- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Carlos amador munoz
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Carlos amador munoz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Doesn't seem to be a notable person, never mind that it reads like a copyvio and appears outdated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with deleting this article as my searches on Google News and Google Books did not turn up any results. -- Elisabeth Rogan ( talk) 07:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Don't agree with deletion. In a fast searching in google I found references of award winning in Spain (Losdenmedium Los Obsenos). Montevideo Uruguay seminars about Music benefits for healing. (User: Alex Wendell , FL)
- I do not think this article should be deleted. I found certain information in Pierrot Lunaire Ensemble Austria's webpage in section "concerts 2007". User: Mark zuniga
- Neither Alex wendell ( talk · contribs) nor Mark zuniga ( talk · contribs) have any contributions outside this debate/vote page. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't delete this article. I'll love to know about Central American shamanic chants (
Mrak Sandowsky (
talk) 04:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC))
- Apart from this comment/vote,
Mrak Sandowsky (
talk ·
contribs) has a total of five edits, of those four to talk pages. -
Mike Rosoft (
talk) 07:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- " I like this article" is not a valid reason to keep it. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 07:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apart from this comment/vote,
Mrak Sandowsky (
talk ·
contribs) has a total of five edits, of those four to talk pages. -
Mike Rosoft (
talk) 07:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This article shows the work of a central american composer who is working in a very different and special field. Searching in Universidad de Costa Rica files www.cariari.co.cr I found references of the value of this investigation about the almost extinct oral traditions of Guaimy , Cabecar and Bri Bri indian branches in Central America. In stead of recomend the delition I suggest that Wikipedia editors should recomend the author to include all the missing information about native oral traditions that this musician is recording and documenting. ( Mrak Sandowsky ( talk) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)) I included this article to show an interesting work of a costarican composer who make real efforts to preserve culture and traditions in his country. If it is possible to improve the article please tell me, you are the experts! Is your decision and I'll accept it.( Mikaelangelo777 ( talk) 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC))
- Note: All users above this line appear to be single-purpose accounts. Please remember AfD is NOT A VOTE and that users who are repeatedly commenting on the discussion using multiple accounts will be blocked according to policy. Thank you. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep if referenced I think he might be notable, but we need some 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk) 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless referenced to show notability. If the sources exist all the new enthusistic editors should be able to add them, or at least point to them here, instead of claiming obscure references exist. And it really looks like a copyvio (the formatting = copy paste). Edit: Copyvio from his website [1]? Yobmod ( talk) 15:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as a copyvio -- Whpq ( talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note Toay an article was created on Amador carlos, whoch seems to be on the same person. -- Crusio ( talk) 12:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep The latest editings and references improve the article. Please don not copy this article or post it with different name it doesn't help.( Mikaelangelo777 ( talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC))
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Huston
- 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. Excepting Willis Bates and Harry Huston, as they satisfy WP:ATHLETE.
This AfD had quite a few arguments to it. It appears that the NAIA teams (small colleges) are equated with NCAA division III. As such, their athletes would fail notability for athletes, as they have not competed at the highest level (NCAA division I) of amateur sports.
But, that's also assuming that a coach could be grouped an athlete, so that would be cause for falling back on general biographical notability; however, the subjects are not recipients of notable awards nor made widely-recognized contributions in their specific field— at least, the articles do not assert that. J. J. Thiel's article, for example, states that he is the "9th most successful coach in Southwestern's history." That makes this individual the 9th successful coach at the 3rd successful grouping of college teams. Finally, falling back to the more general notability guidelines, there is no demonstrated widespread media coverage from independent, reliable sources.
Some arguments allude to Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Notability. This is neither a policy nor guideline, nor is it supported by consensus from the entire community. In fact, it could be seen as contradictory to the official notability guidelines.
Finally, there are arguments that a bundled afd is inappropriate; however, there is neither a guideline nor policy discouraging it. In practice, it is actually encouraged that afds are grouped into one page if the nominator believes, in good faith, that the articles will meet the same rationale and that none of them would be likely to survive on their own. There appears to be no malice in this nomination, as they all appear to be Southwestern College Moundbuilders Head Football Coaches, and the rationale was that simply being a coach at the non-highest-level of an amateur team does not, in and of itself, satisfy notability guidelines— a notion that it appears is supported by consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, for example. -- slakr\ talk / 08:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
J. J. Thiel
- J. J. Thiel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Obscure football coach for a low-level NAIA college, fails WP:BIO, WP:V. No biographical information other than his won-loss record. See other recent AfDs on similarly obscure coaches for similarly obscure colleges: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West.
I am also nominating the following related pages, all for coaches at this school, and all which lack any biographical information save for their years coached and won-loss records:
- Harry Huston ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jay Mack Love ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Frank Armin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fred Clapp ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Willis Bates ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Don Copper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dick Nolan (football coach) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Harry Brock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fred Dittman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Harold Hunt (football coach) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bill Carroll (football coach) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Robert Hower ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bob Dvorak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ray Morrison (football coach) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wes Buller ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jim Paramore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Phil Hower ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jake Cabell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chris Douglas (football coach) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As a side note, I am not nominating seven of the coaches from this school, four because there is evidence of their independent notability, three because while I feel they are not notable, an assertion of notability is made sufficient that their inclusion in a bundled AfD is inappropriate. RGTraynor 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Please Move Discussion All of a sudden, there are a large number of college football head coach articles being considered for deletion. There has always been a trickle--one or two at a time, but my current count shows 28 [Wikipedia:WikiProject College football#Articles & Pages being considered for deletion|articles for deletion]], and I'm sure I'm missing many. One editor has achieved a deletion of Walter J. West and is now claiming "precedent" to delete coaches. I suggest (and have been suggesting for some time now) moving these argument to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Notability so that we can have a uniform and open discussion about what truly makes a notable college football coach. This will prevent arguing article-at-a-time and help to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It will prevent a "scramble" on both sides of the argument and make for a single place to come to a true consensus instead of a hit-or-miss end result.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not at all against people having general discussions, and when and if WP:ATHLETE is amended to explicitly grant prima facie notability to coaches of even the lowest possible levels of college ball, of course we ought to rule on black letter policy. RGTraynor 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom and precedent at Walter J. West.
Dpmuk (
talk) 11:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
Walter J. West is not precedent, but one AfD that "slipped through" the process. There many, many, many, many other articles very very similar that have passed the AfD process. Oh, and since I now have to go put this on a whole bunch of other AfDs, this once again supports my reasoning to please move the discussion to a single location.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: Mm, if you've seen other Div III or NAIA coaches without any biographical info that have survived AfD, feel free to cite them, but I don't believe there are any. That being said, fourteen editors advocated deletion on the West article, which is not "slipping through" anything. Among them, the sentiment was very broadly held that (to choose one of the less caustic quotes) "[A] Wikiproject does not make policy that can override site-wide policy." That's considerably more consensus than actually levied "Support" or "Oppose" opinions on CFB:COACH. RGTraynor 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: I feel justified calling it a precedent for three reasons:
- These articles are unlike many other articles that you gave in the West case as most of those other articles had significantly more detail and often other claims to notability. Hence there AfDs aren't precedent for this case.
- Consensus can change (see WP:CCC). As Walter J. West is a very recent discussion I feel happy saying that's a precedent where as I'd be less happy saying some of the older discussions were a relevant precedent.
- Walter J. West got comments from a lot of editors - certainly more than for any of the other AfDs mentioned - so again IMO this makes it the most valid precedent.
- Comment
Walter J. West is not precedent, but one AfD that "slipped through" the process. There many, many, many, many other articles very very similar that have passed the AfD process. Oh, and since I now have to go put this on a whole bunch of other AfDs, this once again supports my reasoning to please move the discussion to a single location.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- AfDs are an area for discussion. If I want to call it a precedent I'm quite entitled to and you're quite entitled to disagree (which you obviously do). Given that it's meant to be a discussion and people will often disagree I do not find your language or the use of bold to be helpful - please try to respect other user's opinions even when you disagree with them. (Only going to post this on one AfD at the moment). Dpmuk ( talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's Talk Precedence Please forgive the table in this discussion... it bears scrutiny.
[ Table moved to Discussion page]
If "Precedence" is the true guidance on this, the result must indeed be keep.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Actually that would be a
WP:WAX arguement and is not a very good one. Nevermind the fact that a number of those were non-admin closures and should never have been closed by a non-admin, and one was withdrawn. So there really isn't any "Precedence" going your way either. -
Djsasso (
talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question why is it "precedence" when there is one AfD discussion that says "delete" and "WAX" when twenty-four say keep? And remember, I didn't bring up precedence... the deletion argument did.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Table and rebuttal moved to the Talk page for discussion. RGTraynor 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question why is it "precedence" when there is one AfD discussion that says "delete" and "WAX" when twenty-four say keep? And remember, I didn't bring up precedence... the deletion argument did.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Actually that would be a
WP:WAX arguement and is not a very good one. Nevermind the fact that a number of those were non-admin closures and should never have been closed by a non-admin, and one was withdrawn. So there really isn't any "Precedence" going your way either. -
Djsasso (
talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- You already raised this issue in the Holm AfD, and if you require a reiteration, so be it. (1) Dahlene passes WP:ATHLETE as a prominent kicker for a major college program and WP:PROF as a college president, both long-held to be prima-facie passes; (2) Moulton's nomination was withdrawn after you claimed that he was an Olympic athlete, another prima facie pass on WP:ATHLETE, although your evidence for the same never was revealed or made it into the article; which was in fact in error, because the Olympic athlete was Fay R. Moulton, who has his own Wikipedia article; (3) Taylor was a state official prominent in the civil rights controversies of the 1950s; (4) Wright was elected to a Hall of Fame ... so all those are discredited.
- 1) I added a merge tag to Moulton several months ago because I thought they might be the same person. It turns out that they were not as SYSS Mouse confirmed on May 8 (check the history of the page). 2) Fay G. Moulton was a head coach at Kansas State University which is now a Division I FBS school and not related to this discussion at all. You can read about it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton. Yes, the nominator withdrew and it appears it may have been for that reason (or may not, read closely), but there was no intent on my part to mislead anyone. 3) A "guideline" is not the same thing as a "policy". "Guidelines" are used for notability essays. 4) CFB:COACH specifically states it is an essay and any editor can check the page to verify. 5) How does continually calling me a liar when there are historical archives of the pages that anyone can look at comply with "black letter of policy throughout" ?? Wikipedia is about truth, not falsehoods and you have obviously been digging like crazy into my editing and contribution history.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Gottsch, Stevens and the SINGLE Prairie View mass AfD, I'll grant you, a decision based upon your misleading inference that CFB:COACH was an official notability guideline and a misreading of the then-current wording of "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" from WP:ATHLETE. You failed completely to cite, in those AfDs, that the coaches neither competed at the highest level in amateur sports (that being Division I NCAA football), nor that they met the general criteria of secondary sources. DJ's also dead right in that all but one of those AfDs was closed by a non-admin, which they are not allowed to do for any result other than an unambiguous, non-controversial Keep, and was therefore a heavy violation of process, so much so that the editor responsible for most of them had a 75% Oppose vote at his subsequent RfA on the strength of his poor closures. Are you sure you want to claim those AfDs as supporting your case? RGTraynor 19:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question can you please cite the source or policy covering non-admin closures of AfDs? One other time an admin stated that it was policy that only admins could close AfDs but that was false. If you have new-different-more clear information, can you please present it before we go further?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem: WP:DPR#NAC, which holds: "Editors in good standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions, with the following provisions ... Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results ... Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator ..." RGTraynor 20:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete All fails WP:BIO, WP:V. - Djsasso ( talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- question RGT, have you checked that none of these had a professional career? That was a problem with some of the other nominations in these groups of articles.. And I'm also thinking of some similar cases where a few of the apparently non-notable athletes later became state legislators, or notable surgeons, or whatever.-- Agreed its the article authors fault for not checking & inserting the information, but so should we before we delete. But I thing your careful approach here is very reasonable, it would just help to know what you have checked. DGG ( talk) 04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: While deletion policy holds that it is the responsibility of editors who want to save an article to provide sources and prove notability, not the responsibility of noms to prove otherwise, pro-football-reference.com has no record that any of the subjects listed above played pro football. RGTraynor 12:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Response that would be unlikely for many of them... Thiel, for example, coached for the 1903-1904 seasons. The NFL didn't start until 1920. This was most definitely the highest level of the expression of the sport at the time for many of these coaches. Think history.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- So find offline sources that prove they are notable. You have 7 days to do so, if you just sit here and argue then of course they will be deleted. - Djsasso ( talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Timely? For these and 57 other articles. See AfD talk page, that's hardly enough time to address and improve articles on them all. Sorry I don't devote my life 24/7 to Wikipedia.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Or the months and months since the articles were created. - Djsasso ( talk) 01:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's a cheap shot, DJ, and adds nothing to the discussion. Please retract it. — BQZip01 — talk 16:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's no more counterproductive than claims that, for articles now nearly a year old, the project that engendered them hasn't been given enough time to improve them. RGTraynor 16:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I never said they weren't given enough time to make some improvements, but demanding that 57 articles suddenly improve all at the same time virtually guarantees that some will not be fixed, even if they can meet WP standards. I'm simply saying that that this is an unreasonable demand in general. Moreover, the "months and months" comment doesn't help anything and only serves to inflame the discussion into areas that are not directly related to the deletion discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I'd like to add to it that there have been many, many articles that started out as stubs that have been improved! You can start by looking at the other coaches at this school in question and checking their history. Start with Harold Elliott and go from there. By placing these stub articles out, many other editors have been easily able to collaborate and grow articles. Deleting these articles will lose that benefit.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all, Wikipedia is not an indiscrminate collection of information. See also WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. Stifle ( talk) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Request As discussed on the
AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to
User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at
User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Harry Huston. He satisfies all policies and has played professional baseball at the highest level. No opinion on any of the others. Wizardman 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Harry Huston. He reached a major league, making him notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Alex ( talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: This information on Harry Huston was just added today, and while of course
WP:ATHLETE gives Harry Huston, the baseball player, a free pass, I'd be interested in
Paul McDonald's (who added the info) evidence that we're talking about the same fellow. While I understand the temptation to believe that contemporaneous Harry Hustons in Kansas must be the same fellow, the chronology holds that while he was supposedly attending the University of Kansas in Lawrence, he also did a stint as a head coach for Southwestern College in Winfield, KS, as a sophomore, with the campuses a hundred miles apart, which seems a bit of a stretch. Is there any actual proof that these are the same fellow, or is this speculation?
