Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 6
March 6[edit]
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:20, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Bicontinental country[edit]
Original research. RickK 00:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks thorough, but what does it mean? Delete JFW | T@lk 01:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- keep, NOT delete, will someone state his objections, please? This article compiles the information about these border-cases gathered from the main wikipedia articles about the continents and states involved. I think that instead of continius fighting about what country to include where - this article clears the things out and everyone should be happy with the compromise - also this article acts as some sort of a mover of the unresolvable debate about continent borders from the main pages to a separate 'borderline cases'-page. Also this article reflects the geographical reality. Anyway, even if some information is wrong, why not correct it instead of delete the whole article??? Unsigned by User:62.204.151.1
- As you say, it duplicates information. How about turning it into a list, instead of rehashing stuff from other articles? JFW | T@lk 01:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Is it not currently like a list? There are some explanations given, but it could not be plain list... it should be noted WHAT is listed... that's why there are explanations. I think that the information about that subject is much better synthesied here - in one common place, where eveyone can look into (or change if needed) when some debate about states on the continent borders arises... User:62.204.151.1
- It isn't a list because its title isn't "List of bicontinental countries". Ben Standeven 05:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Is it not currently like a list? There are some explanations given, but it could not be plain list... it should be noted WHAT is listed... that's why there are explanations. I think that the information about that subject is much better synthesied here - in one common place, where eveyone can look into (or change if needed) when some debate about states on the continent borders arises... User:62.204.151.1
- As you say, it duplicates information. How about turning it into a list, instead of rehashing stuff from other articles? JFW | T@lk 01:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- keep, appears to be secondary research, not original, with the CIA World Factbook as the primary source. Spain is missing though. Kappa 01:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Josh Cherry 01:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but transwiki; This is a very unique original research project. Maybe it could go to an atlas book in wikibooks? Tygar 01:53, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's trivia, but *useful* trivia, probably deserving of a place in Wikipedia. Kaibabsquirrel 02:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless the author can provide a source for his drawing of the borders, especially the Europe/Asia border and where is he getting the maps from. ?Cantus…☎ 03:04, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Europe/Asia border is drawn along the Caucaus watershed-Caspian Sea-Ural river-Ural montain-Arctic Ocean. This is the most recognized path. The other - KumaManychRivers-Caspian Sea-Emba river-Ural mountain variant is much rarely used, but we can add it too for completecy.Alinor 07:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Americas and Asia/Africa border is drawn along the Isthmus/Canal of Suez/Panama - as stated in many Wikipedia articles. The Oceania/Asia islands are choosed according to the oceania's Melanesia Wikipedia page. Alinor 08:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- See the article discussion page Talk:Bicontinental_country#some things to add
- Note that the exact definition of continents is disputed - see Continent. Radiant! 19:03, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; looks interesting and could be expanded in lots of ways. For example, Turkey's bid to join the EU is based on its partial European geography, whereas objections from other European countries are based on its predominantly Asian culture. Other countries have similar political and cultural ambiguities. Psychonaut 04:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; the Europe/Asia border is as I've always seen it drawn, along the Urals and the Caucasus. The North/South America border is harder to argue, since I've never seen it drawn there, so I'd rather see sources for that. But it's interesting nonetheless. Alfvaen 04:26, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: No context, no discussion, no explanation, no ramifications, no significance. It's a list article disguised as a discursive article. What are the effects of going over a continental border? Is there anything historical about this? Do the locals know they're crossing borders? What is there to say about this? If it's a list article, then, well, the battle against lists has been lost, but it's clearly not an explanatory article. Geogre 04:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- See the rant at the discussion page for some explanation of 'why is it written/should be keeped'
- That are only geographical borders, not political state borders, so locals don't have to know when crossing them. This is like knowing/not knowing the apple falls becouse of gravity. 62.204.151.1 07:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Article is not original research, so nomination is unfounded. --Centauri 06:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is quite an interesting article and I think it's encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 07:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- keep there's useful information here, it's a topic which could easily be encyclopedic and the solution to problems with the article is to edit it. Mozzerati 08:34, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- Keep. Rl 11:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm sorry, I can tell someone did a lot of work on this, but this topic is simply not encyclopedic. There's nothing unifying about these countries as a class that justifies an article just about them. --Angr 12:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep have you ever seen what is going on when somebody edits articles about those countries, trying to claim that they are in one of the two continents? Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
- Well, if there is no consensus on whether a country is in one continent, or the other, or both, then you cannot force a consensus simply by creating a list like this. Radiant! 18:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like someone is trying to claim every country in Europe is bicontinental. — JIP | Talk 13:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, which is rather a pity, as we could really do with an article on the topic (see the edit wars over templates declaring which countries are or aren't in the continent of Europe). James F. (talk) 18:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- again this originality...this is just a compilation from another sources (I have mentioned them multiple times on multiple places around here), I don't see original, creative parts, what do you consider 'original research'?62.204.151.1 18:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I believe the problem is this: if the listed countries have nothing in particular in common other than the fact that they are considered to be on two continents, then the list is as arbitrary as List of countries with an R in their name - ergo, not encyclopedic. If the listed countries are alleged to have something else in common, then the article would be original research. Either way, delete. As a side point, inclusion on this list is arbitrary depending on from what POV you define 'continent' - see Continent for details. Radiant! 18:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- The common thing is that they are bicontinental and this is quite enough reason to make such a list - look at the edit wars, witch errup everytime one such country is put on 'the other' continent. This article is a good place to present the subject from a neutral point of view (if you object something in this article - let's discuss and change, not delete) and to release the other articles of these edit wars. (rant).
- Look at the Europe and Template:Europe discussions to see the 'popularity' of these edit wars. They are practiced by MANY PEOPLE. So it looks that there IS NEED for the information on bicontinental countries to be compiled (and improved) at one single place (not individualy on each country - one time for Russia, next time for Cyprus, again for Turkey, etc.) - I suggest this place to be here.62.204.151.1 19:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Since there are edit wars about this subject, creating a new article that explains your POV is not a very good way with dealing with them. It seems to me that the people participating in those edit wars would not agree with the contents of the Bicont page. Hence, it gives them an extra arena to fight edit wars in. Instead, you should go to WP:RFC and resolve the issue. Radiant! 22:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- If someone thinks that something in the article is POV - just say and it will be corrected. Also, this is not "one more arena" for the continent-borders edit wars - this will be THE place for this information, debate, edit war, etc. - the pages of continents and countries will become NPOV and point to this place here, were we should also made a NPOV explanation of the subject.62.204.151.1 18:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep.Canaen I see no reason to delete the information. Sometimes it's good to repeat information.
