some more consensus form. The comments on his or her talk page were as follows and should be noted here.
(BEGIN)
I'd like to request you have another look at this debate, I think the consensus achieved was actually in the negative. If you consider that the aim of an article for deletion debate is to reach a consensus, not vote on an outcome, the consensus was overwhelmingly for the article's deletion.
But first, this school still spectacularly fails WP:SCHOOLS as follows
The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself.
No, or none stated which is the same thing. This school has not been the subject of any non-trivial publications in the world at large, it is only notable within one country.
The school has been or was in existence for over 50 years, due to the great likelihood of—but greater difficulty of uncovering—non-trivial historical coverage of that school.
This school has existed for 27 years, a little over half of that requirement. Even if we halve the requirement as per WP:SCHOOLS it just makes it.
The school participates in the highest grade of the state, province or regional competitions in at least three extracurricular activities and has won at least two regional championships or one national championship in any of these activities. These can include, for example, sports teams, band competitions, cheerleading competitions, engineering contests, and so forth.
Again, no. The article states two fields of endeavour in which it has been successfull. This is again a case of if the requirements set out in WP:SCHOOLS were halved it would still just make it.
The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools.
My understanding of this (perhaps you disagree) is that the school would have to have something very specific about it that sets it apart. A school which provides for IT industry certifications as part of it's highschool education curriculum, a school which teaches braille or sign lanugage as part of it's curriculum in servicing the blind or deaf, something which sets it apart from highschools. This is another spectacular failure of WP:SCHOOLS.
Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff.
None. The school has not been awarded any state awards, or had any commendations from notable people as would be outlined in WP:Notability.
The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC)
No, or not stated, again the same thing. You could almost consider that it's namesake is notable, but I'd doubt it and I think the other considered arguments for deletion would agree.
The school building or campus has notable architectural features that set it apart from others.
No. I assume that this school is not on board a spacecraft, under the sea, at the 150th floor of a building or in a building which has existed for time immemorial as an example of a particular period of architecture.
As you can see this is a failure of WP:SCHOOLS that can not possibly get any worse. Further the debate that was meant to achieve a consensus, only tallied votes. These "keep votes" had such nonsensical explanations as "Weak Keep- Seems to be a notable educational institution. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)", or "KEEP. NOT ALL SCHOOLS ARE INDEPENDANTLY NOTABLE, BUT THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THIS SCHOOL IS. RFerreira 05:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)" a cursory counting of heads and people weighing in. There were paragraphs upon paragraphs of weighted, supported, considered reasons for it's deletion.
(END)
Guys my (hopefully) final word on this is that this school is not notable, it is not made notable by having a hockey ground even if it is a very nice one. It is not made notable by important people speaking at it (ALL schools get important people speaking at them), it is not made notable by a sea of people saying "Seems notable" without providing any information as to WHY it seems notable to them and on what version of WP:SCHOOLS they are making the assertion.
Any Wikipedians who comment on this AfD further, would be doing me a personal favour for which I'd be most grateful if they didn't drag the debate into the mud with Godwin's Law-esque accusations of racial villification, calling people ham-fisted, a doodie-head, or do anything else to try and detract from the actual subject matter at hand in favour of a petualant race-card play. Any editor offering "keep it seems notable although I've never read any of the guidelines defining what that word means on Wikipedia" or "keep you are racist against India" or "keep This school now has two Google hits, nevermind both of them are Alansohn requesting on user's talk pages that they reconsider their opinion publically", should be discounted and if nobody can offer actual reasons why this article is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia the matter should be closed and resolved for deletion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. He made one album with a song featuring one member of a popular rap group. Google finds nothing. Article is unverifiable. --Wafulz 04:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Per A7. As I always say..."I slept with a famous person...does that mean I'm famous?" Missvain 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 04:33, 16 November 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 was Speedily deleted as {{db-spam}} for a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 05:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This article fails to establish notability with respect to the WP:CORP criteria and I believe it is primarily an advertisement. The two main contributors are single purpose accounts: Moxa(talk·contribs) and 60.248.66.82(talk·contribs), which is a Moxa corporate IP. It failed the prod process. JonHarder 03:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Spam. •Elomis• 04:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanicruftertisement. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 05:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per CSD G11. Khoikhoi 05:33, 16 November 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.