RGTraynor 03:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Response it wasn't all that uncommon for someone to participate at a school for baseball in the spring and not attend that school in the fall. From everyone that I can reach at the time, it appears to be the same person. Hard, linkable, online proof? Nope. But it is more than reasonable. If it does turn out to be a different person (like the crazy coincidence of the two Fay Moultons at Kansas State) then of course we fix it right away. But it's a good faith contribution.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- So, do you have any paper evidence that shows these two are the same person? For that matter, is there any evidence that the Huston who played on the Phillies is the same as the one who played for the Lowell Tigers? "Harry Huston" isn't that unusual a name.
Zagalejo
^^^ 03:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- No paper evidence, no. As this is an AfD, I'm throwing it out to the community for collaboration and support. I did attempt to mark it with a fact tag, but it looks like that didn't work. I suppose the Lowell Tigers player could be different now that you mention it, but I have a good deal of confidence that the KU/Philadelphia player is the SC head coach. Same region, same time period, low population base, common for the time period...--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Fay Moultons is indicative of the problem. We can't just assume that people of similar names just must be the same person, because you've already been proven to be dead wrong in such an assumption. (Heck, I can find three "Harry" or "Harold" Hustons in Kansas today.) "From everyone that I can reach at the time, it appears to be the same person." What makes you say that? What precisely is your evidence? Online's not necessary; if you have a newspaper cite, that's what the Boston Public Library is for. RGTraynor 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- No paper evidence, no. As this is an AfD, I'm throwing it out to the community for collaboration and support. I did attempt to mark it with a fact tag, but it looks like that didn't work. I suppose the Lowell Tigers player could be different now that you mention it, but I have a good deal of confidence that the KU/Philadelphia player is the SC head coach. Same region, same time period, low population base, common for the time period...--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- So, do you have any paper evidence that shows these two are the same person? For that matter, is there any evidence that the Huston who played on the Phillies is the same as the one who played for the Lowell Tigers? "Harry Huston" isn't that unusual a name.
Zagalejo
^^^ 03:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Response it wasn't all that uncommon for someone to participate at a school for baseball in the spring and not attend that school in the fall. From everyone that I can reach at the time, it appears to be the same person. Hard, linkable, online proof? Nope. But it is more than reasonable. If it does turn out to be a different person (like the crazy coincidence of the two Fay Moultons at Kansas State) then of course we fix it right away. But it's a good faith contribution.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, I just called the Southwestern College library to see whether they have any biographical info on Huston-the-coach. The library staffer on duty said that she couldn't find any, and that she didn't really know of anyone else there who could help me. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- If we're able to come up with any evidence that the two Hustons are the same person, I think his article should be kept, as with all MLB players. If they aren't, or we aren't able to verify that they are, then I think we should still keep the article, but remove all reference to the football coaching until such time as it can be verified. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- That makes sense. No matter how it shakes out, an article on the baseball player is warranted. RGTraynor 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed I'm good with that, actually.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Request Please consider Willis Bates separately. He also coached at what was once called "Fairmount College" that became Wichita State University. There's some more detail for him from the others.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I find this nomination, well ... obscene, there are 19 articles here and another 9 that I'm aware of. Surely other means to address some problem could have been attempted instead of taxing everyone's time and energy.
-- Banjeboi 23:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- To be more specific, it was suggested to run a RfC regarding the essay of the related wikiproject to directly address concerns.
- A merge of all these coaches from the same school into a list tied to the history of the football team might be an elegant solution. If any of the coaches gets enough coverage to warrant their own article then re-create it. The football team is notable but is part of the schools sports article, take the content from there and add the coaching info and viola! -- Banjeboi 00:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletionpedia
- Deletionpedia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Non-notable web site, fails WP:WEB. One short article at TheStandard.com, and the link to Slashdot is merely a pickup of that. Just doesn't clear the notability bar. And of course, when it's deleted, you can read about it there. Ironic, isn't it? - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 03:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Question (rhetorical): It was mentioned by The Wall Street Journal too; WP:WEB says "multiple non-trivial published works"; does "multiple" mean >1? :-) 67.101.5.132 ( talk) 09:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- Comment: I've worked on the article a bit more, and the website no long fails
WP:WEB as
Realkyhick (
talk ·
contribs) initially asserted. It now "describes the site in an encyclopedic manner and offers detail on ...significance" and cites reliable independent sources, with notability established by being the subject of multiple sources. So what's left is the chance to make this the subject of yet another
deletionists and inclusionists clash. :-)
67.101.5.132 (
talk) 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- Uh, did anyone actually check the new references? The WSJ article mentions Deletionpedia exactly once. Yep, once, and it was definitely a passing, trivial mention in a larger article about deletion vs. inclusion. The Dutch site mentions it twice in one single paragraph, but I'll be danged if I can figure out what else it says because I don't read Dutch — for all I know, it says Deletionpedia is a porn site. All of the other "new" references are either from Deletionpedia itself, or don't mention it at all and only speak of deletion vs. inclusion in more general terms. Folks, do not make this AfD a straw man for the larger deletion-vs.-inclusion debate, because it is not. It is about this one article about a non-notable web site, and that's all. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dishonest statement. It's not a non-notable web site but a web site some people don't want to be mentioned on wikipedia. Maybe because it can be used to support the mentioned debate by showing some very well written articles which were deleted anyway. But the project is useful in itself and none of this makes it or this deletion request discussion a straw man. --
80.139.32.34 (
talk) 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not dishonest in the least, and I strongly resent you stating otherwise. It is a non-notable website that is merely a repository of deleted Wikipedia articles (including many that I suspect you disagree with the deletion), and it got a big Slashdot jump one day. Six months from now when this all dies down, we'll all be saying, "So what was the big deal? How the heck did this get on here in the first place?" -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- As you admit, it is currently notable. Surely, it will eventually lose notability, as will everything. When it does lose notability, then write another deletion request. Until then, it should stay.
MaxHarmony (
talk) 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
-
Notability is not temporary. Once something is notable it does not lose that notability.
Davewild (
talk) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just an observation for Realkyhick-- I don't read Dutch either, but Google's machine translation does . . . well enough for me to ascertain that the article in
De Telegraaf really is about "Deletionpedia" and does not say it is a porn site.
Crypticfirefly (
talk) 04:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suspected as much - it was more of a lame attempt at humor. But with the Dutch, you never know. :-) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just an observation for Realkyhick-- I don't read Dutch either, but Google's machine translation does . . . well enough for me to ascertain that the article in
De Telegraaf really is about "Deletionpedia" and does not say it is a porn site.
Crypticfirefly (
talk) 04:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
-
Notability is not temporary. Once something is notable it does not lose that notability.
Davewild (
talk) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- As you admit, it is currently notable. Surely, it will eventually lose notability, as will everything. When it does lose notability, then write another deletion request. Until then, it should stay.
MaxHarmony (
talk) 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not dishonest in the least, and I strongly resent you stating otherwise. It is a non-notable website that is merely a repository of deleted Wikipedia articles (including many that I suspect you disagree with the deletion), and it got a big Slashdot jump one day. Six months from now when this all dies down, we'll all be saying, "So what was the big deal? How the heck did this get on here in the first place?" -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I've worked on the article a bit more, and the website no long fails
WP:WEB as
Realkyhick (
talk ·
contribs) initially asserted. It now "describes the site in an encyclopedic manner and offers detail on ...significance" and cites reliable independent sources, with notability established by being the subject of multiple sources. So what's left is the chance to make this the subject of yet another
deletionists and inclusionists clash. :-)
67.101.5.132 (
talk) 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (2nd nomination) (now closed, was the product of a TW edit conflict). - Icewedge ( talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I guess my Twinkle is faster than yours. :-) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete TheStandard.com article is the only original notice of this in a reliable secondary source, according to a Google; no prejudice against recreating in the event of more substantial coverage.TheMolecularMan ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC).- Changing to keep now that more substantial coverage has emerged. TheMolecularMan ( talk) 10:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
talk:Realkyhick|Talk to me]]) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's relatively new, but it consists of a considerable body of content that a large number of people felt was notable, even if the majority of people paying attention here at the time did not. Not a scientific sample to be sure, but the very first entry I came across Edward Tudor seems notable enough to me. -- Belg4mit ( talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- How does this make the website itself notable? -
Icewedge (
talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- The transitive property. -- Belg4mit ( talk) 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, if the deleted subjects were notable, they would not have been deleted. Just because it's a "considerable body of content" doesn't make it notable by any means. I could simply copy-and-pastethe phrase "CHICKEN POO! CHICKEN POO!" 100,000 times over at a web site and it would be a considerable body of content, but otherwise useless. This site isn't much better. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- You place a greater faith in the system than here than I do, and clearly expressed in my original note. And no, your hypothetical site does not consititute a "considerable body of content." Besides the utter pointless of such a thing, I would propose that anything which could be compressed 99% with
RLE is not considerable.--
Belg4mit (
talk) 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect you have little faith in the system here because "the system" keeps ridding itself of articles about non-notable subjects, an assessment with which you disagree on a regular basis. Well, you're probably screwed in this case. By the way, "transitive property" doesn't have a bloody thing to do with Wikipedia notability, thank goodness. And you can RLE that all day and night. -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- The actual articles in Deletionpedia are not merely not notable, they are typically so egregiously non-notable as to be ROFL. I particularly enjoyed, from the front page, the "concise list of films with monkeys in them" article, which was not only laughable in that it listed only three films, none of the three films actually had monkeys in them! The notability of the site is not for the notability of what it archives, but for the nature of it, and most interestingly for the insight into the nature of deleted articles.
Geoffrey.landis (
talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- So we should keep this because the site makes fun of stupid deleted WP articles? That's what makes it notable? (Sigh...) -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- We all understood that you are against the site and the article. You can now refrain from telling over and over again. --
80.139.32.34 (
talk) 21:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Once again you have twisted my statements around. I am not against the site in the least. But I am against the article, because I don't believe the site meets notability standards. Just because a site isn't notable enough for Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm against it. Heck, I run sites that I wouldn't even think of being notable enough for WP, but they should still exist (if for no other reason than to pay might light bill). - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 00:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- We all understood that you are against the site and the article. You can now refrain from telling over and over again. --
80.139.32.34 (
talk) 21:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- So we should keep this because the site makes fun of stupid deleted WP articles? That's what makes it notable? (Sigh...) -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- The actual articles in Deletionpedia are not merely not notable, they are typically so egregiously non-notable as to be ROFL. I particularly enjoyed, from the front page, the "concise list of films with monkeys in them" article, which was not only laughable in that it listed only three films, none of the three films actually had monkeys in them! The notability of the site is not for the notability of what it archives, but for the nature of it, and most interestingly for the insight into the nature of deleted articles.