- Delete. I have to agree in large part with the points made above by Radiant!. While the information is interesting it is trivial at best, it can also be viewed as inaccurate at worst. The fact that continental boundaries themselves are disputed means the information in this article is inherently disputable as well. Either way it is too arbitrary and too trivial to be encyclopedic. Arkyan 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is not too trivial, judjing by the debates about the subject, that are participated by many people (on the mentioned here pages and other places).
- If some information in the article is disputed (or POV) - this can be easily corrected. 62.204.151.1 18:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The article is surely in need of a bit of cleanup, but this is not merely original research. All information about area is fairly well known geography if the continental boundaries are agreed upon. Sjakkalle 08:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep If there's controversy about where the borders are between continents make note of it in the article. I don't see how this is original research any more than any other article that compiles multiple references. --Aranae 08:31, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the page, but maybe as a list. In the least, it needs to be cleaned up and the overlapping information should be linked to on the other pages. At any rate, I see no reason to delete it entirely. Uris 03:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It is definitely encyclopedic. --Tv 00:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- After all this discussion, still have to echo User:Jfdwolff. It's detailed, but seemingly purposeless. Delete. Lacrimosus 07:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Borderline keep - David Gerard 10:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with angr, Geogre and Radiant! above. The article does not show a meaningful connection between, say, the Asia/Europe countries and the Asia/Oceania countries. It might be useful to have a page specifically about the Europe/Asia controversy. In fact, it looks like that was the point of this page, and the other bicontinental countries were added to make it look more general.FreplySpang 16:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. but needs to be cleaned up, and some context given (i.e., significance?)--Briangotts 22:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - irrelevant and impossible to get interesting or relevant. Borders between continents are too arbitrarily drawn — in Eurasia, the Americas and in the sea — to make it possible for this to become anything else than an weak shaddow of pseudo-science. How and why should it matter for a country if it is bicontinental or not? The answer is, it doesn't, although Wikipedia with this article try to give the impression it does. /Tuomas 16:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The relevance of this sort of seemingly trivial information may require several steps of inference. For example, I could see relevance to this sort of information when dealing with the politics of conservation. Indonesia's conservation strategy should take Wallace's Line into account and potentially treat things very differently on either side. Turkey may have a similar concern across the strait of Bosporus. Panama and Egypt are both in an unual situation with the existence of the Panama and Suez canals. These have isolated once contiguous biological ranges and have led to geographic reproductive isolation among populations on either side. I suspect there's plenty of relevance to this sort of discussion outside of biology as well. Admittedly, borders of continents are somewhat arbitrary, but I think this information is still potentially of some value. --Aranae 01:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's much better to have this than it is to ignore the issue by deleting the article at this point. --Joy [shallot] 00:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Everyking 04:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Theory of tomorrow[edit]
Some rocking teenagers hungry for fame. Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Tygar 01:51, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. BTfromLA 07:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. --Jacobw 19:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 10:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hobie B. James[edit]
Orphaned vfd, tagged on the 5th by User:Jfdwolff. Non-notable, unpublished, possibly fictional author. No google hits. Delete. Gamaliel 16:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Altogether too much mystery for an encyclopedia article, methinks. Delete. Lacrimosus 07:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 10:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rich Farmbrough 02:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Second Test Match[edit]
Same as First Test Match (no chance for encyclopedic article, longstanding listing at WP:CP) Delete. DanKeshet 01:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Let me get this straight - we have an article about the score in one particular test match played between two specific countries in 2004? A copyvio at that? From the first website that cricket fans check for live scores? Seriously, why? -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 04:15, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- Delete: Copyvio, and there are several "second test match"es. I'd have thought this was a test page and therefore a CSD. (shrug) Geogre 04:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Arguably not a copyvio, but delete anyway - Wikipedia is not cricinfo.com. sjorford →•← 08:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Already marked copyvio - David Gerard 10:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:27, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Jesse ball[edit]
Non-notable poet, no matter how splendid or swell he is. Hard to find him using Google, but he doesn't come up in association with the names of any of his works. RickK 06:45, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
To be a poet published by Grove Press at the age of 26 already makes one notable.
Also, check out the review in the Boston Review, a superbly notable literary magazine: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR30.1/harrison.html
Furthermore, try these google searches: "jesse ball" "march book" "jesse ball" poet
He is clearly an up and coming poet. Try emailing the distinguished pulitzer prize winner Richard Howard to find out if Mr. Ball is notable. You can find Mr. Howard's email address by going to this page and searching for Richard Howard:
Please give me another day to have this page cleaned up and more complete biographical information added. I wanted to get a template up and then I will have this edited so it is more complete. Etschreiber 06:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment to Etschreiber - to reduce the risk of VfD's, work on an article in, for example User:Etschreiber/sandbox until it is reasonably complete. Then copy it to the main namespace. -- RHaworth 07:43, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- Delete, concur with Rick. Not notable. Megan1967 07:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep poets published by recognized companies, like musicians released by major labels. Kappa 08:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Being young and in a niche profession doesn't make him non-notable. I wouldn't expect Google to know much about contemporary poetry. Rl 11:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- KeepThis article is informative, and Jesse Ball is clearly a notable person. It is monumentally difficult to publish a book of poetry at all -- doing so with a big-press at such a young age is an incredible accomplishment. Look on the web for March Book, you'll find it. Bf1213 1:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep If he's been published in New Republic he easily meets the "published in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" guideline for inclusion.