Merge and unlink all the redlinks at Screwed Up Click to save us having the same conversation all over again next week. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Completely fails to assert notability. scope_creep 17:33, 16 November 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.
User Hatto created this page because he isn't happy with the current amount of space dedicated to this "phenomena" (as he choses to call it) on the original Masashi Tashiro page. This "phenomenon" is hardly notable enough to warrant its own article and merging it would be pointless (as everything in this article is information that other editors removed from the original article). Mackan 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Strongly keep, It's my freedom whether I write this article or not. Although Mackan isn't an administrator, he keeps on interfering with me. He should have no need to do it with me! I'm extremely annoying that he says to me guideline, guideline, guideline! and deletes unnecessary sentence to himself at any times. A person like him may be hated because he dogmatically deletes the sentence that he can't accept. Freedom and right to create the articles must be secured for everybody. I don't think what he does is correct. Actually, I think I'd like to expand Tashiro's article without being interfered by him but I have trouble because he keeps watch over me. By the way, Tashiro Festival is frequently used on 2channel. When I wrote about Tashiro Festival on Masashi Tashiro's article, I created this as an independent article because Mackan deleted the description about Tashiro Festival and I was unpleasant to be done it by him. I'll ABSOLUTELY beat his eccentric nomination for deletion! --Hatto 07:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The substance of this article is already covered at Masashi Tashiro#Trivia. As a remote second choice, if the name "Tashiro Festival" is that important, then turn Tashiro Festival into a redirect and add the following sentence to Masashi Tashiro#Trivia: "The nomination of Tashiro for Person of the Year is sometimes called Tashiro Festival." --Metropolitan90 07:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment, if Mackan wants to delete this article, he lets me write the perfectly same sentence as this on Masashi Tashiro's article. Being deleted is OK for me if he do it but I want to keep this article if he doesn't do it. --Hatto 07:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No, Hatto. Don't create new articles to try and "blackmail" other users into accepting your edits. Mackan 13:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Metropolitan. Looks like a classic POV fork (although more trivial and harmless than most). Also looks fairly non-notable. Hatto, we have guidelines for a reason. Mackan, do try to remember WP:BITE; Hatto sounds like he's feeling bitten. One or both of you might want to look into WP:MEDCAB or WP:3O. Xtifrtälk 10:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Hatto is not a newcomer and he keeps on causing troblems refusing to listen to other users, people have been very lenient to him but it didn't get anywhere. I've tried and debate with him but he ignores/deletes my messages. See his request for comments (link on his talk page). Mackan 13:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not the place for that discussion (nor was I volunteering to get involved). Disputes should be resolved through dispute resolution, not on AfDs. Xtifrtälk 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment, I'm not surely a newcomer but is feeling bitten. I could purely edit Tashiro's article until I was attacked by Mackan. I assume a strong attitude for him daringly, and I think I have no need to talk with a xxxxing terrorist like him because I'm getting so angry to him. Though I just wanted to describe about Tashiro Festival on Masashi Tashiro's article, I was made to shorten a description about it in Tashiro's "Trivia" section by his wish. Originally a description about Tashiro Festival is not written in the section of "Trivia" and the description was written in the section called "Provisional winner of Time Magazine's Person of the Year poll in 2001". (See [14][15]) I made this section and write about Tashiro Festival because I thought that festival was important but he shortened a description about it and moved it to "Trivia" section because he thought it was not important. I, therefore, can't accept all his sense of values. --Hatto 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Still not the place for this! But however long you've been here, I have to assume you're a newbie, because every other explanation of your behavior that I can come up with is a violation of WP:AGF. Xtifrtälk 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into 2channel. --- RockMFR 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Objectively, although this event is real, and verifiable, and likely notable, it is best covered in the article on Tashiro, and perhaps an article on Time person of the year. A redirect would be fine only if there is good evidence that this not-obvious name is most often used to describe this Time voting event. This is asserted but I dont's see the evidence.Obina 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Definitely not notable enough for an article - this sort of thing is not particularly unusual (see, for example, the article on Lowtax for a similar stunt pulled by Something Awful forum members). As well as the trivia section of Tashiro's article, the event is also mentioned on the page about 2channel. Ironfrost 17:04, 17 November 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 was CSD A7 - crzcrztalk 04:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