Geoffrey.landis (
talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect you have little faith in the system here because "the system" keeps ridding itself of articles about non-notable subjects, an assessment with which you disagree on a regular basis. Well, you're probably screwed in this case. By the way, "transitive property" doesn't have a bloody thing to do with Wikipedia notability, thank goodness. And you can RLE that all day and night. -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Navel-gazing, with little in the way of sources to write a proper article. Apparently made in response to a Slashdot post. Hi Slashdotters! - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. A single article newspaper article, about half of which is criticizing Wikipedia is more suitable for a short note in Criticism of Wikipedia, probably in the "notability" section. The Slashdot discussion revolved around deletionism vs. inclusionism in Wikipedia; that's hardly hardly an endorsement for deletionpedia. VasileGaburici ( talk) 06:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question — Isn't Wikia a good enough place for those articles who do not make Wikipedia muster, or is it not desirable because it doesn't have the adequate search engine optimization capabilities that Wikipedia has? MuZemike ( talk) 07:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete.Just think, in just a few days they will be able to host a copy of their own deleted Wikipedia article!! JBsupreme ( talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)- Weak keep now that it's being fleshed out a bit. Forget the
Large Hadron Collider, that will make the Internets implode!
(also delete).Prince of Canada t | c 09:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC) - Weak delete. That's the kind of site that's going to generate quite a bit of buzz solely due to it being related to Wikipedia itself, but there doesn't seem to be all that much non trivial coverage atm. Plus the irony of it all is damn tempting. Equendil Talk 09:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I just updated the article, fleshing it out, adding an infobox and categories; I also cited how WSJ called it a response to the culture clash that exists on Wikipedia between deletionists and inclusionists as well as explained what The Industry Standard thought about Deletionpedia too (hint: we Wikipedia editors are guilty of groupthink). Perhaps mentioning the culture clash will make the outcome of this vote even more ironic. :-) BTW, I can't recall whether we editors-who-don't-always-log-in when contributing get to vote or not. It used to be allowed, and if it still is, I vote Keep... 67.101.5.132 ( talk) 09:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- Transwiki to Deletionpedia 70.51.8.158 ( talk) 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment maybe by default everything sent to AfD should be transwiki'd there? 70.51.8.158 ( talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This article deals with a subject which is both better cited and more notable than many other small wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is strong enough to withstand criticism, competition, etc as presented by the subject of this article. - JustinWick ( talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is saying WP can't take the criticism; the article simply fails WP [{WP:WEB|policies]].
Prince of Canada
t |
c 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't fail WP:WEB any more, and it wasn't that hard to fix. I think the rapid proposal to delete without giving it a chance to develop a bit is an unfortunate side effect of the overall positive benefits of having
new page patrollers.
67.101.5.132 (
talk) 10:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- Comment In the process of adding more details to the
Deletionpedia article, I stumbled on
this June 2008 version of the page for the website
Malwarecity, the latest and
greatest version of an article created only 30 minutes earlier that same June day.
Anyone know why the users of
new page patrol tools let Malwarecity remain in Wikipedia this long while Deletionpedia
got marked for speedy deletion within one minute of its creation? Sigh.
68.167.252.78 (
talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC).
- We have to sleep sometime, y'know. But thanks for bringing it to our attention. Malwarecity has been marked for speedy deletion now. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In the process of adding more details to the
Deletionpedia article, I stumbled on
this June 2008 version of the page for the website
Malwarecity, the latest and
greatest version of an article created only 30 minutes earlier that same June day.
Anyone know why the users of
new page patrol tools let Malwarecity remain in Wikipedia this long while Deletionpedia
got marked for speedy deletion within one minute of its creation? Sigh.
68.167.252.78 (
talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC).
- No one is saying that WP cannot handle this sort of criticism, however the sheer virulence of those asking for a delete leads me to suspect that there is an emotional component of some sort. Perhaps I'm in error on this. In any case, my comment stands, though I should probably issue the disclaimer that, generally speaking, I'm a Mergist and feel that Deletionism is an excellent way to discourage users by destroying their work. After all, why should anyone bother to be bold if it leads to naught over some Deletionist crusader's subjective opinions about what matters in the world? - 66.30.18.60 ( talk) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't fail WP:WEB any more, and it wasn't that hard to fix. I think the rapid proposal to delete without giving it a chance to develop a bit is an unfortunate side effect of the overall positive benefits of having
new page patrollers.
67.101.5.132 (
talk) 10:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- I don't think anyone is saying WP can't take the criticism; the article simply fails WP [{WP:WEB|policies]].
Prince of Canada
t |
c 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is nice that such site exists. Deletion of the correct articles just because they are "non-notable" is in my opinion the worst thing that happen to Wikipedia. Even if we delete this article, the link to deletionpedia should be put in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WWMPD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.65.67 ( talk) 10:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Coverage is fairly substantial Daimanta ( talk) 11:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for the shear enjoyment of seeing an article about Deletionpedia in Deletionpedia. :o) okay actually let's call it a Weak Keep based on precedent of similar 'pedia articles staying here and a liberal dose of WP:IAR. Although, I'd definitely remove some of the primary sourcing and suggest a rewrite for grammer and such. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- That IS ironic. It also exposes a very ugly truth about Wikipedia, and that's the REAL reason this article is up for afd right now, isn't it? keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.245.87.2 ( talk) 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -Really funny, guys. Slapping an AfD on something 24 minutes old. You might not care about your impression, but this just shows how some WP editors are just intolerant of criticism. -- 58.69.180.227 ( talk) 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't take this wrong (note I "voted" keep above) but, you guys that are simply "accusing" others might want to address some of the policies/guidelines or something, otherwise the whole discussion becomes pointless. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Non-trival third-party coverage in publications such as Industry Standard and the Wall Street Journal is more than enough to satisfy notability under WP:WEB, and just about any other policy I can think of. Some of the arguments above seem to imply that there must be quantity in terms of third-party coverage. Nuh-uh. It takes only one. PS. I just took a peek at the site: aside from the fact they'll have a field day if their own article is deleted I'm also noting they're having server problems similar to that experienced due to high traffic by Wikipedia. That may be neither here nor there, but could be a sign of notable usage, if the Wall Street Journal isn't considered a good enough source for this article. 23skidoo ( talk) 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- "I'm also noting they're having server problems similar to that experienced due to high traffic by Wikipedia." Most likely the problems are due to high-traffic due to [ slashdot], not due to Wikipedia. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 14:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable web site. I took the time to read WP:WEB and it doesn't fail the criteria as far as I can tell. I won't defend it because the Nominator has not made a sufficient case, rather rhetoric without substance behind the nomination. You can't just say a site is non-notable and fails WP:WEB without actually explaining how and why. Fothergill Volkensniff IV ( talk) 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep - Deleting this article looks, to me, like more of an exercise in the behavior it decries, than actual productive maintenance of Wikipedia. I echo the two posters above me. (Oh, look; hi, 23; funny meeting you here. :-)
-- Baylink ( talk) 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we have anything to prove. The verifiability of the subject is what matters, not the subject itself, and this should be no exception. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia until we have a few more sources for a split. It's got sources so it's worth mentioning, but not well covered enough for its own article. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It clarifies interesting insight about the normally-invisible workings of Wikipedia, which is notable, and thus transitively is notable. But, for that matter, the article refers to external sources which seem to make it meet the explicit notability criteria.. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 14:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The mention in the Wall Street Journal is enough for me to show that this is notable. I guess it was inevitable that someone would create an afterlife for articles that get killed here. It's nice to know that in "the culture clash between deletionists and inclusionists", we can now say "Ship this one off to Deletionpedia." Mandsford ( talk) 14:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in the absence of a suitable merge target. This wiki doesn't have Earth-shattering notability, but the article is good enough to keep it on wikipedia. – sgeureka t• c 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with merging it to here? -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 14:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- As the nominator, I would not have a problem with merging this to D&I in WP. (Yeah I shoulda checked to see if that article existed first. My bad.) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 18:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- (EC) Weak keep. It probably fails the letter of WP:WEB - the WSJ article may as well be a prototype of trivial mention, and the Standard.com/Slashdot/Dutch references are essentially one article repeated three times. Still, I think that a bit of systemic bias could be in play here, as its existence is an implied criticism of Wikipedia, and I would rather err towards keeping the article it an attempt to counter that. The merge suggestion a couple of entries above has some merit as well, although it's not the most intuitive target. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Is it really non-notable, or just a touchy subject? This is ridiculous. novakreo ( talk) 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see a strong argument for non-notability. Multiple sources are writing about it, and the article is properly written. I expect the article has been cleaned up since nomination. The article should exist for now, and if there is still conviction to delete, renom it in a few months after it has stabilized. - Verdatum ( talk) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- 'Strong Keep Stronimo ( talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why? -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It strikes me that the article makes a fairly obvious case for significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Potential embarrassment over the subject seems to be the chief problem with the article, and that doesn't amount to a case for deletion. -
Smerdis of Tlön (
talk) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I seem to have trouble finding the claim that this article is embarrassing or any other comments that could make me think the nominators nomination wasn't completely in good faith. I don't think it'd fair that the people discussing keep and delete are looking at completely different nominations; Assuming in good faith as I am that you aren't accusing the nominator of bad faith when he was perfectly valid in at least making sure the article was discussed. - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the articles cited in this article seem to establish notability. Give WP:RESCUE a go on this before blitzing it. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - If we delete it, there will be additional news stories about how we deleted this article and it was moved to the very site it was about. Which will make it even more notable. The site is notable and will grow more so no matter what is decided here. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- comment. As one of the evil deletionists I would have a conflict of interest in voting unless I were so ambivalent as to abstain anyway. Therefore when I say I agree with both A Man In Black and Xymmax, and that I think WAS 4.250 has a good crystal ball, I should just be ignored. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Considering how arbitrary Wikipedia articles can be kept or deleted at times, this serves as a good back-up and can help some editors blow off some steam---more so than Conservapedia, which even Jimbo Wales kinda praised. Yartett ( talk) 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as improved. sufficient sources. In any case I think NPOV makes it necessary for us to be sure to resolve any doubt towards including articles that might make us look bad. Excluding them makes us look even worse. DGG ( talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's now substantial and well-referenced enough that wanting to delete it is pretty much indefensible. "I don't like it" is not a basis for deletion. Languagehat ( talk) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Is there a page on criticism on wikipedia? It should probably even be linked from such a page. -- Kju ( talk) 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Perhaps it failed WP:WEB when this was initially nominated for deletion, but that certainly is not the case now. RFerreira ( talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Of 9 Sources, only 1 major source, which features a superbly trivial mention [17], consisting of nothing but a passing mention without even defining the site. The only articles actually dedicated to the site are an averagely notable article [18] and a foreign language article [19] that while i can't confirm the importance of, makes itself the only serious source, and then only if it is a major source. Another 4 of the sources [20] [21] [22] [23] are completely unacceptable as sources of it's Notability, one being completely trivial and the other 3 being the actual site itself. The final two sites [24] don't even mention Deletionpedia, though one [25] uses the term Deletopedia at the last moment, while the content is dedicated to Wikipedia. I don't believe there to be any serious non-trivial sources, and I hope the closing Admin isn't swayed by numbers considering at least 6 of the keeps I read above this either provided no reasoning or were in somewhat bad faith. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — as much as I don't like it, it meets the WP:GNG for having several reliable sources. MuZemike ( talk) 21:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- keep Multiple reliable sources. Meets
WP:WEB.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could the previous two keeps give examples of "multiple" reliable sources with Significant coverage of the article topic? -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. The Industry Standard article is all about Deletionpedia (3 paragraphs but still decent). The Telegraaf article is slightly shorter and gives a few more details. That's
two, two reliable sources. So we're done.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately, The Industry Standard is not a Major source, so we can't even Make up 2 Major English Language Sources. If this was notable it would be easy to leave out sources, however, this article struggles to even reach the minimum i would expect. And i like the website... -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "major"? We don't need major sources.