- Vote above is mine. Sorry, --Jacobw 19:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly a notable young American poet. Capitalistroadster 19:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- "Clearly"? How do you determine that if he doesn't show up in Google? RickK 21:17, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I tried a Google search for "Jesse Ball" poet. It came up with the Amazon article, the Boston Review review and that the New Republic had published one of his poems. This was enough to convince me that he was notable enough for Wikipedia. I hope that my use of the word clearly was not interpreted as a criticism of the momination. It was certainly not my intention and I apologise if such an impression was conveyed. In my view, people nominate articles for deletion because they do not consider that the subjects should be covered. Discussion should not reflect on the motives of those people who vote and people should put forward good arguments for retention, deletion or other options. Capitalistroadster 08:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep (and wikify). Agree with Capitalistroadster --Neigel von Teighen 22:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep &emdash; non-vanity-published authors are notable as a class. &emdash;Demi 18:59, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
- Keep -- Jmabel | Talk 23:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- KeepTjc 09:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; defenses of vfd-targeted articles don't come much better or more complete than Et's above. As others have recently pointed out, Google hits (and by extension the web) don't adjucate everything, and poetry is probably a corner of the world that tends not to be highly webified. Jgm 04:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - David Gerard 10:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; He may be fairly obscure, but what the hell is the point of Wikipedia if not to profile notable people who don't appear in the World Book? New Republic + Grove Press + very young = wiki. montyque
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rich Farmbrough 02:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jack Jones (LGBT Rep. of Lincoln College, Oxford, 2004-2005)[edit]
A student representative of a non-notable organisation--nixie 07:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I suspect being the current president of the Oxford Union would be borderline, this is just trivial. Average Earthman 15:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, but, umm, whut? What "non-notable organisation"? Do you mean Lincoln College, Oxford? If you do, I worry. James F. (talk) 18:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Average Earthman.
- Sorry, the vote above is mine. I keep forgetting to sign these things. --Jacobw 19:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. -- Curps 22:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Given the photograph, this has the appearance of a student prank. The facts in the article are thus highly suspect. The title is extreme, too. If they want to publish this sort of prank, they can do it in their college newspaper, not here. Delete. Uncle G 23:18, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like a prank to me: student politicians like this are actually a feature of campus life in the UK and Australia. Nevertheless, there are hundereds of them, and only a tiny fraction notable. Delete. Lacrimosus 01:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, and delete - David Gerard 10:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't think it's a prank per se, but it certainly isn't worthy of an encyclopedia entry. 163.1.159.21 15:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rich Farmbrough 02:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Formacion del doble arcoiris[edit]
- Spanish-language title is useless here. I'm also not at all sure what it says is accurate. On the other hand, I'd expect us to have an article on "double rainbow", and we don't, just a passing mention in rainbow that doesn't even use that term. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:10, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Note. I've redirected double rainbow to rainbow, since the latter article already contains a couple of good diagrams of how rainbows (and double rainbows) form and a picture of a double rainbow. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete (no merge, no redirect). Spanish language title doesn't belong in English Wikipedia, and the described mechanism of double rainbow formation is flat-out wrong. There is already better and more complete information in rainbow. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. concurr with Ten. DaveTheRed 21:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, there already exists a far more accurate and complete version at Rainbow. Megan1967 04:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, redirect not useful. -- Cleduc 05:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to rainbow to discourage recreation - David Gerard 10:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rich Farmbrough 02:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Bruckheimerize[edit]
Neoligism--nixie 08:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism, but may be a BJAODN candidate. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wipedia is not UrbanDictionary.com.-- Infrogmation 20:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN. I laughed. DaveTheRed 21:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete', neologism. Megan1967 04:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Kaboooom and send to BJAODN. Lacrimosus 07:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 10:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:37, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Pecan pie[edit]
Recipe. Yum. Nothing here that wouldn't be out of place in a Cookbook, so this should be moved there. —Korath (Talk) 13:37, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) Keep as rewritten. —Korath (Talk) 04:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Stick a {{recipe}} on it, then. Uncle G 18:26, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- Well, I thought it conceivable (though unlikely) that someone might want to save it, as has happened. —Korath (Talk) 04:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Which can happen equally as well when one sticks
{{recipe}}{{move to Wikibooks Cookbook}} on an article. See the second sentence of the notice. Uncle G 00:10, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
- Which can happen equally as well when one sticks
- Well, I thought it conceivable (though unlikely) that someone might want to save it, as has happened. —Korath (Talk) 04:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Clean up and Expand. Wikipedia has articles on Apple pie and Pumpkin pie and many other pies. DaveTheRed 21:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I removed the recipe-like sentences of the article to make it look more like our other pie articles. DaveTheRed 21:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Pecan pie is just as delicious and notable as pumpkin pie. Kappa 22:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Pecan pie is culturally important. It is emblematic of Southern cuisine much as Apple pie is emblematic of American home cooking as a whole. Pecan pie is interesting as an example of a food that is complex and luxurious, yet also considered to be a homey "comfort food" like grits or rice pudding. When I can find some quotations illustrating this I'll add them to the article. This is not a cookbook recipe, it is a short article about a characteristic American food. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. DaveTheRed and Dpbsmith has done a good job. Its now a good little article. Capitalistroadster 08:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Seems keep-worthy now, but what's with the quotes on there? Radiant! 11:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A valid article, not a recipe at all. And now I'm craving pecan pie. — Gwalla | Talk 02:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - delete this? Like its subject, it's a tasty and beautiful thing, nearly feature-worthy. Jgm 04:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - David Gerard 10:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:40, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Mosley[edit]
Genealogy. Certainly this isn't needed as a disambig at least until there's more than one entry. —Korath (Talk) 14:14, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I have added links to two members of the family who already have biographies. Oswald Mosley is a pretty notorious figure in 20th-century British politics, simple links to "Mosley" in other articles should provide some sort of link to him. This isn't just genealogy, his father, also Sir Oswald Mosley, was a minor political figure in his own right, he may also get a biography eventually. PatGallacher 18:09, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- Moseley is both a family name, with notable people who have that as their family name, and a place name for several places. (There's a Moseley in Birmingham I believe. "What links here" tells me that there's also an "East Mosley" somewhere.) Keep as our usual name disambiguation. Uncle G 00:45, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
- Keep, and expand. Megan1967 04:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, like they said. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The page as it is know is useful disambiguation. slambo 18:28, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - David Gerard 10:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:42, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
KurdishMedia.com[edit]
Spam, advertisement. Google for Kurdish News if you want such organisations, page is opinion oriented and not neutral remotely as article claims. * Delete. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, according to the alexa rankings this is the most used Kurdish news service. I don't think its any different to having a page for the partisan US media like National Review Online--nixie 05:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, concur with Peta. Megan1967 06:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all notable media organisations. Capitalistroadster 09:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Websites have little intrinsic notability. JFW | T@lk 02:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Accept that this one is as notable as any newspaper, especially since this is one of the most important Kurdish ones. (I have understood that KurdishMedia.com is a website, not a paper newspaper). Sjakkalle 08:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - David Gerard 10:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. --Michael Snow 23:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Khakain[edit]
It's a forum about The Legend of Zelda series. 43 unique Google hits on "khakain.com". [17] Alexa rank 2,221,730. [18] Doesn't seem to have gained enough notability to warrant an article. Likely a vanity page. --Plek 19:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - 'A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates.