because it doesn't. Delete. •Elomis• 04:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete omg is it over yet?!!>? Never!!! Missvain 04:15, 16 November 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 was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Informal group of Student television stations whose sole aim appears to be meeting up and giving each other awards. Delete. Ohconfucius 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Note
See nominations below for several other student radio stations which have little or dubious notability. In any event, student societies within the context of a given university are not usually notable per WP:ORG, and these stations are no different. Listed separately to avoid train wreck. Ohconfucius 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep with the addition of Ray Addison - Missvain 04:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
How does he help the article? His sole potential claim to notability (not made in his article even) appears to be being chair of this society. Other than that, he's worked as a producer on a couple of minor tv shows. Bwithh 04:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no assertion of notability. I don't see why this student television station needs an article here, stations like this are very ordinary. --Terence Ong(C | R) 08:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Have another read, this is not 'a' student TV station but a larger association of student TV stations. You give the impression of having completely misunderstood the (admittedly rather bad) article. Tomisaac 00:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
KeepIts an association similiar to RTC or BAFTA, i think this is notable as it is a major spawning ground of talent for the british film and television industry, particularly when every school in america has an article and i doubt this notable to anyone outside the US if that. this is notable within the UK. Capt Jack Doicy
But does it meet WP:ORG? From the other views expressed here, the answer is most likely no. MER-C 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
See below. Plus, the decision that NaSTA is NN seems to have been based purely on the (quite poor) article itself. JMalky 15:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per WP:ORG and nn mutual admiration society.SkierRMH 09:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Most trade and industry associations (e.g. BAFTA) could be called 'mutual admiration societies', as you're unlikely to find such a body that exists to knock back and criticise it's membership...Tomisaac 00:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every TV channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. I also fear Capt Jack is correct when he says there's evidence of America-centric behaviour when it comes to Wikipedia, especially in what is allowed to stay and what gets dumped. Also MER-C please just detail your reasons for deleting the article instead of replying to every vote to keep the articles in question, it does you no credit at all.Kind Regards -Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
KEEP & REWRITE Utterly shocking that this is up for deletion. This is ENTIRELY AGAINST WP:ORG, because NaSTA is a national organisation (the clue is in the acronym), and has been discussed countless times in the national press (if proof is needed, I can provide it). This article must be kept, it can be dramatically improved if needed, and there is no good reason at all to delete it. I'd like to add that the comments made by Ohconfucius about UK student TV have been particluarly offensive and ignorant. I know we should all 'assume good faith', but his tone is totally out of order. Honestly this makes me furious, is he suggesting that UK student TV IN IT'S ENTIRETY should be removed from Wikipedia? NaSTA is not an informal organization (that was a mistake in the entry), it is a long standing union of student TV stations, recognised in the UK television indstry. Granted, the article as it stands is pretty poor, but given time it can be expanded into a useful, valid, relevant entry. Being ignorant of this organisations existence is no reason to delete it. JMalky 11:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Times link refers only to NaSTA as an external link at the bottom of a list; Independent article[19] appears to be a list of student TV stations, mentioning which ones have won the NaSTA awards - in addition, this article is an inside job and not actual journalism - it is described as a "plug" (i.e. an advertisement in disguise as, or embedded in, an article) on the Nasta forums[20] where it is made clear that the author of the article is in the employ of one of NaSTA's TV stations. The Independent article is consequently an unreliable source (also, media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability). NUS is not a news source, and the mention in the link given is trivial - a brief description and an external link Bwithh 04:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There are other articles, but I'll need to track them down in electronic form. JMalky 09:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment:The NUS is not a news source, but as an enormously important national union, it's endorsment of NaSTA is good third-party verification of NaSTA's validity as required by WP:ORG.Tomisaac