WP:N calls for non-trivial sources, and it meets that.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- By major, I mean major.
WP:N calls for multiple non-trivial sources, it fails that. As for the many other criteria, Verifiability is based upon the communities ability to trust a source, which is of course easiest from a major, or serious source as opposed to "The Industry Standard". On the other hand, you seem to just assert that it complies with policy in every argument without putting forward any reason but to say you disagree, which is far from helpful to discussion, so I won't be responding again. Remember that you're allowed to read arguments and change your position. -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I did explain. WP:N calls for non-trivial, not "major" as you yourself observed. They have very different meanings. Non-trivial, is a low-burden. Major is a large burden. See the difference? (Oh and incidentally, while were discussing what WP:N says, the language of the sources is generally irrelevant. Whether we can find sources in English has no bearing on the matter). JoshuaZ ( talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- By major, I mean major.
WP:N calls for multiple non-trivial sources, it fails that. As for the many other criteria, Verifiability is based upon the communities ability to trust a source, which is of course easiest from a major, or serious source as opposed to "The Industry Standard". On the other hand, you seem to just assert that it complies with policy in every argument without putting forward any reason but to say you disagree, which is far from helpful to discussion, so I won't be responding again. Remember that you're allowed to read arguments and change your position. -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "major"? We don't need major sources.
WP:N calls for non-trivial sources, and it meets that.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately, The Industry Standard is not a Major source, so we can't even Make up 2 Major English Language Sources. If this was notable it would be easy to leave out sources, however, this article struggles to even reach the minimum i would expect. And i like the website... -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. The Industry Standard article is all about Deletionpedia (3 paragraphs but still decent). The Telegraaf article is slightly shorter and gives a few more details. That's
two, two reliable sources. So we're done.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could the previous two keeps give examples of "multiple" reliable sources with Significant coverage of the article topic? -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Seems to have enough references to establish notability.
- keep per JoshuaZ - reliable sources met; WP:WEB met -- Matilda talk 22:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Meets
WP:N, is informative and is worthy of notice. Moreover, it is past being a Start or Stub article. It is also mentioned in international news such as the dutch article previously mentioned and in the
German Press--
Bob (
talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- That article appears to be almost completely a translation of The Industry Standard article. The only addition is that they explain that fancruft ("Fanmaterial" in German) is material that isn't offically part of the fictional universe (there may be a mistranslation here either on my part or on the article in question since that seems to confuse fancruft with fanon or possibly other issues). JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I don't think keeping this article alive will hurt Wikipedia, but trying to suppress it certainly will. If WP (-defenders) can't stand some criticism (and by now way I think the site deletionpedia is criticism in itself), then they just don't understand the fact that it is this bottom-top approach which made Wikipedia what it is, and deleting this article without proper reasons turns this approach upside down and sympathy away from wikipedia. The reason why I estimate the notability of the site is because the deletion policy is a major soft spot in WP and many people have strong feelings about it. Therefore this morgue deserves an artivle in WP. - Ironically, this whole discussion gave this article more importance by triggering more news sites to mention deletionpedia and the fuss around it. Trying to suppress opinions in the digital world can sometimes yield the opposite effect... I'm also sure that quite soon similar sites will appear for other languages in WP thus also increasing the notability of it. Matthiku ( talk) 11:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- We're not trying to suppress anything. The site itself will go on no matter what we decide here. The question is as to whether the site is notable enough to merit an article about it on Wikipedia. This suppression argument is pure WP:BOLLOCKS. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Evidently notable.
Colonel Warden (
talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because...? - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 00:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Let's be honest, this article really belongs on Deletionpedia.-- Pushsense ( talk) 13:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- We are being honest. Do you have any actual reasons to back up your opinion? -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think there is enough significant coverage here to establish notability, with more coverage in the last couple of hours here - due to this AFD and here. While not enough on it's own combined with the coverage already in the article I think this more than establishes notability. Davewild ( talk) 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The coverage of this website has spread rapidly in the last 24 hours and will only continue to do so. T0lk ( talk) 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It may fail
WP:WEB but has garnered enough media coverage to make it notable (partially thanks to the irony of this deletion nomination). -
Nv8200p
talk 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hehe that is ironic. I'd gt a laugh out of that, care to show me a Verifiable source discussing the Article because of this AfD? Infact, show me any more sources than the minimal few already on the page? - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 17:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that this is an apropo use of WP:IAR. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a free online encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is greatly improved by the fact that the revision history is available and all content contributed to an article is present in some form. It allows future editors to build on the work of previous editors, even when the contributions in past edits were not yet acceptable for front-end content. Furthermore, editors are accountable for the changes they make. This accountability and preservation of content is not present with deleted articles. Deletionpedia could fill this need, or it could become a catalyst for change, but it can't do either without building a strong link with Wikipedia. This article is the first step in that direction. The consensus appears to be that it improves the wiki.-- 128.6.210.119 ( talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the snowball has grown large enough to be noteworthy. Ezratrumpet ( talk) 23:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but steal their thunder by closing as many AfDs as keep from here on out! J We do not want to risk them having more articles than us, lest they actually become the comprehensive encyclopedia we allegedly aspire to be… -- 172.129.17.196 ( talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This article would not have been considered actionable via WP:AfD if it weren't Wikipedia-related. On the balance of fact available, it was borderline notable before, and the act of nominating it for AfD has taken the "borderline" off the "notable". Like rain on your wedding day. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 2008-09-20 20:52Z
- Um..... not so much. I don't get it, what makes you (all of you) think anyone here thinks that it should be deleted because it is "Wikipedia related"? I dont see a single delete comment expressing that view, there are a few comments on the irony of the situtaion but nothing more, it seems this article has been turned into a straw man for deletionist bashing. The article was originally nominated for deletion because the total reliable sourceing out there amounted to one article and then another four sentance mention. Articles with more coverage than this are routinely deleted. In fact I think what is hapenning here is the opposite of what you are alleging, it is probably because that it is Wikipedia related that so many 'keep' !votes are coming out, because, as I said before the particular irony of the AfD has every one up in an anti-deletionist blood frenzy. - Icewedge ( talk) 21:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:WEB requirements of two non-trivial independent sources. There is no requirement for being "major". Mdwh ( talk) 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, Deletionpadia is an excellent repository of pages, many of which lasted for extremely long periods of time, with many, many edits before they were deleted. Also, both the site is self, and other sources that mention it (even if in passing) make it notable enough for inclusion. -- Anthony S. Castanza ( talk) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's borderline, to be sure, but it's gotten enough mention to be borderline, and yes, quite frankly I think we should strive to err on the side of inclusion when it is material that is critical of Wikipedia. I am confident that the world will find Deletionpedia to be far less useful and interesting than (say) Conservapedia once the novelty of the idea wears off and people actually start reading the "content." We can always revisit the issue in six months or so. Right now, deleting this article smacks of bias. Caesar's wife and so forth. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Examination of the sources
Lets go over the sources on this article, (the numbering here referrs to the sources by number as they were on this revision. [26])
- A page on the website itself, not only is a SPS but it is an SPS on a Wiki. Entirley unreliable source, invalid for notability.
- same as above. Invalid for notability.
- Same as above. Invalid for notability.
- This article has exactly one sentence about deletionpedia: "Still, even deleted articles survive, on Deletionpedia: 50,000 and counting.", nothing more. A single sentance is not in depth by any possible definition. Invalid for notability.
- This article [27] actually does appear to be legit.
- A slashdot discussion, web forums are not reliable sources by any definition. Invalid for notability.
- This article is actually about the topic... but it is only one paragraph long. One paragraph is not the kind of "in-depth source" referred to at WP:GNG.
- This article mentions Wikipedia deletionists but does not mention anything about deletionpedia at all. Invalid for notability.
- Same as above; this article mentions Wikipedia deletionists but does not mention anything about deletionpedia. Invalid for notability.
So in summary the combined relevant reliable sourcing of this article is one medium size article and one two small mentions; 4 paragraphs and one sentence in total. Face it folks (and sock puppets, SPA’s, ect.), This does not meet WP:GNG. - Icewedge ( talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to disagree with some aspects of your analysis. Note that the Slashdot piece has a few sentences before the forum discussion (I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source but it is worth noting). In the next case, the article in De Telegraaf, a long paragraph devoted to a specific topic is non-trivial coverage from a reliable source. So we have two reliable independent, non-trivial sources. That meets WP:N. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with how Slashdot works? The stories that people comment on are user submitted.
Now about WP:N, it states that "sources [should] address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content", is four sentances an in detail discussion of the subject? - Icewedge ( talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)- No, which is probably why he noted himself, "I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source".
TheMolecularMan (
talk) 23:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- True, but he did present it as if it in some way heped establish notability, which it does not. Oh, and it is possible that you did not fully get the context of my comment, the second part is about the der telegraf piece. -
Icewedge (
talk) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, I agree that the Slashdot matter is minimally helpful. (We could have a discussion that about whether the editorial selection by slashdot makes the comments selected as the leads somehow more reliable but that's iffy at best). As to the telegraaf piece, the standard needed is non-trivial, which it meets. JoshuaZ ( talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- True, but he did present it as if it in some way heped establish notability, which it does not. Oh, and it is possible that you did not fully get the context of my comment, the second part is about the der telegraf piece. -
Icewedge (
talk) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, which is probably why he noted himself, "I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source".
TheMolecularMan (
talk) 23:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with how Slashdot works? The stories that people comment on are user submitted.
2 news sources, plus, few more already sourced in the article -- more than enough for inclusion, IMHO. In addition, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. WP:IAR. 216.80.119.92 ( talk) 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Now, this is interesting. The most vocal people speaking in favor for deletion of the article keep telling that the reason is not that they dislike the subject in question but that they just believe the article fails the guidelines. It seems that a majority of commentors feel otherwise which now causes that the people in favor for deletion go through lengths arguing and explaining why the latter people are wrong and only they are right. Also they choose to diffame the other commentors as sock puppets, SPA etc. For me thats a sure sign that its not about the compliance of the article to the guidelines but about a article which some people want to suppress. While i understand that this is not a majority vote as noted on top, said people should probably accept if a very clear majority don't feel the same way as them instead of keeping arguing and answering to votes in favor to keep the article and so on. This certainly looks like some people fighting a holy war and not just discussing if the article mets the guidelines. My 2ct. --
Kju (
talk) 08:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (
not a sock puppet or spa)
- I couldn't care less about Wikipedia... see my poor edit history and lack of interest for huge periods of time... and I simply don't believe that 1 useable source of notability is grounds for inclusion. More importantly, going around assuming other people's position just because they put forward stronger arguments instead of repeating "It has serious reliable sources" over and over and over and over again, could be considered somewaht rude. No one has made claims to not liking it, and i'm personally somewhat offended by the accusation that I care about the content of the article. - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 08:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- ' I couldn't care less about Wikipedia... '... ' offended by the accusation that I care about the content of the article '
- Just out of curiosity, if you don't care about Wikipedia, nor about this specific article, why you bother writing here? I write here because I do care about Wikipedia.