Furthermore, it should be noted that an article is not a "vanity" page simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is to salient material and not overtly promotional.' Khakain 22:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) - DELETE - I am the person who they (The members of that forum) are naming on that entry. Khakain is the name of my novel, Khakain the Coming of the Chosen One, I wrote it in 1994 and posted a few chapters on my literary site "Unlimited Fantasy". These members registered the domain name out of spite for me because I shut down their community from my Zelda video game site because they would harass other users on the community, myself, and such. I was hosting the image they think is "Max Fichtl" on my private server and it was hacked without my permission and paraded around thier own forum as some trophy. They have subsequently over the past few years on several occasions attempted to discover my personal identity. At one point in time they posted my phone number on their forum and made prank calls and harrassed my family as late as 3 AM at night. Recently after contacting the teenager, *deleted by said teenager*, who registered the domain and firmly asking for the entire removal of the users attempting to steal my identity, he transferred ownership that day of the domain to an Australian, Andrew Maher, to what he thinks would wash his hands of the issue. This entire entry on Wikipedia is designed to be inflamitory and harrass me. I have attempted at editing the entry 3 times already to remove personal information and harrassment, and replace the entry with the accuracy of what Khakain actually is however each time it was reverted to what it was before by members of their community who likely share the "Khakain" user account, "Castle Guard" (John M.) as well is a member of their forum classified as the "Historian." I have collected an orgy of evidence on the individuals at that forum, including the location of their colleges, and their current residencies, however this is only some of them, many have managed to remain anonymous, however they've left a digital trail online which would likely be easy to follow. Many of them pride themselves in spamming the message boards I currently am co-administrator for with Hentai Pornography and spamming bot programs. I DO NOT WANT my personal information displayed in a public location online, to have my or anyone else in my family's name slandered in that way, this is a form of online cyberstalking as defined by the FBI's computer Crimes Division, and falls under their jurisdiction because it is occuring as a conspiracy between multiple individuals from several states including countries like Canada and Australia. And if the issue is not resolved in due time, I will be pursuing whatever legal recourses are available to me up to and including litigation. I hope that the users of Wikipedia see the perspective I'm coming from and remove the entry and ban users associated with creating this filth. I want to be left alone and I want to be anonymous on the internet and go about my work in peace!
- The above from User:65.35.73.36. —Korath (Talk) 06:52, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Threats of legal action are against WIkipedia policies. Recommend above editer's comments be disregarded as unsubstantiated and is likely here in ill faith. 163.153.252.70 17:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment And posting the full names of those you don't like here ISN'T some form of Cyber-Stalking? How'd you get their colleges, home addresses and what not? Hm? 208.62.7.133 18:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Reply It's not hard to find that out when people spam your forums and you trace their IP address and call the school's campus IT department. (That was of course before I and my co-Admin banned those people and they returned on proxy servers) As well, names and addresses are included through the registrar of the domain name. I've already consulted an attorney breifly about the issue. And to clarify, I'm not going to sue Wikimedia, however entries like this could be used as evidence should I decide to pursue a case against specific individuals, if the burden of proof is not strong enough for a criminal case, my lawyer said there was plenty enough for a winnable civil one.
- Reply Campus IT departments do not hand over the personal information of their college students, it's an internal affair they would deal with (not to mention it would be illegal under current regulations, as you do not represent law enforcement). Not only this, but your vendetta against this community is irrelevent to the subject at hand. Your writings cannot be proven to have been before the registration of this community and this "evidence" of yours is meaningless. 24.194.18.242 20:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Reply This is part of the novel Khakain: The Coming of the Chosen One, submitted for evidence. http://internal.tbi.net/~max/mkhakain.htm, from my literary website Unlimited Fantasy: These Realms Drift Between Me at http://internal.tbi.net/~max/uf.htm
- Reply All this boils down to is that I want to be left alone, I don't want my name or names or photographs of myself, my family or friends posted and paraded on a public forum like Wikipedia for mockery and harrassment. It is a breach of my personal privacy. If the material is removed and the people from that forum leave me alone, I wouldn't be inclined to prosecute them, it's not something I set out to do, but I will take whatever measures necessary to protect the integrity of my identity, the quality of my work, and the security of my family.
- Reply This is Tim/Insubordinum. Take his damn picture and name off the page, and put up a disambiguation so he can have a page for his novel. This is just going to go backwards and forwards otherwise.
- Keep - Regarding vanity pages: 'The most significant problem with vanity pages is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors. Additionally, they are often "experimental" pages to which the author never returns. The quality of a Wikipedia article is often presumed to be proportional to the number of edits, so if an article is doomed to be a one-edit page, it should be deleted.'
As per the already-being-established edit history and the extent of the page's content, it is more than evident that the article serves the purpose of a collaborative effort to chronicle the history of the community, its members, and what products it has wrought (the growing subsite "Tim Hates People" being a prime example, among others -- but that's for the article, not for this page), both for new members and veterans alike.
Furthermore, regarding Wikipedia's article interests: ' As Wikipedia is, or at least aspires to be, an encyclopædia, it should contain only material that some definable group of people might want to know.'