KEEP There only a very small number of student TV stations in the UK, and ALL of them are watched by industry profesionals looking for fresh talent - especially at the time of the NaSTAs. and the NaSTAs are SO much more than awards - it's a conference, where we can all meet each other, and meet key industry people etc. NaSTA exists (ask Greg Dyke, he'll tell you!) - and there is no reason it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia...! adamhunt 12:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is a bona fides article. scope_creep 17:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:ORG. No claims made to encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 04:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't see how this fails WP:ORG - it's a large formal organisation (hundreds attend the conference, it covers well over a thousand members of student TV stations), and I've seen a few national newspaper articles (often in the media supplements) on student TV that are centred around NaSTA. I've not got links as most papers don't publish every article (especially features) on the web. It's certainly regarded in the TV industry as the thing to watch for new television talent, and considering that many smaller university-specific student bodies are regarded as notable, this large multi-university media organisation surely must be. The article as stands doesn't do NaSTA justice, I'll try rewriting when I get some time.Tomisaac 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
One more comment, from WP:ORG "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source" - NaSTA is certainly national in scale, we have third-party sources, (NUS, papers) therefore is notable.Tomisaac 00:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Note This afd discussion has been publicized on the NaSTA forums[21]. Welcome, NaSTA forum members Bwithh 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a message was sent out to alert existing Wikipedia users who are aware of NaSTA, in order to let them help safeguard the entry against rampant, uninformed deletionism. There is no guideline against that. Everyone realises that this is not a ballot. On the basis of discussion, it's pretty clear that the entry has been proved valid, as per WP:ORG. I hope the above message wasn't written as a means of invalidating those arguments... JMalky 10:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but it could certainly use beefing up. While the article subject is most certainly encyclopedic (as the 'pedians above me have proved well, I think), the information as it stands is somewhat lacking. Also, it should probably be moved to National Student Television Association and NaSTA made to be a redirection to the former. DezSP 01:06, 21 November 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 was Keep, with a third for those who were asked to provide source for the claim to notablity, as it's readily available from Google books. ~ trialsanderrors 08:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Student TV station and the biggest and most frequent recipient of the self-lauditary awards from NaSTA. It claims to be the longest continuously-running student TV. Methinks "So what?" DeleteOhconfucius 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This should stay particularly since they also hold a guinness world record (Capt Jack Doicy)
Care to give us a source? MER-C 09:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete OMG, WTF, ETC, the whole bloody lot of 'em.SkierRMH 09:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Student TV Stations have a right to an entry in Wikipedia. Some are older than national broadcasters, and all of the UK ones (to my knowledge) could provide evidence that they are discussed in 'third party sources' (as per WP:ORG). Some of the comments made about student TV have been really ignorant and offensive. Also, I'd like to know why none of the US stations are up for deletion. JMalky
Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. Kind Regards -Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Simply because its a reall tv station and asserts notabiliy. scope_creep 17:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Like most student TV stations, it's probably not notable enough to be featured in multiple independent reliable sources. As for the claims to notability in the opening paragraph, if there aren't multiple independent reliable sources to verify them, then they are either false or not genuinely noteworthy. Pan Dan 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Student TV stations have a lot of influence in the UK student population. To say YSTV (and NaSTA and other student stations) do not have sufficient notability is a farse. A quick google finds results from organisations as diverse as the BBC, the National Union of Students, MediaUK and Media Directions. The latter has produced a print article on YSTV, as have local press, and the NaTA orgabisation (of which YSTV is a part) has been featured in at least one UK national paper. Article should definately stay. Rowan 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think "NaTA orgabisation" should read "NaSTA Organisation". Djomp 09:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As to your refs: The BBC article is trivial because it's of local interest -- note it's in the "where I live--North Yorkshire" section. Your second link doesn't reference this station at all--I don't know why you include it. Your third ref is a directory/contact info listing. Your fourth ref has two quotes about the station. Given that these are the most promising sources you could find, I can say with more confidence now than before that, like most student TV stations, this one is not the subject of multiple non-trivial outside sources. Finally, your comment that student TV stations have influence in the UK might be relevant to a discussion about whether to have an article on student TV stations in the UK, but it has nothing to do with whether we should keep this article. Pan Dan 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are you so desperate to delete this article? Where you bitten by a student TV station as a small child?
