Adding
AfD for
Gary Brewton. (
TW) |
VaginicaWestwood (
talk |
contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevie Starr}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Brewton}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Brewton}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levis poker}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levis poker}} |
||
Revision as of 20:43, 4 May 2010
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 11 May 2010 (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}}. |
- Edward A. Vincent ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Ordinary surveyor whose name is mentioned only peripherally in connection with a few surveys by outside sources. Sounds pretty much like someone's ancestor (genealogy) rather than real notability. Student7 ( talk) 12:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The article has appropriate period (19th century) references. The fact that he receives mention in contemporary media as well, although not used in the article, [12] speaks to his notability as does the building of a replica of his original design of the Atlanta Depot for the Stone Mountain Park Depot in 1987. Given the level of interest in anything related to the Civil War and the antebellum South in particular, I believe readers may well be interested in him. (He mapped both the cities of Atlanta and Savannah prior to Sherman's March through Georgia, both of which survive. [13]) Soapbox: I know this isn't the place but this is what is wrong with wikipedia. If it can't be click click seen, it is likely to be gone. Some ace detective/ Civil War buff has gone to a tremendous amount of effort tracking down sources to chronicle an amazing historical individual (He died at age 30!) for wikipedia and it's about to be nixed. "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage." [14] Yeah right. Eudemis ( talk) 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is not temporary. The Union Depot was probably the most significant antebellum building in Atlanta, and one of the most significant in the South when Sherman burned the place down. It was notable enough to be rebuilt in replica He is well-documented in the media of the time, and was clearly notable in 1853 for multiple reasons in several places. His documentation of antebellum Atlanta and Savannah is a significant historical resource and reference. Acroterion (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I am the author of this article and have spent some time reading over the notability page. To better satisfy those requirements, I have added additional sources. I plan to add the AJC article referenced by Eudemis once I can see the actual newspaper. Submitting this information to Wikipedia is part of a longer process that involves writing a paper about him in my graduate studies and submitting a substantial paper about him to the Georgia Historical Quarterly for peer reviewed publication. I think adding information about the re-purposing of his maps during the Civil War, as well as the replica at Stone Mountain, will make for a better article. Vincent is a difficult character to get to know because his family is unknown, he had no children, and his life was cut short right at the beginning of his career. He was a notable figure in Georgia from 1852 to 1854 and scholars have returned to his work repeatedly over the last 100 years. Paul K. Graham ( talk) 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Vincent's work, though brief, is important to early Atlanta and Savannah history, and his life is difficult to research. This is an important entry. At this point, it seems that there is more to come, and I, for one, would like to know what it is. I vote to keep this entry. Deborah E. Harvey, 7 May 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharvey8 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The article is unbiased and has direct relevance to the history of the antebellum South. It allows others interested in the Civil War history of Georgia to add sources that may otherwise lack context. The author has gone to great lengths to provide that context and I hope this will inspire more research on historical figures whose contributions have gone unnoticed. Chapmanmb ( talk) 18:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)MChapman
- Keep I just found this page from a Google search for Edward A Vincent, I had seen his name on a directory of maps at the archives.gov and wanted to determine if he was the cartographer on a map I had found in College Park back in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.134.150 ( talk) 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The extensive research done on Vincent is of great importance to anyone doing research on the early development of Atlanta, Macon, and Savannah. I am also looking forward to seeing what future research on Vincent will uncover. Marycatharine ( talk) 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- AGF Keep. Of course, we cannot check online for references that are more than 100 years old, but the article does assert that such sources do exist. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: While I'm concerned that two of the above might be SPAs, I would like to assume Acroterion knows what they are talking about in asserting that the building is a notable landmark in pre-war Atlanta. With that in mind, I'd prefer to bring up WP:PAPER, and keep the article pending further sources. Coincidentally, I just read about Sherman's March last night! (I'm Canadian, so it's less likely than it might sound.) - BalthCat ( talk) 05:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also, Vincent's depot was the inspiration for the entrance to the Mall of Georgia. Paul K. Graham ( talk) 13:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm quite comfortable with the simple fact that the person is remembered, although locally (his building has been recreated near Stone Mountain - I added reference). A more general note: keep in mind that our subject belonged to a fast-growing culture that was cut down by a war; people who shaped it simply did not have a whole life to practice their art. Coverage of antebellum history (and similar short-lived cultures elsewhere) will be very very incomplete if limited only to unconditionally notable people. East of Borschov ( talk) 06:25, 11 May 2010 (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. Shimeru ( talk) 00:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Croatia–Mongolia relations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a pointless article about an uninteresting relationship between two countries that are many thousands of kilometers apart and which aren't interested in each other enough to maintain mutual embassies. It has undergone PROD and AFD once before, and there has been no real change in content since the last time it was kept, in fact, it only got smaller. This topic has little to no potential and it simply doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a few more intro comments: it doesn't really matter much now, but the original author of the article is a now-blocked sockpuppet account that seems to have created a flurry of similarly strange articles related to countries and peoples. Several other users worked on this article since, yet IMHO it remains as pointless as it was once it was first written. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Hard to believe that it was only a year ago that we had the big debate over each of the Groubani articles, of which this was one, and the "call it off, call it off!" intervention by the task force for better pancakes, but even after the addition of some news about a stopover by a leader during a tour, and paying off of a mortgage (OK, it was a loan for $148,496 and 50 cents), I don't see anything that couldn't be thrown in to the foreign relations articles. There had been an initial push to rescue the Groubani articles, until people realized just how damn many (hundreds) that sock had cranked out. Mandsford ( talk) 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - No content here that can't more appropriately be covered in the existing articles on Croatia and Mongolia. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 01:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete there is no real ongoing relations here. a few limited visits, and a one off loan hardly relates in notable bilateral relations. yes the 2 presidents met in 2008 but it really needs to be a lot more than this to be a notable article. LibStar ( talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is about a bilateral relationship. There are reliable sources presented. But those sources analyse individual events, not the relationship as a whole. That is the critical distinction. Cobbling together coverage of individual events to form an article about a bilateral relationship amounts to synthesis (in its ordinary meaning more than its WP:NOR meaning). -- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the sources now present do actually talk about the overall relationshiop, even if the title would imply they are just about one event, e.g. [18]
- Keep Loans, embassies, and official visits are what make up international relations. Relationships ads a whole are made up of particulars. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- did you even read this article? they don't even have embassies. the
World Bank and
IMF loan even more money to Mongolia than Croatia ever has, perhaps we should create
World Bank-Mongolia relations.
LibStar (
talk)
00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- The US does not have an embassy in either Iran or Cuba or Bhutan or Taiwan or North Korea. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
US does not have embassies in Iran, Cuba and North Korea because they have embargoes and not having diplomatic relations with those countries for a long time. US does not have an embassy in Taiwan after China insisted they didn't. Croatia and Mongolia have diplomatic relations and no embargoes. your argument is very weak. LibStar ( talk) 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would not oppose it. I do not see that I said that they have an embassy directly yet.
DGG (
talk )
00:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- why did you mention embassies then? LibStar ( talk) 00:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would not oppose it. I do not see that I said that they have an embassy directly yet.