The article already has more than enough information to be classified as a relevent information base, and obviously contains material of interest to the members of the community. In no way is it a promotional page; rather, its content more than speaks for its informational nature.- Comment by 128.61.69.109, user's first edit. --Plek 23:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. What's the betting one of the creators of this article is the bloke in the picture? This is an irrelevent and insignificant community on the wide scale of things it is referring to (or at least Google and Alexa certainly think so). Average Earthman 23:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Also regarding "vanity", this community has only resided at its .com address for a little over 1/5 of its life. This was long after ties were cut with its former administrator. For this to be a vanity page, it would have to refer to itself with shameless advertising (which it does not). This is a chronicle of the community's history and portrays it accurately, showing the positives and negatives, with an unbiased point of view. --66.82.9.77 00:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Admitted vanity forumvertisement. —Korath (Talk) 00:34, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)(superceded below)- Where? Khakain 01:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - At any rate, it's not an article to "spread the word," it's an article to "keep the word." It violates no deletion policies as is, and can easily be edited should problems arise. Khakain 01:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Speaking as a member of a community that has interacted with this one, it is nice to see the article up. I found it very informative, and it helped me write a historical overview of the war for my own webpage.--66.53.71.99 01:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Not advertisement for the forum, this article actually documents many things that have been passed down by word-of-mouth until now. It's good to finally be able to refer people to a website with all the info they want to know. The article does not promote the forum, but only describes it. --Fletcher00 03:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Above is Fletcher00's only edit. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If it's important to have a history of the forum available to new users and others, why can't it go on the forum, rather than on some external website? The content here is GFDL licensed, so you can legally copy it to a forum posting with a note about its source. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Sure seems like some combination of vanity and fancruft--vanitycruft? There are countless web forums devoted to countless topics. Most are not Wikipedia material. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry sockpuppets. God knows how many small, non notable forums there are on the internet. They don't all need articles, and neither does this. DaveTheRed 04:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep But none of those other "non-notable" communities went out and got a Wikipedia entry, did they? Seriously, I don't see how this is any of your business if we want an entry. You're simply ego tripping and I have no idea why you feel it's necessary. We created an entry to document the name and its origins, and the community is fairly large (the Empire for example, roughly 3/4 of the board's population, is underground, which you cannot see unless you've been approved). So I guess in summary, why the hell do you care so much, and do you seriously believe that you can get this deleted since it clearly does not qualify for deletion? Get a life and leave us alone. 24.194.18.242 05:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Uh... notability does concern us and it is our business if we want to delete this. We aren't ego tripping. If half the board is underground, well: tough luck really. That's not our choice that most of the board decided to be all dark and mysterious. I advise you to read Wikipedia:No original research. HTH. HAND. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - 'It's not about promoting a forum, but recording the history. And why should anyone else but us care?' 216.78.57.72 05:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Cripes. Not notable, vanityvertisement. Socks begone. -- Cleduc 05:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Just because you guys haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable. 134.48.194.48 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Er, no. If most of use haven't heard of it (and there are plenty of deletes here) then it's not notable. You guys just aren't a bash.org. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- KeepI thought the purpose of this was to create a complete compendium of human knowledge. Complete would imply that it would hold everything, large and small. 69.141.223.154 06:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This is far from a vanity article. It's a niche article (and granted, that niche may be smaller than some), detailing a part of the history of something fairly well known to a portion of the online gaming community. It by and far represents something more than the small message board community you'd see when visiting Khakain.com. This particular message board community may not be known well outside of a relatively small corner of the internet, but that does not make it less than noteworthy. Contrary to what you may believe, wikipedia is used by more than bored freshman english students patrolling articles for an egotrip. Who are you to be judge and jury of what something appeals to? Wikipedia's great reputation is that it's "a growing documentation of nearly everything." Do your best not to destroy that.170.215.192.239
- Delete, and 216.78.57.72 inadvertently explains precisely why: a forum that nobody else but its few users should care about isn't worth having an encyclopedia entry on. Use your own web space. - Mustafaa 06:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. My personal sock puppet level of three has been radically breached. Besides, the article is sub-trivial. RickK 06:51, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- prove your sock puppet theory, instead of hiding behind a cop-out, please. Khakain 06:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, gee, you never existed as an editor until this article did. That makes you a sockpuppet. And all of these anons are also sockpuppets, since they don't have User IDs and didn't edit prior to the creation of this article. That makes you and all of them sockpuppets. RickK 06:59, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Well OBVIOUSLY they didn't exist before, they're trying to defend a project that we started and for some reason you people feel the need to all dump on. They're not familiar with wikipedia other than reading it, so I'm sorry they don't meet your ELITE standards of 'worth'. Thanks a bunch, feel real welcome here. Khakain 07:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- We get lots of people coming in here and trying to create articles about their pet web forums. It's nothing personal about you or your forum -- most web forums are not notable enough for encyclopedia articles. And the onrush of anonymous editors make people very edgy because vandalism is a major part of the forum participants who want to try to get us somehow to figure that if they attack the encyclopedia and its participants enough, somehow that will make us see the light and decide that, yes, by golly, that forum populated by vandals and personal attackers must be, somehow notable after all. RickK 07:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- You delete my comment calling someone a nerd and write here calling us vandals? How is this any different? Have you even BEEN to the forum? I personally don't care what you folks "get all the time," we obviously have not been here before and have no interest in your arguments about what usually goes on or how things usually work. We're here to defend our article on the basis that there is no reason for it to be deleted. It's factual, informative, and any of the thousands of users involved in the Zelda Forum scene in the past 6 years would be interested in its contents. Whether or not you personally think we're famous enough should not be the subject of a debate. 24.194.18.242 07:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, I deleted your comments calling another user a "pompous ass". RickK 00:04, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Anon: wrong. If we decide you aren't notable enough, then your article gets deleted. Personally, I think this article is not neutrally written, and it is not written in an encyclopedeic (sp?) manner. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You delete my comment calling someone a nerd and write here calling us vandals? How is this any different? Have you even BEEN to the forum? I personally don't care what you folks "get all the time," we obviously have not been here before and have no interest in your arguments about what usually goes on or how things usually work. We're here to defend our article on the basis that there is no reason for it to be deleted. It's factual, informative, and any of the thousands of users involved in the Zelda Forum scene in the past 6 years would be interested in its contents. Whether or not you personally think we're famous enough should not be the subject of a debate. 