If you must know, yes. (Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.) Pan Dan 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. YSTV has been running longer than many national TV stations, and has had plenty of media attention over the years. The NaSTA awards are judged by professionals from the industry, so I think it's completely unfair to call them "self-lauditary". DezSP 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. YSTV meets the criteria for notability on account of the multiple media references linked on its talk page. If you claim the NaSTAs are self-lauditary, then you imply that the same applies to the BAFTAs, Academy Awards and any other award organised by the community or industry that it is relevant to. Additionally, only the response from pan dan suggests any reason for deletion.Labmonkey 12:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment The "media references on its talk page" that aren't passing or trivial are from York University itself. To show that something is notable you have to show that the outside world, as represented by sources outside of the subject, have taken note of it. Pan Dan 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I disagree that the other references are 'passing'. More have already been listed on this page too. Rowan 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply Can you point to a single reference that is not passing (e.g. the blurb in the London Independent), trivial (e.g. the Media UK directory entry), or local (the BBC "Where I Live--Yorkshire" article)? Pan Dan 14:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment An article by the BBC featuring only the station's web launch is hardly "trivial". If you would claim that this is not "outside" the subject due to the BBC being a broadcaster, then what references should *any* media organisation on Wikipedia use? Yes, local news, but by a national broadcaster, and on a national site. It's notable.144.32.128.113 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply The BBC clearly classifies the article as being of local interest only. As I said above, it's in the "Where I Live--Yorkshire" section. Pan Dan 14:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment These arguments about the notability of sources are getting a little pedantic. Wether or not the article complies with the guidelines in WP:ORG is essentially a matter of opinion. Given that the majority view is that the article should be kept, can we not just give YSTV the benefit of the doubt? JMalky 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply If the discussion seems pedantic to you, think about the general idea that's being illustrated here: Most student TV stations are not notable as reflected in the fact that outside publishers usually do not see fit to issue non-trivial works featuring a particular student TV station. After examining the sources, this student TV station is no exception to that idea. Pan Dan 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment As pointed out above, the guidelines are merely guidelines, they are not there to be used to find any possible way of removing an article. It's one thing to request deletion of a page that nobody bothers with, but persisting in attacking an article that has widespread support just seems like a refusal to back down.Labmonkey 17:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply "the guidelines are merely guidelines, they are not there to be used as a to find any possible way of removing an article" -- Please read my above reply more carefully. You imply that the delete voters here are using the guidelines in a lawyerly fashion to try to search for some tiny, inconsequential reason why this article should be deleted. But the opposite is true. This article violates both the letter and spirit of WP:ORG. Most local organizations, including student TV stations, are not notable, and this one is no exception. Pan Dan 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply Actually, I just imply that you and the contributors requesting "keep" have differing viewson the interpretations of the se guidelines. I respect the fact that you were the only one who came up with a reply that was neither empty "Delete- really" or plain spite "Delete OMG WTF the whole bloody lot of them", but as it is, this boils down to your assertation that the media mentions are trivial, against multiple explanations of why they are not.
Comment "Multiple explanations"? I don't see one. Pan Dan 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, why are you pressing for deletion againt the wishes of so many other users? No stupid questions, no stupid answers. Just come up with a new, valid case for deletion or admit that you either can't bear to lose an argument or that you have some personal dislike of student TV.Labmonkey 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment To participate constructively in this and future AfD debates (this one's almost done), please stop making silly assertions about people you're debating with and start addressing my/their arguments. Pan Dan 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
ReplyThis is just going round in circles. I have already addressed your argument with reference to media mentions, as have other users. You then claim that the media mentions are NN. Explanations are given my JMmalky, Rowan and are backed up by the links on the discussion page of the article. You have never used any other argument than an opinion that the stories linked are not notable enough, based on your interpretation of a proposed guideline, WP:ORG. That doesn't even stand up if you discount the BBC site, as Media Directions is a published magazine which falls under the guideline.
Furthermore, I agree that this discussion is almost over. The majority of contributors favour keeping the article and there's a clear list of sources that you are the only user to continue to dispute. I offered the chance to provide a new case for deletion, but you didn't do so. With regards to making "silly assertions", repeatedly disputing sources does seem to be an attempt to drag this out, and just seems to me like you have a personal problem with the article. I may be wrong, so just explain why you want this page removed so badly. Just stop deflecting, and say what you have against the article.Labmonkey 00:12, 23 November 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 was delete - nobody has a right to an article - you need to prove merit, another keep didn't have a reason, copyvio concerns, ....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