216.80.119.92 (
talk) 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That's a little off topic... my point was that I have no reason to take the article personally and I made my Delete Comments based upon the lack of sources and not the content of the article. As did all the other people who have so far argued for deletion, and been perfectly civil and in good faith while those considering keeping it are reduced to making accusations of bad faith with absolutely no evidence, every other comment. -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think we all need to keep generalisations out of it. Not all delete "voters" are doing it for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons nor are all keep voters doing it by making accusations of bad faith. Generalisations don't help the article, this discussion, or wikipedia. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That's a little off topic... my point was that I have no reason to take the article personally and I made my Delete Comments based upon the lack of sources and not the content of the article. As did all the other people who have so far argued for deletion, and been perfectly civil and in good faith while those considering keeping it are reduced to making accusations of bad faith with absolutely no evidence, every other comment. -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note There's another source which is now active: in German. It discusses briefly Deletionpedia and mentions a few additional examples of articles which were deleted and migrated over. It also connects Deletionpedia to other related issues such as Wikiscanner although what connection they are trying to make is not clear to me. Possibly someone with better language skills can figure that out. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- After a short introduction of Deletionpedia the article talks about the repeated problems with manipulation of wikipedia articles, names manipulated articles like one about the CEO of a swiss bank which was cleaned up from a bank's IP and finally mentions wikiscanner. -- 80.139.2.106 ( talk) 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Carlos amador munoz
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Carlos amador munoz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Doesn't seem to be a notable person, never mind that it reads like a copyvio and appears outdated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with deleting this article as my searches on Google News and Google Books did not turn up any results. -- Elisabeth Rogan ( talk) 07:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Don't agree with deletion. In a fast searching in google I found references of award winning in Spain (Losdenmedium Los Obsenos). Montevideo Uruguay seminars about Music benefits for healing. (User: Alex Wendell , FL)
- I do not think this article should be deleted. I found certain information in Pierrot Lunaire Ensemble Austria's webpage in section "concerts 2007". User: Mark zuniga
- Neither Alex wendell ( talk · contribs) nor Mark zuniga ( talk · contribs) have any contributions outside this debate/vote page. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't delete this article. I'll love to know about Central American shamanic chants (
Mrak Sandowsky (
talk) 04:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC))
- Apart from this comment/vote,
Mrak Sandowsky (
talk ·
contribs) has a total of five edits, of those four to talk pages. -
Mike Rosoft (
talk) 07:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- " I like this article" is not a valid reason to keep it. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 07:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apart from this comment/vote,
Mrak Sandowsky (
talk ·
contribs) has a total of five edits, of those four to talk pages. -
Mike Rosoft (
talk) 07:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This article shows the work of a central american composer who is working in a very different and special field. Searching in Universidad de Costa Rica files www.cariari.co.cr I found references of the value of this investigation about the almost extinct oral traditions of Guaimy , Cabecar and Bri Bri indian branches in Central America. In stead of recomend the delition I suggest that Wikipedia editors should recomend the author to include all the missing information about native oral traditions that this musician is recording and documenting. ( Mrak Sandowsky ( talk) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)) I included this article to show an interesting work of a costarican composer who make real efforts to preserve culture and traditions in his country. If it is possible to improve the article please tell me, you are the experts! Is your decision and I'll accept it.( Mikaelangelo777 ( talk) 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC))
- Note: All users above this line appear to be single-purpose accounts. Please remember AfD is NOT A VOTE and that users who are repeatedly commenting on the discussion using multiple accounts will be blocked according to policy. Thank you. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep if referenced I think he might be notable, but we need some 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk) 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless referenced to show notability. If the sources exist all the new enthusistic editors should be able to add them, or at least point to them here, instead of claiming obscure references exist. And it really looks like a copyvio (the formatting = copy paste). Edit: Copyvio from his website [1]? Yobmod ( talk) 15:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as a copyvio -- Whpq ( talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note Toay an article was created on Amador carlos, whoch seems to be on the same person. -- Crusio ( talk) 12:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep The latest editings and references improve the article. Please don not copy this article or post it with different name it doesn't help.( Mikaelangelo777 ( talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC))
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Huston
- 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. Excepting Willis Bates and Harry Huston, as they satisfy WP:ATHLETE.
This AfD had quite a few arguments to it. It appears that the NAIA teams (small colleges) are equated with NCAA division III. As such, their athletes would fail notability for athletes, as they have not competed at the highest level (NCAA division I) of amateur sports.
But, that's also assuming that a coach could be grouped an athlete, so that would be cause for falling back on general biographical notability; however, the subjects are not recipients of notable awards nor made widely-recognized contributions in their specific field— at least, the articles do not assert that. J. J. Thiel's article, for example, states that he is the "9th most successful coach in Southwestern's history." That makes this individual the 9th successful coach at the 3rd successful grouping of college teams. Finally, falling back to the more general notability guidelines, there is no demonstrated widespread media coverage from independent, reliable sources.
Some arguments allude to Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Notability. This is neither a policy nor guideline, nor is it supported by consensus from the entire community. In fact, it could be seen as contradictory to the official notability guidelines.
Finally, there are arguments that a bundled afd is inappropriate; however, there is neither a guideline nor policy discouraging it. In practice, it is actually encouraged that afds are grouped into one page if the nominator believes, in good faith, that the articles will meet the same rationale and that none of them would be likely to survive on their own. There appears to be no malice in this nomination, as they all appear to be Southwestern College Moundbuilders Head Football Coaches, and the rationale was that simply being a coach at the non-highest-level of an amateur team does not, in and of itself, satisfy notability guidelines— a notion that it appears is supported by consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, for example. -- slakr\ talk / 08:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
J. J. Thiel
- J. J. Thiel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Obscure football coach for a low-level NAIA college, fails WP:BIO, WP:V. No biographical information other than his won-loss record. See other recent AfDs on similarly obscure coaches for similarly obscure colleges: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West.
I am also nominating the following related pages, all for coaches at this school, and all which lack any biographical information save for their years coached and won-loss records:
- Harry Huston ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jay Mack Love ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Frank Armin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fred Clapp ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Willis Bates ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Don Copper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dick Nolan (football coach) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Harry Brock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fred Dittman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Harold Hunt (football coach) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bill Carroll (football coach) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Robert Hower ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bob Dvorak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ray Morrison (football coach) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wes Buller ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jim Paramore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Phil Hower ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jake Cabell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chris Douglas (football coach) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As a side note, I am not nominating seven of the coaches from this school, four because there is evidence of their independent notability, three because while I feel they are not notable, an assertion of notability is made sufficient that their inclusion in a bundled AfD is inappropriate. RGTraynor 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Please Move Discussion All of a sudden, there are a large number of college football head coach articles being considered for deletion. There has always been a trickle--one or two at a time, but my current count shows 28 [Wikipedia:WikiProject College football#Articles & Pages being considered for deletion|articles for deletion]], and I'm sure I'm missing many. One editor has achieved a deletion of Walter J. West and is now claiming "precedent" to delete coaches. I suggest (and have been suggesting for some time now) moving these argument to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Notability so that we can have a uniform and open discussion about what truly makes a notable college football coach. This will prevent arguing article-at-a-time and help to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It will prevent a "scramble" on both sides of the argument and make for a single place to come to a true consensus instead of a hit-or-miss end result.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not at all against people having general discussions, and when and if WP:ATHLETE is amended to explicitly grant prima facie notability to coaches of even the lowest possible levels of college ball, of course we ought to rule on black letter policy. RGTraynor 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom and precedent at Walter J. West.
Dpmuk (
talk) 11:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
Walter J. West is not precedent, but one AfD that "slipped through" the process. There many, many, many, many other articles very very similar that have passed the AfD process. Oh, and since I now have to go put this on a whole bunch of other AfDs, this once again supports my reasoning to please move the discussion to a single location.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: Mm, if you've seen other Div III or NAIA coaches without any biographical info that have survived AfD, feel free to cite them, but I don't believe there are any. That being said, fourteen editors advocated deletion on the West article, which is not "slipping through" anything. Among them, the sentiment was very broadly held that (to choose one of the less caustic quotes) "[A] Wikiproject does not make policy that can override site-wide policy." That's considerably more consensus than actually levied "Support" or "Oppose" opinions on CFB:COACH. RGTraynor 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: I feel justified calling it a precedent for three reasons:
- These articles are unlike many other articles that you gave in the West case as most of those other articles had significantly more detail and often other claims to notability. Hence there AfDs aren't precedent for this case.
- Consensus can change (see WP:CCC). As Walter J. West is a very recent discussion I feel happy saying that's a precedent where as I'd be less happy saying some of the older discussions were a relevant precedent.
- Walter J. West got comments from a lot of editors - certainly more than for any of the other AfDs mentioned - so again IMO this makes it the most valid precedent.
- Comment
Walter J. West is not precedent, but one AfD that "slipped through" the process. There many, many, many, many other articles very very similar that have passed the AfD process. Oh, and since I now have to go put this on a whole bunch of other AfDs, this once again supports my reasoning to please move the discussion to a single location.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- AfDs are an area for discussion. If I want to call it a precedent I'm quite entitled to and you're quite entitled to disagree (which you obviously do). Given that it's meant to be a discussion and people will often disagree I do not find your language or the use of bold to be helpful - please try to respect other user's opinions even when you disagree with them. (Only going to post this on one AfD at the moment). Dpmuk ( talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's Talk Precedence Please forgive the table in this discussion... it bears scrutiny.
[ Table moved to Discussion page]
If "Precedence" is the true guidance on this, the result must indeed be keep.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Actually that would be a
WP:WAX arguement and is not a very good one. Nevermind the fact that a number of those were non-admin closures and should never have been closed by a non-admin, and one was withdrawn. So there really isn't any "Precedence" going your way either. -
Djsasso (
talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question why is it "precedence" when there is one AfD discussion that says "delete" and "WAX" when twenty-four say keep? And remember, I didn't bring up precedence... the deletion argument did.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Table and rebuttal moved to the Talk page for discussion. RGTraynor 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question why is it "precedence" when there is one AfD discussion that says "delete" and "WAX" when twenty-four say keep? And remember, I didn't bring up precedence... the deletion argument did.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Actually that would be a
WP:WAX arguement and is not a very good one. Nevermind the fact that a number of those were non-admin closures and should never have been closed by a non-admin, and one was withdrawn. So there really isn't any "Precedence" going your way either. -
Djsasso (
talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- You already raised this issue in the Holm AfD, and if you require a reiteration, so be it. (1) Dahlene passes WP:ATHLETE as a prominent kicker for a major college program and WP:PROF as a college president, both long-held to be prima-facie passes; (2) Moulton's nomination was withdrawn after you claimed that he was an Olympic athlete, another prima facie pass on WP:ATHLETE, although your evidence for the same never was revealed or made it into the article; which was in fact in error, because the Olympic athlete was Fay R. Moulton, who has his own Wikipedia article; (3) Taylor was a state official prominent in the civil rights controversies of the 1950s; (4) Wright was elected to a Hall of Fame ... so all those are discredited.
- 1) I added a merge tag to Moulton several months ago because I thought they might be the same person. It turns out that they were not as SYSS Mouse confirmed on May 8 (check the history of the page). 2) Fay G. Moulton was a head coach at Kansas State University which is now a Division I FBS school and not related to this discussion at all. You can read about it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton. Yes, the nominator withdrew and it appears it may have been for that reason (or may not, read closely), but there was no intent on my part to mislead anyone. 3) A "guideline" is not the same thing as a "policy". "Guidelines" are used for notability essays. 4) CFB:COACH specifically states it is an essay and any editor can check the page to verify. 5) How does continually calling me a liar when there are historical archives of the pages that anyone can look at comply with "black letter of policy throughout" ?? Wikipedia is about truth, not falsehoods and you have obviously been digging like crazy into my editing and contribution history.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Gottsch, Stevens and the SINGLE Prairie View mass AfD, I'll grant you, a decision based upon your misleading inference that CFB:COACH was an official notability guideline and a misreading of the then-current wording of "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" from WP:ATHLETE. You failed completely to cite, in those AfDs, that the coaches neither competed at the highest level in amateur sports (that being Division I NCAA football), nor that they met the general criteria of secondary sources. DJ's also dead right in that all but one of those AfDs was closed by a non-admin, which they are not allowed to do for any result other than an unambiguous, non-controversial Keep, and was therefore a heavy violation of process, so much so that the editor responsible for most of them had a 75% Oppose vote at his subsequent RfA on the strength of his poor closures. Are you sure you want to claim those AfDs as supporting your case? RGTraynor 19:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question can you please cite the source or policy covering non-admin closures of AfDs? One other time an admin stated that it was policy that only admins could close AfDs but that was false. If you have new-different-more clear information, can you please present it before we go further?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem: WP:DPR#NAC, which holds: "Editors in good standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions, with the following provisions ... Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results ... Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator ..." RGTraynor 20:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete All fails WP:BIO, WP:V. - Djsasso ( talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- question RGT, have you checked that none of these had a professional career? That was a problem with some of the other nominations in these groups of articles.. And I'm also thinking of some similar cases where a few of the apparently non-notable athletes later became state legislators, or notable surgeons, or whatever.-- Agreed its the article authors fault for not checking & inserting the information, but so should we before we delete. But I thing your careful approach here is very reasonable, it would just help to know what you have checked. DGG ( talk) 04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: While deletion policy holds that it is the responsibility of editors who want to save an article to provide sources and prove notability, not the responsibility of noms to prove otherwise, pro-football-reference.com has no record that any of the subjects listed above played pro football. RGTraynor 12:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Response that would be unlikely for many of them... Thiel, for example, coached for the 1903-1904 seasons. The NFL didn't start until 1920. This was most definitely the highest level of the expression of the sport at the time for many of these coaches. Think history.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- So find offline sources that prove they are notable. You have 7 days to do so, if you just sit here and argue then of course they will be deleted. - Djsasso ( talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Timely? For these and 57 other articles. See AfD talk page, that's hardly enough time to address and improve articles on them all. Sorry I don't devote my life 24/7 to Wikipedia.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Or the months and months since the articles were created. - Djsasso ( talk) 01:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's a cheap shot, DJ, and adds nothing to the discussion. Please retract it. — BQZip01 — talk 16:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's no more counterproductive than claims that, for articles now nearly a year old, the project that engendered them hasn't been given enough time to improve them. RGTraynor 16:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I never said they weren't given enough time to make some improvements, but demanding that 57 articles suddenly improve all at the same time virtually guarantees that some will not be fixed, even if they can meet WP standards. I'm simply saying that that this is an unreasonable demand in general. Moreover, the "months and months" comment doesn't help anything and only serves to inflame the discussion into areas that are not directly related to the deletion discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I'd like to add to it that there have been many, many articles that started out as stubs that have been improved! You can start by looking at the other coaches at this school in question and checking their history. Start with Harold Elliott and go from there. By placing these stub articles out, many other editors have been easily able to collaborate and grow articles. Deleting these articles will lose that benefit.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all, Wikipedia is not an indiscrminate collection of information. See also WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. Stifle ( talk) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Request As discussed on the
AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to
User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at
User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Harry Huston. He satisfies all policies and has played professional baseball at the highest level. No opinion on any of the others. Wizardman 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Harry Huston. He reached a major league, making him notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Alex ( talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: This information on Harry Huston was just added today, and while of course
WP:ATHLETE gives Harry Huston, the baseball player, a free pass, I'd be interested in
Paul McDonald's (who added the info) evidence that we're talking about the same fellow. While I understand the temptation to believe that contemporaneous Harry Hustons in Kansas must be the same fellow, the chronology holds that while he was supposedly attending the University of Kansas in Lawrence, he also did a stint as a head coach for Southwestern College in Winfield, KS, as a sophomore, with the campuses a hundred miles apart, which seems a bit of a stretch. Is there any actual proof that these are the same fellow, or is this speculation?