24.194.18.242 07:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- We get lots of people coming in here and trying to create articles about their pet web forums. It's nothing personal about you or your forum -- most web forums are not notable enough for encyclopedia articles. And the onrush of anonymous editors make people very edgy because vandalism is a major part of the forum participants who want to try to get us somehow to figure that if they attack the encyclopedia and its participants enough, somehow that will make us see the light and decide that, yes, by golly, that forum populated by vandals and personal attackers must be, somehow notable after all. RickK 07:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Well OBVIOUSLY they didn't exist before, they're trying to defend a project that we started and for some reason you people feel the need to all dump on. They're not familiar with wikipedia other than reading it, so I'm sorry they don't meet your ELITE standards of 'worth'. Thanks a bunch, feel real welcome here. Khakain 07:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, gee, you never existed as an editor until this article did. That makes you a sockpuppet. And all of these anons are also sockpuppets, since they don't have User IDs and didn't edit prior to the creation of this article. That makes you and all of them sockpuppets. RickK 06:59, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- prove your sock puppet theory, instead of hiding behind a cop-out, please. Khakain 06:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Note to all first-time editors: Just adding "keep" votes from anonymous IPs or sockpuppet accounts is not going to help. Those votes are most likely going to be disregarded by the administrator who will process this entry. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. If you think this article should stay, improve it, so other Wikipedians would want to keep it on its own merits. --Plek 06:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Given 65.35.73.36's comment, and a closer reading of this "article", I'm inclined to say speedy as personal-attack vandalism. —Korath (Talk) 06:59, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- This article contains no personal attacks. It is entirely factual in every way and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Not that proof is something you people seem to need around here. 24.194.18.242 07:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Personal attacks will be deleted. If you can't argue on the merits of the article, then you might want to find another place besides here to post. RickK 07:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, and recommend that all anonymous IPs that have signed should know better and register an account. To the admin who counts the votes, may I suggest we don't count the anons? Looks pretty suspicious to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and recommend that the above poster stop making assumptions. It would be silly for all of us to register an account if we're only going to use it to defend our own page from you people. None of your arguments make sense in the least. 163.153.252.70 17:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - straight up web forum vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, it's one big unsourced attack page. --iMb~Mw 08:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless it's established why this message board stands out from any other. - Vague | Rant 08:54, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, if only to spite these supercilious people mewling about how it's not "worthy" enough for them, and anyone who disagrees must be a sockpuppet. What harm is it doing if it stays? Leave it alone.
- Unsigned comment above by User:172.212.81.23, first edit from this IP. --Plek 09:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity. Radiant! 11:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Gamaliel 18:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment to new editors: You won't convince us of anything by arguing with us about our own rules and policies or trying to convince experienced editors that you have a better idea of what Wikipedia is than they do. What will convince people is objective evidence of notability such as google hits, news articles, etc. Gamaliel 19:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Reply Ignoring the points that have been made and riding on your claim to "experience" doesn't prove much either.
- Comment Perhaps we were mistaken with regards to the experienced editors. However, I think I speak on the behalf of the entire community when I say that, according to the posted, [and perhaps mistakenly taken to be] official deletion policies, it seems well within the spirit of the encyclopedia's goals. It's not that we believe we have a better idea of what this is, but rather that, based on the material available (some of which is quoted in the first two "keep" votes, and we would like refuted), this was a valid article providing "material that some definable group of people might want to know." In our eyes, all the reasons given to delete this article are either in direct opposition to what we thought was the policy, or can be amended with recommendations and support, which is more than available. I've already voted, but we're as stated, we're quite new to the Wiki thing. In fact, we're probably wasting your time already, but some of us want closure on the matter; we've received very little constructive criticism, and yet are told that we could have this article if certain things are done. Could someone please refute these interpretations of the various Wiki-related information pertaining to this debate? Forgive my summary rather than direct quoting:
- From the vanity page definition, regarding fame, we interpreted: "Don't delete just because it's not famous."
- And many of the delete reasons seem to say, either explicitly or implicitly: "It's not famous enough, therefore you're either advertising or this is too worthless to exist."
- From the deletion policy regarding anonymous votes: "Don't discount anonymous votes because it violates the premise of good faith in submissions and discourages potential contributions."
- The prevailing opinion of many delete voters seems to be this: "You should've known better and registered an account, sockpuppet."
- We looked up the definition of sockpuppets, and this is the general idea we got from the Wiki definition; interpreting sockpuppets seems to be a case of good vs. ill faith, but does NOT seem to apply to separate entities taking one side on a matter: "Sockpuppets refer to users running multiple accounts, and while not against the rules, are generally frowned upon."
- Nonetheless, this is the prevailing opinion we seem to be getting: "Even though you're obviously a full community posting and we've admitted this, this looks suspicious and these are all sockpuppets because it's their first edit. Disregard them."
- Explanations appreciated; those of us who started/suggested this project bear no ill will here; this just seems a bit hypocritical. 128.61.69.109 20:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and those arguing for keeping this article must show that this subject is important enough for an encyclopedia. Not important enough to some niche group or to the people on that forum, but for a general reference work. What makes this different from and more important than any of the countless other forums on the internet? Is it frequented by anyone famous or important? Does it have specialized knowledge of a particular subject? Has it gotten significant media coverage? Objective evidence is what is required here, not a particular interpretation of our own rules. (This is what back in my D&D days we called "rules lawyering".) The best thing you can do to make a case for this article is to provide such evidence. Voting en masse will not do it, as the tallying administrator will most likely toss out your votes as they are allowed to do by policy. This policy is to prevent new users from rushing in from a blog or message board with a particular agenda who don't necessarily have Wikipedia's best interests in mind from overwheliming established Wikipeida users. Given that this policy is designed to prevent precisely what is happening here, you won't be able to argue out of this either. I'm sorry if you think this is unfair, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. Even in a democracy, you can't just show up from outside the society and vote the next day. Gamaliel 21:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment #2 Re. 128.61.69.109's questions (composed simultaneously with the post above): Thank you for the sincere and well-formulated questions. I'll try to provide some answers here. First of all, it would help to realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and strives to provide a wide range of articles that are both accurate, and that might be interesting and useful to the general public. It is not a general knowledge base. This means that the subject of an article has to have a certain level of notability. An example: while I could write a compelling and factually accurate article about my local greengrocer, it is doubtful that anyone outside my neighborhood would be interested in his story. Therefore, the greengrocer might warrant an article in the local newspaper but not in Wikipedia.
- A similar choice has to be made about articles pertaining to websites. There are millions out there, and not every one of them is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. To gauge the notability of a site, "hard" criteria can be used, such as the number of Google hits and the Alexa rank (which aren't too impressive for your site, I'm sorry to say). Another, and maybe even more important, criterion is: would anyone not directly associated with the website in question write an article about it? In that case, someone obviously took note, which by definition is a mark of notability. On the other hand, if the article is written by people who are (in this case) members of the forum the article is about, the subject better be something unquestionably notable, or the tag "vanity" is sure to be used. That's why the line you paraphrased reads in full: "Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional." Salient means: "of notable significance". So we're back at the requiremant of notability.
- Therefore, suggestions about "improving" the article should be read as: let the article establish why your site is of importance to the general public (i.e. people other than its own members). What are its unique qualities? Why should someone take a look at your site? What contribution have its members made to the Zelda community at large? Is it mentioned on other sites, in reviews, in articles? Establish notability.
- Regarding the sockpuppet comments: do realize that episodes like this, where someone writes an article about his on forum, the article gets listed here, and suddenly lots of anon users flood the place with "keep" votes, is almost a weekly occurance. It's like waving a big red flag and it will certainly lead to irritation. Imagine a crowd of people you've never met barging into your house, who start to question your choice of furniture and music. Would you receive them with open arms? Of course not. It's just not a polite way to make a first impression.
- Finally, it might be useful to know that the VfD page is usually filled with very terse and short comments, that might seem blunt and unfriendly to a new member; however, this is just a way to keep this page working efficently. There are dozens of VfD votes each day, and keeping it concise (unlike my rambling here, sorry guys) is just one way of doing that. See: Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. The thing to remember: it's about the article, not about you. Nevertheless, the VfD page is not the most cheerful place to have one's first encounter with Wikipedia. I'd invite you to start at Wikipedia:Welcome and take it from there.
- I hope this clears things up a bit. --Plek 22:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Reply to #2 -- Regards for the reply; I put together a rough outline for an overhaul of the article based on what constructive comments were made here, which should also help to account for the lack of prominence on Google/Alexa. Is this more in the spirit of the encyclopedia's goals, or is this still not nearly good enough? 128.61.69.109 04:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, or at least it should be seriously edited. I'm not against Khakain having an article, but the current one is way too long and indulges in worthless trivia. Actually I still don't really know what that internet society is about. The Trends and Memes part is irrelevant to the general article, and the War section is simply ridiculous.Luis rib 21:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete," for all the good reasons already discussed above. Katefan0 23:17, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I wish someone would explain why acid is going to rain from the sky if we allow this entry to live. Preferably without the self-justifying soundbites about Wikipedia not being a democracy.
You can argue all day that the world at large isn't interested in Khakain, but honestly, so what? What's the worst that's going to happen if this entry stays here? If people aren't interested they don't have to look it up. Try it.
- Because this isn't your website, and the concept of VfD has been running for some time (and well before I got here as well, so don't blame me). Don't expect others to just dump the way they do things for your own convenience. Average Earthman 09:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- And I don't see why the world will end for some people if this article goes away, either. Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Neither of you answered my question. 172.201.48.204
Delete for all the reasons above.Oops, this entry was so long, I forgot that I had already voted. DaveTheRed 04:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)- Delete. Not notable. Comment Suggest a new rule. Whenever the ratio of anon and first-timer votes to regular votes exceeds one, it's an automatic speedydelete. How bout that? Kosebamse 16:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment How about a rule where people learn to read the arguments for keeping something, instead of making up illegitimate excuses to throw them out, and repeating verbatim their own smug points which have already been answered?
- Um, and what arguments are those? That you have a right to post whatever you want to an encyclopedia? That's not an argument, that's an assertion which those of us who have been here a while have heard before, and have rejected. Your website is not notable. If there is something that makes it more notable than the 2 million other websites which get more hits, you'll need to make that argument in the article itself, by explaining to us WHY your site is notable. You have failed to do so. RickK 20:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a democracy... Delete, not notable... A gram is better than a damn..." unsigned comment from 172.201.48.204
- How about a rule that forces people to improve the article to address the concerns raised or find evidence to support keeping the article? How about a rule that prevents them from raising old arguments that were considered and rejected years ago? Gamaliel 17:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- And you're still doing it. We're not impressed that you rejected them years ago, especially not if this is the amount of thought you put into your decisions. Show us the original discussion where they got rejected and maybe your comment will start to mean something. For the same reason, we don't care about the seniority you attribute to yourself because you've been doing this for however long. I don't care how "jaded" you want to act, these are still copouts. As for improving the article, it'll probably happen if we have some kind of sign that it's worth the effort, i.e. that the work we put into it won't get deleted regardless. unsigned comment from 172.201.48.204
- Nobody cares about impressing you. Beat this dead horse all you want, but winning this argument won't save this article. You have spent plenty of energy arguing here but spent none doing any of the things people have repeatedly suggested you could do to make your case. Gamaliel 18:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Such as? Unlike you I've read this entire page and can't find any. Lose the attitude and act in good faith like you're supposed to, we're willing to do what it takes to avoid deletion and you're not being helpful in that regard. 24.194.18.242 20:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, such as my edit to shorten the whole article and re-write and better explain the Themes section, and to eliminate the War section (or at least to write it from an NPOV). Are you sure you read the whole page? Luis rib 20:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I would urge you to read Plek's comments above, particularly the section beginning Therefore, suggestions about "improving" the article.... I think Plek clearly represents the perceived shortcomings of the article as it stands, and where it might need to go to remain on Wikipedia. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Such as? Unlike you I've read this entire page and can't find any. Lose the attitude and act in good faith like you're supposed to, we're willing to do what it takes to avoid deletion and you're not being helpful in that regard. 24.194.18.242 20:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody cares about impressing you. Beat this dead horse all you want, but winning this argument won't save this article. You have spent plenty of energy arguing here but spent none doing any of the things people have repeatedly suggested you could do to make your case. Gamaliel 18:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. An article about a real forum.The Recycling Troll 22:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. An insignificant forum supported by a person (maybe people) demonstrating a rather deliberate disregard for our purpose (to create an encyclopedia), our practices and our standards. (Comment: Untranscluding this very long discussion from the main page.) Rossami (talk) 02:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable forum. This votepage is higher on the Google results for Khakain than the forum itself. — Gwalla | Talk 03:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- a lot of dribble over so little. Some people need to find a life offline and learn to leave people alone. - Longhair | Talk 19:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- HA! Oh the irony of that statement is delicious. Told to get offline by a bunch of wannabe college professors who troll deletion forms. 69.165.85.202 23:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Candid photography[edit]