RGTraynor 03:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Response it wasn't all that uncommon for someone to participate at a school for baseball in the spring and not attend that school in the fall. From everyone that I can reach at the time, it appears to be the same person. Hard, linkable, online proof? Nope. But it is more than reasonable. If it does turn out to be a different person (like the crazy coincidence of the two Fay Moultons at Kansas State) then of course we fix it right away. But it's a good faith contribution.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- So, do you have any paper evidence that shows these two are the same person? For that matter, is there any evidence that the Huston who played on the Phillies is the same as the one who played for the Lowell Tigers? "Harry Huston" isn't that unusual a name.
Zagalejo
^^^ 03:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- No paper evidence, no. As this is an AfD, I'm throwing it out to the community for collaboration and support. I did attempt to mark it with a fact tag, but it looks like that didn't work. I suppose the Lowell Tigers player could be different now that you mention it, but I have a good deal of confidence that the KU/Philadelphia player is the SC head coach. Same region, same time period, low population base, common for the time period...--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Fay Moultons is indicative of the problem. We can't just assume that people of similar names just must be the same person, because you've already been proven to be dead wrong in such an assumption. (Heck, I can find three "Harry" or "Harold" Hustons in Kansas today.) "From everyone that I can reach at the time, it appears to be the same person." What makes you say that? What precisely is your evidence? Online's not necessary; if you have a newspaper cite, that's what the Boston Public Library is for. RGTraynor 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- No paper evidence, no. As this is an AfD, I'm throwing it out to the community for collaboration and support. I did attempt to mark it with a fact tag, but it looks like that didn't work. I suppose the Lowell Tigers player could be different now that you mention it, but I have a good deal of confidence that the KU/Philadelphia player is the SC head coach. Same region, same time period, low population base, common for the time period...--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- So, do you have any paper evidence that shows these two are the same person? For that matter, is there any evidence that the Huston who played on the Phillies is the same as the one who played for the Lowell Tigers? "Harry Huston" isn't that unusual a name.
Zagalejo
^^^ 03:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Response it wasn't all that uncommon for someone to participate at a school for baseball in the spring and not attend that school in the fall. From everyone that I can reach at the time, it appears to be the same person. Hard, linkable, online proof? Nope. But it is more than reasonable. If it does turn out to be a different person (like the crazy coincidence of the two Fay Moultons at Kansas State) then of course we fix it right away. But it's a good faith contribution.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, I just called the Southwestern College library to see whether they have any biographical info on Huston-the-coach. The library staffer on duty said that she couldn't find any, and that she didn't really know of anyone else there who could help me. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- If we're able to come up with any evidence that the two Hustons are the same person, I think his article should be kept, as with all MLB players. If they aren't, or we aren't able to verify that they are, then I think we should still keep the article, but remove all reference to the football coaching until such time as it can be verified. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- That makes sense. No matter how it shakes out, an article on the baseball player is warranted. RGTraynor 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed I'm good with that, actually.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Request Please consider Willis Bates separately. He also coached at what was once called "Fairmount College" that became Wichita State University. There's some more detail for him from the others.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I find this nomination, well ... obscene, there are 19 articles here and another 9 that I'm aware of. Surely other means to address some problem could have been attempted instead of taxing everyone's time and energy.
-- Banjeboi 23:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- To be more specific, it was suggested to run a RfC regarding the essay of the related wikiproject to directly address concerns.
- A merge of all these coaches from the same school into a list tied to the history of the football team might be an elegant solution. If any of the coaches gets enough coverage to warrant their own article then re-create it. The football team is notable but is part of the schools sports article, take the content from there and add the coaching info and viola! -- Banjeboi 00:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletionpedia
- Deletionpedia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Non-notable web site, fails WP:WEB. One short article at TheStandard.com, and the link to Slashdot is merely a pickup of that. Just doesn't clear the notability bar. And of course, when it's deleted, you can read about it there. Ironic, isn't it? - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 03:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Question (rhetorical): It was mentioned by The Wall Street Journal too; WP:WEB says "multiple non-trivial published works"; does "multiple" mean >1? :-) 67.101.5.132 ( talk) 09:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- Comment: I've worked on the article a bit more, and the website no long fails
WP:WEB as
Realkyhick (
talk ·
contribs) initially asserted. It now "describes the site in an encyclopedic manner and offers detail on ...significance" and cites reliable independent sources, with notability established by being the subject of multiple sources. So what's left is the chance to make this the subject of yet another
deletionists and inclusionists clash. :-)
67.101.5.132 (
talk) 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- Uh, did anyone actually check the new references? The WSJ article mentions Deletionpedia exactly once. Yep, once, and it was definitely a passing, trivial mention in a larger article about deletion vs. inclusion. The Dutch site mentions it twice in one single paragraph, but I'll be danged if I can figure out what else it says because I don't read Dutch — for all I know, it says Deletionpedia is a porn site. All of the other "new" references are either from Deletionpedia itself, or don't mention it at all and only speak of deletion vs. inclusion in more general terms. Folks, do not make this AfD a straw man for the larger deletion-vs.-inclusion debate, because it is not. It is about this one article about a non-notable web site, and that's all. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dishonest statement. It's not a non-notable web site but a web site some people don't want to be mentioned on wikipedia. Maybe because it can be used to support the mentioned debate by showing some very well written articles which were deleted anyway. But the project is useful in itself and none of this makes it or this deletion request discussion a straw man. --
80.139.32.34 (
talk) 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not dishonest in the least, and I strongly resent you stating otherwise. It is a non-notable website that is merely a repository of deleted Wikipedia articles (including many that I suspect you disagree with the deletion), and it got a big Slashdot jump one day. Six months from now when this all dies down, we'll all be saying, "So what was the big deal? How the heck did this get on here in the first place?" -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- As you admit, it is currently notable. Surely, it will eventually lose notability, as will everything. When it does lose notability, then write another deletion request. Until then, it should stay.
MaxHarmony (
talk) 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
-
Notability is not temporary. Once something is notable it does not lose that notability.
Davewild (
talk) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just an observation for Realkyhick-- I don't read Dutch either, but Google's machine translation does . . . well enough for me to ascertain that the article in
De Telegraaf really is about "Deletionpedia" and does not say it is a porn site.
Crypticfirefly (
talk) 04:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suspected as much - it was more of a lame attempt at humor. But with the Dutch, you never know. :-) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just an observation for Realkyhick-- I don't read Dutch either, but Google's machine translation does . . . well enough for me to ascertain that the article in
De Telegraaf really is about "Deletionpedia" and does not say it is a porn site.
Crypticfirefly (
talk) 04:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
-
Notability is not temporary. Once something is notable it does not lose that notability.
Davewild (
talk) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- As you admit, it is currently notable. Surely, it will eventually lose notability, as will everything. When it does lose notability, then write another deletion request. Until then, it should stay.
MaxHarmony (
talk) 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not dishonest in the least, and I strongly resent you stating otherwise. It is a non-notable website that is merely a repository of deleted Wikipedia articles (including many that I suspect you disagree with the deletion), and it got a big Slashdot jump one day. Six months from now when this all dies down, we'll all be saying, "So what was the big deal? How the heck did this get on here in the first place?" -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I've worked on the article a bit more, and the website no long fails
WP:WEB as
Realkyhick (
talk ·
contribs) initially asserted. It now "describes the site in an encyclopedic manner and offers detail on ...significance" and cites reliable independent sources, with notability established by being the subject of multiple sources. So what's left is the chance to make this the subject of yet another
deletionists and inclusionists clash. :-)
67.101.5.132 (
talk) 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (2nd nomination) (now closed, was the product of a TW edit conflict). - Icewedge ( talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I guess my Twinkle is faster than yours. :-) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete TheStandard.com article is the only original notice of this in a reliable secondary source, according to a Google; no prejudice against recreating in the event of more substantial coverage.TheMolecularMan ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC).- Changing to keep now that more substantial coverage has emerged. TheMolecularMan ( talk) 10:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
talk:Realkyhick|Talk to me]]) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's relatively new, but it consists of a considerable body of content that a large number of people felt was notable, even if the majority of people paying attention here at the time did not. Not a scientific sample to be sure, but the very first entry I came across Edward Tudor seems notable enough to me. -- Belg4mit ( talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- How does this make the website itself notable? -
Icewedge (
talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- The transitive property. -- Belg4mit ( talk) 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, if the deleted subjects were notable, they would not have been deleted. Just because it's a "considerable body of content" doesn't make it notable by any means. I could simply copy-and-pastethe phrase "CHICKEN POO! CHICKEN POO!" 100,000 times over at a web site and it would be a considerable body of content, but otherwise useless. This site isn't much better. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- You place a greater faith in the system than here than I do, and clearly expressed in my original note. And no, your hypothetical site does not consititute a "considerable body of content." Besides the utter pointless of such a thing, I would propose that anything which could be compressed 99% with
RLE is not considerable.--
Belg4mit (
talk) 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect you have little faith in the system here because "the system" keeps ridding itself of articles about non-notable subjects, an assessment with which you disagree on a regular basis. Well, you're probably screwed in this case. By the way, "transitive property" doesn't have a bloody thing to do with Wikipedia notability, thank goodness. And you can RLE that all day and night. -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- The actual articles in Deletionpedia are not merely not notable, they are typically so egregiously non-notable as to be ROFL. I particularly enjoyed, from the front page, the "concise list of films with monkeys in them" article, which was not only laughable in that it listed only three films, none of the three films actually had monkeys in them! The notability of the site is not for the notability of what it archives, but for the nature of it, and most interestingly for the insight into the nature of deleted articles.
Geoffrey.landis (
talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- So we should keep this because the site makes fun of stupid deleted WP articles? That's what makes it notable? (Sigh...) -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- We all understood that you are against the site and the article. You can now refrain from telling over and over again. --
80.139.32.34 (
talk) 21:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Once again you have twisted my statements around. I am not against the site in the least. But I am against the article, because I don't believe the site meets notability standards. Just because a site isn't notable enough for Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm against it. Heck, I run sites that I wouldn't even think of being notable enough for WP, but they should still exist (if for no other reason than to pay might light bill). - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 00:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- We all understood that you are against the site and the article. You can now refrain from telling over and over again. --
80.139.32.34 (
talk) 21:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- So we should keep this because the site makes fun of stupid deleted WP articles? That's what makes it notable? (Sigh...) -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- The actual articles in Deletionpedia are not merely not notable, they are typically so egregiously non-notable as to be ROFL. I particularly enjoyed, from the front page, the "concise list of films with monkeys in them" article, which was not only laughable in that it listed only three films, none of the three films actually had monkeys in them! The notability of the site is not for the notability of what it archives, but for the nature of it, and most interestingly for the insight into the nature of deleted articles.
Geoffrey.landis (
talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect you have little faith in the system here because "the system" keeps ridding itself of articles about non-notable subjects, an assessment with which you disagree on a regular basis. Well, you're probably screwed in this case. By the way, "transitive property" doesn't have a bloody thing to do with Wikipedia notability, thank goodness. And you can RLE that all day and night. -
Realkyhick (
Talk to me) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Navel-gazing, with little in the way of sources to write a proper article. Apparently made in response to a Slashdot post. Hi Slashdotters! - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. A single article newspaper article, about half of which is criticizing Wikipedia is more suitable for a short note in Criticism of Wikipedia, probably in the "notability" section. The Slashdot discussion revolved around deletionism vs. inclusionism in Wikipedia; that's hardly hardly an endorsement for deletionpedia. VasileGaburici ( talk) 06:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question — Isn't Wikia a good enough place for those articles who do not make Wikipedia muster, or is it not desirable because it doesn't have the adequate search engine optimization capabilities that Wikipedia has? MuZemike ( talk) 07:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete.Just think, in just a few days they will be able to host a copy of their own deleted Wikipedia article!! JBsupreme ( talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)- Weak keep now that it's being fleshed out a bit. Forget the
Large Hadron Collider, that will make the Internets implode!
(also delete).Prince of Canada t | c 09:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC) - Weak delete. That's the kind of site that's going to generate quite a bit of buzz solely due to it being related to Wikipedia itself, but there doesn't seem to be all that much non trivial coverage atm. Plus the irony of it all is damn tempting. Equendil Talk 09:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I just updated the article, fleshing it out, adding an infobox and categories; I also cited how WSJ called it a response to the culture clash that exists on Wikipedia between deletionists and inclusionists as well as explained what The Industry Standard thought about Deletionpedia too (hint: we Wikipedia editors are guilty of groupthink). Perhaps mentioning the culture clash will make the outcome of this vote even more ironic. :-) BTW, I can't recall whether we editors-who-don't-always-log-in when contributing get to vote or not. It used to be allowed, and if it still is, I vote Keep... 67.101.5.132 ( talk) 09:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- Transwiki to Deletionpedia 70.51.8.158 ( talk) 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment maybe by default everything sent to AfD should be transwiki'd there? 70.51.8.158 ( talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This article deals with a subject which is both better cited and more notable than many other small wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is strong enough to withstand criticism, competition, etc as presented by the subject of this article. - JustinWick ( talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is saying WP can't take the criticism; the article simply fails WP [{WP:WEB|policies]].
Prince of Canada
t |
c 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't fail WP:WEB any more, and it wasn't that hard to fix. I think the rapid proposal to delete without giving it a chance to develop a bit is an unfortunate side effect of the overall positive benefits of having
new page patrollers.
67.101.5.132 (
talk) 10:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- Comment In the process of adding more details to the
Deletionpedia article, I stumbled on
this June 2008 version of the page for the website
Malwarecity, the latest and
greatest version of an article created only 30 minutes earlier that same June day.
Anyone know why the users of
new page patrol tools let Malwarecity remain in Wikipedia this long while Deletionpedia
got marked for speedy deletion within one minute of its creation? Sigh.
68.167.252.78 (
talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC).
- We have to sleep sometime, y'know. But thanks for bringing it to our attention. Malwarecity has been marked for speedy deletion now. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In the process of adding more details to the
Deletionpedia article, I stumbled on
this June 2008 version of the page for the website
Malwarecity, the latest and
greatest version of an article created only 30 minutes earlier that same June day.
Anyone know why the users of
new page patrol tools let Malwarecity remain in Wikipedia this long while Deletionpedia
got marked for speedy deletion within one minute of its creation? Sigh.
68.167.252.78 (
talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC).
- No one is saying that WP cannot handle this sort of criticism, however the sheer virulence of those asking for a delete leads me to suspect that there is an emotional component of some sort. Perhaps I'm in error on this. In any case, my comment stands, though I should probably issue the disclaimer that, generally speaking, I'm a Mergist and feel that Deletionism is an excellent way to discourage users by destroying their work. After all, why should anyone bother to be bold if it leads to naught over some Deletionist crusader's subjective opinions about what matters in the world? - 66.30.18.60 ( talk) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't fail WP:WEB any more, and it wasn't that hard to fix. I think the rapid proposal to delete without giving it a chance to develop a bit is an unfortunate side effect of the overall positive benefits of having
new page patrollers.
67.101.5.132 (
talk) 10:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
- I don't think anyone is saying WP can't take the criticism; the article simply fails WP [{WP:WEB|policies]].
Prince of Canada
t |
c 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is nice that such site exists. Deletion of the correct articles just because they are "non-notable" is in my opinion the worst thing that happen to Wikipedia. Even if we delete this article, the link to deletionpedia should be put in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WWMPD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.65.67 ( talk) 10:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Coverage is fairly substantial Daimanta ( talk) 11:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for the shear enjoyment of seeing an article about Deletionpedia in Deletionpedia. :o) okay actually let's call it a Weak Keep based on precedent of similar 'pedia articles staying here and a liberal dose of WP:IAR. Although, I'd definitely remove some of the primary sourcing and suggest a rewrite for grammer and such. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- That IS ironic. It also exposes a very ugly truth about Wikipedia, and that's the REAL reason this article is up for afd right now, isn't it? keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.245.87.2 ( talk) 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -Really funny, guys. Slapping an AfD on something 24 minutes old. You might not care about your impression, but this just shows how some WP editors are just intolerant of criticism. -- 58.69.180.227 ( talk) 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't take this wrong (note I "voted" keep above) but, you guys that are simply "accusing" others might want to address some of the policies/guidelines or something, otherwise the whole discussion becomes pointless. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Non-trival third-party coverage in publications such as Industry Standard and the Wall Street Journal is more than enough to satisfy notability under WP:WEB, and just about any other policy I can think of. Some of the arguments above seem to imply that there must be quantity in terms of third-party coverage. Nuh-uh. It takes only one. PS. I just took a peek at the site: aside from the fact they'll have a field day if their own article is deleted I'm also noting they're having server problems similar to that experienced due to high traffic by Wikipedia. That may be neither here nor there, but could be a sign of notable usage, if the Wall Street Journal isn't considered a good enough source for this article. 23skidoo ( talk) 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- "I'm also noting they're having server problems similar to that experienced due to high traffic by Wikipedia." Most likely the problems are due to high-traffic due to [ slashdot], not due to Wikipedia. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 14:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable web site. I took the time to read WP:WEB and it doesn't fail the criteria as far as I can tell. I won't defend it because the Nominator has not made a sufficient case, rather rhetoric without substance behind the nomination. You can't just say a site is non-notable and fails WP:WEB without actually explaining how and why. Fothergill Volkensniff IV ( talk) 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep - Deleting this article looks, to me, like more of an exercise in the behavior it decries, than actual productive maintenance of Wikipedia. I echo the two posters above me. (Oh, look; hi, 23; funny meeting you here. :-)
-- Baylink ( talk) 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we have anything to prove. The verifiability of the subject is what matters, not the subject itself, and this should be no exception. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia until we have a few more sources for a split. It's got sources so it's worth mentioning, but not well covered enough for its own article. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It clarifies interesting insight about the normally-invisible workings of Wikipedia, which is notable, and thus transitively is notable. But, for that matter, the article refers to external sources which seem to make it meet the explicit notability criteria.. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 14:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The mention in the Wall Street Journal is enough for me to show that this is notable. I guess it was inevitable that someone would create an afterlife for articles that get killed here. It's nice to know that in "the culture clash between deletionists and inclusionists", we can now say "Ship this one off to Deletionpedia." Mandsford ( talk) 14:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in the absence of a suitable merge target. This wiki doesn't have Earth-shattering notability, but the article is good enough to keep it on wikipedia. – sgeureka t• c 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with merging it to here? -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 14:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- As the nominator, I would not have a problem with merging this to D&I in WP. (Yeah I shoulda checked to see if that article existed first. My bad.) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 18:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- (EC) Weak keep. It probably fails the letter of WP:WEB - the WSJ article may as well be a prototype of trivial mention, and the Standard.com/Slashdot/Dutch references are essentially one article repeated three times. Still, I think that a bit of systemic bias could be in play here, as its existence is an implied criticism of Wikipedia, and I would rather err towards keeping the article it an attempt to counter that. The merge suggestion a couple of entries above has some merit as well, although it's not the most intuitive target. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Is it really non-notable, or just a touchy subject? This is ridiculous. novakreo ( talk) 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see a strong argument for non-notability. Multiple sources are writing about it, and the article is properly written. I expect the article has been cleaned up since nomination. The article should exist for now, and if there is still conviction to delete, renom it in a few months after it has stabilized. - Verdatum ( talk) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- 'Strong Keep Stronimo ( talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why? -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It strikes me that the article makes a fairly obvious case for significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Potential embarrassment over the subject seems to be the chief problem with the article, and that doesn't amount to a case for deletion. -
Smerdis of Tlön (
talk) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I seem to have trouble finding the claim that this article is embarrassing or any other comments that could make me think the nominators nomination wasn't completely in good faith. I don't think it'd fair that the people discussing keep and delete are looking at completely different nominations; Assuming in good faith as I am that you aren't accusing the nominator of bad faith when he was perfectly valid in at least making sure the article was discussed. - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the articles cited in this article seem to establish notability. Give WP:RESCUE a go on this before blitzing it. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - If we delete it, there will be additional news stories about how we deleted this article and it was moved to the very site it was about. Which will make it even more notable. The site is notable and will grow more so no matter what is decided here. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- comment. As one of the evil deletionists I would have a conflict of interest in voting unless I were so ambivalent as to abstain anyway. Therefore when I say I agree with both A Man In Black and Xymmax, and that I think WAS 4.250 has a good crystal ball, I should just be ignored. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Considering how arbitrary Wikipedia articles can be kept or deleted at times, this serves as a good back-up and can help some editors blow off some steam---more so than Conservapedia, which even Jimbo Wales kinda praised. Yartett ( talk) 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as improved. sufficient sources. In any case I think NPOV makes it necessary for us to be sure to resolve any doubt towards including articles that might make us look bad. Excluding them makes us look even worse. DGG ( talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's now substantial and well-referenced enough that wanting to delete it is pretty much indefensible. "I don't like it" is not a basis for deletion. Languagehat ( talk) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Is there a page on criticism on wikipedia? It should probably even be linked from such a page. -- Kju ( talk) 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Perhaps it failed WP:WEB when this was initially nominated for deletion, but that certainly is not the case now. RFerreira ( talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Of 9 Sources, only 1 major source, which features a superbly trivial mention [17], consisting of nothing but a passing mention without even defining the site. The only articles actually dedicated to the site are an averagely notable article [18] and a foreign language article [19] that while i can't confirm the importance of, makes itself the only serious source, and then only if it is a major source. Another 4 of the sources [20] [21] [22] [23] are completely unacceptable as sources of it's Notability, one being completely trivial and the other 3 being the actual site itself. The final two sites [24] don't even mention Deletionpedia, though one [25] uses the term Deletopedia at the last moment, while the content is dedicated to Wikipedia. I don't believe there to be any serious non-trivial sources, and I hope the closing Admin isn't swayed by numbers considering at least 6 of the keeps I read above this either provided no reasoning or were in somewhat bad faith. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — as much as I don't like it, it meets the WP:GNG for having several reliable sources. MuZemike ( talk) 21:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- keep Multiple reliable sources. Meets
WP:WEB.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could the previous two keeps give examples of "multiple" reliable sources with Significant coverage of the article topic? -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. The Industry Standard article is all about Deletionpedia (3 paragraphs but still decent). The Telegraaf article is slightly shorter and gives a few more details. That's
two, two reliable sources. So we're done.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately, The Industry Standard is not a Major source, so we can't even Make up 2 Major English Language Sources. If this was notable it would be easy to leave out sources, however, this article struggles to even reach the minimum i would expect. And i like the website... -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "major"? We don't need major sources.