A personal essay on candid photography. Delete. JoaoRicardo 21:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: "A personal essay on <topic>" would describe most new Wikipedia articles. Why do you feel this one stands out for deletion? --Jwanders 22:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I would vote to delete every personal essay, not just this one. It is against the NPOV policy, and the fact that some people have rewritten articles that were previously personal essays doesn't make it less so. Obviously, if someone will rewrite this into a serious article and prove candid photography is an encyclopedic topic, there is no need to delete it. As it stands, it is unencyclopedic. JoaoRicardo 23:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Mark for cleanup. I'm surprised we don't have an article on this already. The topic is definitely encyclopedic. The writing style is too personal and breeze. But the topic is important enough that it is likely to attract knowledgeable editors who will improve and expand it. If the article's contributor reads this: the biggest problem I see is that you state a number of things on your own authority. The quickest thing you could do to improve the article would be to dig into some books and magazines and replace these statements with quotations from sources that readers will probably accept as authoritative. For example, you say "Arthur Fellig, better known as Weegee, was also one of the great and renowned 'candid' photographers." Can you find a quotation that says this instead of saying it yourself? Don't violate copyright of course, but short quotations are fair use. Be sure to include a reference to where you found it. I thought this statement was obviously correct when I read it, but actually I just tried an online search of The New York Times, a service provided by my local public library; I found several articles about Fellig/WeeGee and was surprised to find that they did not use the word "candid" at all, so now I'm not sure the statement is correct. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs cleanup and expansion but seems a legit enclyclopedia article to me. Nashikawa 22:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Shows promise, already growing into a decent article. -- Cleduc 05:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Reasonable article and given that a Google search for candid photography got 14,300 results, it appears that the concept is reasonably notable. [19] Capitalistroadster 09:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs some work and has some opinions, but it's a valid topic and a reasonable start. --Aranae 08:47, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Needs work, but keep - David Gerard 10:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I rewrote the article to comply with the required encyclopediness. Even though I liked it beforehand, it was a simple feat. I believe that focussing on certain aspects of an entry, paragraph by paragraph, makes it easier for other people to understand the content, but also, it makes it easier to find mistakes, add more knowledge, and to rearrange the text. - Wolf, 13:49 (GMT+1), 12 Mar 2005.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:54, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
"Afraid to Shoot Strangers"[edit]
Lyrics post, probably violates copyright. Is the song notable otherwise?--nixie 22:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So far as I'm aware, it was neither a single nor especially popular. Either way, there's no content beyond the lyrics, so delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Megan1967 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unnecessary detail, Non notable, concur with all above. Jdcooper 17:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to album or band - David Gerard 11:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Fan as I am, this is unnecessary detail. Blufive 17:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:54, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Donica[edit]
I originally marked this for speedy but the author removed the delete tag and changed the article content. There is, however, still not sufficient information to determine who this person is or if she even existed (a google search was not helpful. The same author vandalised China and added Hala, which is probably also a deletion candidate JeremyA 22:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. --Neigel von Teighen 22:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The claims are false. Average Earthman 23:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Vandalism. -- Cleduc 05:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 01:53, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Alan Hellary[edit]
Pilot for a defunct commercial airline, notability not established--nixie 22:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Flew for Laker airlines. Well, somebody had to. So? Average Earthman 23:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep chief pilots, presumably there's only one per airline. Kappa 23:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- And only a few hundred airlines in the world, all with current and previous chiefs. Unless they've done something truly exceptional these people don't belong in wikipedia--nixie 04:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. -- Cleduc 05:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Chief pilots are not notable, now or in the past (or in the future). RickK 06:54, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, concur with Rickk. Radiant! 11:03, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence anyone will look for this or care - David Gerard 10:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sidhi Gosain[edit]
Not notable. Probably written by herself or a friend. Should be deleted. Thue | talk 23:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 12:43, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Was blanked by author, so I took the liberty to speedy delete it. Was a blatant vanity substub about some kid. jni 18:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Harsh Jain[edit]
Article does not indicate he is notable. Should be deleted unless he turns out to be notable. Thue | talk 23:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity. Posted from host ganga.iitb.ac.in belonging to IIT Bombay. Subject of article is a student at IIT Bombay. --MarkSweep 23:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn, vanity -- Cleduc 05:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. utcursch | talk 12:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 10:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was
Test page, blanked by creator. Speedily deleted by gadfium.
Paul novaro[edit]
Article is currently blank, but contained vanity on some university student [20]. Delete. JoaoRicardo 23:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I've listed it for speedy deletion, since the original author blanked the page. --MarkSweep 23:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Level 27[edit]
Advertising, delete. JeremyA 23:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: here's the entire current content: "Level 27....it's Billy Martin's clothing line. http://level27.com" Kappa 23:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete wikispam. Nofollow is turned off now, so please remove or place <nowiki></nowiki> around the external links. —Korath (Talk) 01:43, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 08:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 10:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:50, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Uncle Quintus[edit]
Not-yet-notable band founded in "early 2005". Contains mostly unverifiable forward looking statements. Delete for now, can be recreated if and when they become notable. --MarkSweep 23:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 05:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable orphan, likely vanity. -- Infrogmation 18:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Garage band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 03:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 10:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.