WP:N calls for non-trivial sources, and it meets that.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- By major, I mean major.
WP:N calls for multiple non-trivial sources, it fails that. As for the many other criteria, Verifiability is based upon the communities ability to trust a source, which is of course easiest from a major, or serious source as opposed to "The Industry Standard". On the other hand, you seem to just assert that it complies with policy in every argument without putting forward any reason but to say you disagree, which is far from helpful to discussion, so I won't be responding again. Remember that you're allowed to read arguments and change your position. -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I did explain. WP:N calls for non-trivial, not "major" as you yourself observed. They have very different meanings. Non-trivial, is a low-burden. Major is a large burden. See the difference? (Oh and incidentally, while were discussing what WP:N says, the language of the sources is generally irrelevant. Whether we can find sources in English has no bearing on the matter). JoshuaZ ( talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- By major, I mean major.
WP:N calls for multiple non-trivial sources, it fails that. As for the many other criteria, Verifiability is based upon the communities ability to trust a source, which is of course easiest from a major, or serious source as opposed to "The Industry Standard". On the other hand, you seem to just assert that it complies with policy in every argument without putting forward any reason but to say you disagree, which is far from helpful to discussion, so I won't be responding again. Remember that you're allowed to read arguments and change your position. -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "major"? We don't need major sources.
WP:N calls for non-trivial sources, and it meets that.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately, The Industry Standard is not a Major source, so we can't even Make up 2 Major English Language Sources. If this was notable it would be easy to leave out sources, however, this article struggles to even reach the minimum i would expect. And i like the website... -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. The Industry Standard article is all about Deletionpedia (3 paragraphs but still decent). The Telegraaf article is slightly shorter and gives a few more details. That's
two, two reliable sources. So we're done.
JoshuaZ (
talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could the previous two keeps give examples of "multiple" reliable sources with Significant coverage of the article topic? -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Seems to have enough references to establish notability.
- keep per JoshuaZ - reliable sources met; WP:WEB met -- Matilda talk 22:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Meets
WP:N, is informative and is worthy of notice. Moreover, it is past being a Start or Stub article. It is also mentioned in international news such as the dutch article previously mentioned and in the
German Press--
Bob (
talk) 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- That article appears to be almost completely a translation of The Industry Standard article. The only addition is that they explain that fancruft ("Fanmaterial" in German) is material that isn't offically part of the fictional universe (there may be a mistranslation here either on my part or on the article in question since that seems to confuse fancruft with fanon or possibly other issues). JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I don't think keeping this article alive will hurt Wikipedia, but trying to suppress it certainly will. If WP (-defenders) can't stand some criticism (and by now way I think the site deletionpedia is criticism in itself), then they just don't understand the fact that it is this bottom-top approach which made Wikipedia what it is, and deleting this article without proper reasons turns this approach upside down and sympathy away from wikipedia. The reason why I estimate the notability of the site is because the deletion policy is a major soft spot in WP and many people have strong feelings about it. Therefore this morgue deserves an artivle in WP. - Ironically, this whole discussion gave this article more importance by triggering more news sites to mention deletionpedia and the fuss around it. Trying to suppress opinions in the digital world can sometimes yield the opposite effect... I'm also sure that quite soon similar sites will appear for other languages in WP thus also increasing the notability of it. Matthiku ( talk) 11:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- We're not trying to suppress anything. The site itself will go on no matter what we decide here. The question is as to whether the site is notable enough to merit an article about it on Wikipedia. This suppression argument is pure WP:BOLLOCKS. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Evidently notable.
Colonel Warden (
talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because...? - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 00:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Let's be honest, this article really belongs on Deletionpedia.-- Pushsense ( talk) 13:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- We are being honest. Do you have any actual reasons to back up your opinion? -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think there is enough significant coverage here to establish notability, with more coverage in the last couple of hours here - due to this AFD and here. While not enough on it's own combined with the coverage already in the article I think this more than establishes notability. Davewild ( talk) 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The coverage of this website has spread rapidly in the last 24 hours and will only continue to do so. T0lk ( talk) 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It may fail
WP:WEB but has garnered enough media coverage to make it notable (partially thanks to the irony of this deletion nomination). -
Nv8200p
talk 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hehe that is ironic. I'd gt a laugh out of that, care to show me a Verifiable source discussing the Article because of this AfD? Infact, show me any more sources than the minimal few already on the page? - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 17:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that this is an apropo use of WP:IAR. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a free online encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is greatly improved by the fact that the revision history is available and all content contributed to an article is present in some form. It allows future editors to build on the work of previous editors, even when the contributions in past edits were not yet acceptable for front-end content. Furthermore, editors are accountable for the changes they make. This accountability and preservation of content is not present with deleted articles. Deletionpedia could fill this need, or it could become a catalyst for change, but it can't do either without building a strong link with Wikipedia. This article is the first step in that direction. The consensus appears to be that it improves the wiki.-- 128.6.210.119 ( talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the snowball has grown large enough to be noteworthy. Ezratrumpet ( talk) 23:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but steal their thunder by closing as many AfDs as keep from here on out! J We do not want to risk them having more articles than us, lest they actually become the comprehensive encyclopedia we allegedly aspire to be… -- 172.129.17.196 ( talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This article would not have been considered actionable via WP:AfD if it weren't Wikipedia-related. On the balance of fact available, it was borderline notable before, and the act of nominating it for AfD has taken the "borderline" off the "notable". Like rain on your wedding day. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 2008-09-20 20:52Z
- Um..... not so much. I don't get it, what makes you (all of you) think anyone here thinks that it should be deleted because it is "Wikipedia related"? I dont see a single delete comment expressing that view, there are a few comments on the irony of the situtaion but nothing more, it seems this article has been turned into a straw man for deletionist bashing. The article was originally nominated for deletion because the total reliable sourceing out there amounted to one article and then another four sentance mention. Articles with more coverage than this are routinely deleted. In fact I think what is hapenning here is the opposite of what you are alleging, it is probably because that it is Wikipedia related that so many 'keep' !votes are coming out, because, as I said before the particular irony of the AfD has every one up in an anti-deletionist blood frenzy. - Icewedge ( talk) 21:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:WEB requirements of two non-trivial independent sources. There is no requirement for being "major". Mdwh ( talk) 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, Deletionpadia is an excellent repository of pages, many of which lasted for extremely long periods of time, with many, many edits before they were deleted. Also, both the site is self, and other sources that mention it (even if in passing) make it notable enough for inclusion. -- Anthony S. Castanza ( talk) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's borderline, to be sure, but it's gotten enough mention to be borderline, and yes, quite frankly I think we should strive to err on the side of inclusion when it is material that is critical of Wikipedia. I am confident that the world will find Deletionpedia to be far less useful and interesting than (say) Conservapedia once the novelty of the idea wears off and people actually start reading the "content." We can always revisit the issue in six months or so. Right now, deleting this article smacks of bias. Caesar's wife and so forth. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Examination of the sources
Lets go over the sources on this article, (the numbering here referrs to the sources by number as they were on this revision. [26])
- A page on the website itself, not only is a SPS but it is an SPS on a Wiki. Entirley unreliable source, invalid for notability.
- same as above. Invalid for notability.
- Same as above. Invalid for notability.
- This article has exactly one sentence about deletionpedia: "Still, even deleted articles survive, on Deletionpedia: 50,000 and counting.", nothing more. A single sentance is not in depth by any possible definition. Invalid for notability.
- This article [27] actually does appear to be legit.
- A slashdot discussion, web forums are not reliable sources by any definition. Invalid for notability.
- This article is actually about the topic... but it is only one paragraph long. One paragraph is not the kind of "in-depth source" referred to at WP:GNG.
- This article mentions Wikipedia deletionists but does not mention anything about deletionpedia at all. Invalid for notability.
- Same as above; this article mentions Wikipedia deletionists but does not mention anything about deletionpedia. Invalid for notability.
So in summary the combined relevant reliable sourcing of this article is one medium size article and one two small mentions; 4 paragraphs and one sentence in total. Face it folks (and sock puppets, SPA’s, ect.), This does not meet WP:GNG. - Icewedge ( talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to disagree with some aspects of your analysis. Note that the Slashdot piece has a few sentences before the forum discussion (I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source but it is worth noting). In the next case, the article in De Telegraaf, a long paragraph devoted to a specific topic is non-trivial coverage from a reliable source. So we have two reliable independent, non-trivial sources. That meets WP:N. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with how Slashdot works? The stories that people comment on are user submitted.
Now about WP:N, it states that "sources [should] address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content", is four sentances an in detail discussion of the subject? - Icewedge ( talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)- No, which is probably why he noted himself, "I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source".
TheMolecularMan (
talk) 23:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- True, but he did present it as if it in some way heped establish notability, which it does not. Oh, and it is possible that you did not fully get the context of my comment, the second part is about the der telegraf piece. -
Icewedge (
talk) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, I agree that the Slashdot matter is minimally helpful. (We could have a discussion that about whether the editorial selection by slashdot makes the comments selected as the leads somehow more reliable but that's iffy at best). As to the telegraaf piece, the standard needed is non-trivial, which it meets. JoshuaZ ( talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- True, but he did present it as if it in some way heped establish notability, which it does not. Oh, and it is possible that you did not fully get the context of my comment, the second part is about the der telegraf piece. -
Icewedge (
talk) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, which is probably why he noted himself, "I don't think that that is enough to count as an independent source".
TheMolecularMan (
talk) 23:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with how Slashdot works? The stories that people comment on are user submitted.
2 news sources, plus, few more already sourced in the article -- more than enough for inclusion, IMHO. In addition, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. WP:IAR. 216.80.119.92 ( talk) 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Now, this is interesting. The most vocal people speaking in favor for deletion of the article keep telling that the reason is not that they dislike the subject in question but that they just believe the article fails the guidelines. It seems that a majority of commentors feel otherwise which now causes that the people in favor for deletion go through lengths arguing and explaining why the latter people are wrong and only they are right. Also they choose to diffame the other commentors as sock puppets, SPA etc. For me thats a sure sign that its not about the compliance of the article to the guidelines but about a article which some people want to suppress. While i understand that this is not a majority vote as noted on top, said people should probably accept if a very clear majority don't feel the same way as them instead of keeping arguing and answering to votes in favor to keep the article and so on. This certainly looks like some people fighting a holy war and not just discussing if the article mets the guidelines. My 2ct. --
Kju (
talk) 08:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (
not a sock puppet or spa)
- I couldn't care less about Wikipedia... see my poor edit history and lack of interest for huge periods of time... and I simply don't believe that 1 useable source of notability is grounds for inclusion. More importantly, going around assuming other people's position just because they put forward stronger arguments instead of repeating "It has serious reliable sources" over and over and over and over again, could be considered somewaht rude. No one has made claims to not liking it, and i'm personally somewhat offended by the accusation that I care about the content of the article. - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 08:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- ' I couldn't care less about Wikipedia... '... ' offended by the accusation that I care about the content of the article '
- Just out of curiosity, if you don't care about Wikipedia, nor about this specific article, why you bother writing here? I write here because I do care about Wikipedia.
216.80.119.92 (
talk) 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That's a little off topic... my point was that I have no reason to take the article personally and I made my Delete Comments based upon the lack of sources and not the content of the article. As did all the other people who have so far argued for deletion, and been perfectly civil and in good faith while those considering keeping it are reduced to making accusations of bad faith with absolutely no evidence, every other comment. -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think we all need to keep generalisations out of it. Not all delete "voters" are doing it for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons nor are all keep voters doing it by making accusations of bad faith. Generalisations don't help the article, this discussion, or wikipedia. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That's a little off topic... my point was that I have no reason to take the article personally and I made my Delete Comments based upon the lack of sources and not the content of the article. As did all the other people who have so far argued for deletion, and been perfectly civil and in good faith while those considering keeping it are reduced to making accusations of bad faith with absolutely no evidence, every other comment. -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note There's another source which is now active: in German. It discusses briefly Deletionpedia and mentions a few additional examples of articles which were deleted and migrated over. It also connects Deletionpedia to other related issues such as Wikiscanner although what connection they are trying to make is not clear to me. Possibly someone with better language skills can figure that out. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- After a short introduction of Deletionpedia the article talks about the repeated problems with manipulation of wikipedia articles, names manipulated articles like one about the CEO of a swiss bank which was cleaned up from a bank's IP and finally mentions wikiscanner. -- 80.139.2.106 ( talk) 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.