DGG (
talk )
00:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Mkativerata said it better than I could. Quantpole ( talk) 10:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Mkativerata Nick-D ( talk) 10:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete an article on a relationship of so little interest to the two countries involved they don't care to exchange ambassadors. There are no non-trivial treatments of this relationship in reliable sources to be found. Bali ultimate ( talk) 13:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Mkativerata. If reliable sources aren't covering the relationship itself then neither should we. Yilloslime T C 15:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC) More: I think this discussion highlights a fundamental difference between how editors interpret WP:N and, to a lesser extent, WP:OR. I read WP:N as requiring the existence of sources that address the topic itself. Sources on individual aspects of the topic are not sufficient, and assembling them into a treatment of the topic is WP:SYN. For example, let's say a reliable source mentions that John Doe coaches a little league team called the Cougars. Let's say a different news paper article, this one on Local Pizzeria, mentions that it sponsors the Cougars. Let's further suppose that the city Parks & Recs website has the team's wins and losses tabulated. And maybe a newspaper profile of the middle valedictorian mentions that he plays on the Cougars. Does all this add to the Cougars meeting WP:N. I'd argue no, because of none the sources address the Cougars directly or in detail, and I'd further argue that assembling into an article would require WP:OR, since there are no reliable secondary sources to guide article drafting. And I think this is pretty much what's going on with this article. Yilloslime T C 23:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator and Mandsford. Joal Beal ( talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete When an encylopedia article talks about repaying a loan that is about 5 times the size of my outstanding student loan debt, the best thing is to just delete it. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Shame, shame, shame to "make it shrink" since it was last nominated. One can always pick the cherries out of a pie and then claim it is not a cherry pie. That does not mean the cherries cannot be properly returned to the pie... and make it even better than it was before. That the article was properly "kept" last time, is not a reason to whittle it to nothing and return it to AFD until it is finally deleted. I opined a keep at the last AFD due to considerable improvements that has been made that addressed concerns at that time. It should be kept, revereted to an earlier and properly encyclopedic version, and further improved to meet its WP:POTENTIAL through the opportunites presented in Google Scholar, Google News and Google Books, that could assist in further expansion and sourcing.... that is... if improvements will be allowed by those who would rather it not be here at all. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- shame shame shame, all your google scholar, books searches simply show multilateral relations where Mongolia and Croatia are mentioned with several other countries. you have not proven any significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. In fact this search you provided in
Google News yields nothing, which makes me wonder if you even checked these searches beforely blindly posting here.
LibStar (
talk)
23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Seems a reason to consider corecting the focus
through regular editing, but not one for deletion.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q.
01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- please provide evidence of specific coverage of actual bilateral relations. LibStar ( talk) 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Seems a reason to consider corecting the focus
through regular editing, but not one for deletion.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q.
01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - yet another vandalized article that has been nominated for deletion. This was kept last time in decent shape. Please save the best version of fix it before nominating again. Don't let the vandals win this one. Bearian ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- please provide sources otherwise it's a WP:JUSTAVOTE, if you provide 10 non trivial sources, I will happily change my vote. LibStar ( talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 | This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD at this point in the discussion. |
- Referring to the reasoned edits of others as vandalism is a failure to WP:AGF. You, me, Libstar, RAN--we may not always agree with each other, but I think it's evident that we all have the 'pedia's best interests in mind with our edits. Calling this a "vandalized article" isn't helpful. Yilloslime T C 00:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, not vandalism. But I note that many of those voting delete above are those same editors who wished it gone last time 'round, and some were/are themselves involved in "shrinking" the article to make it into what they claimed. Had it not been "shrunk" it would/should have had the same notability as established last time, thus making this a push to overturn that earlier consensus. And I am hearing the same reasons in argument as used before, but now used against a lessor article than what survived the last AFD. Sure, its not JUSTAVOTE, but it makes shrinking an article to support opinion of non-notability into a self-fulfilling prophecy. As it is... we do have the time to expand the article and further source it while this repeat of the last AFD is ongoing, and I appreciate that LibStar granted that improvemnets might change his mind. -- Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I saw everything you mention post res, with fresh eyes, and yet I am convinced that all mentioned revisions of the article should be deleted because there is no real potential. If you actually read the nomination at the top you will see that I explicitly acknowledged the existence of an old version with more content, and by doing that and doing nothing about it I also implicitly acknowledged the removal of that content. The tangential story from several centuries ago that has no practical relevance to the relationship of countries today known as Croatia and Mongolia was rightly removed because it contributes nothing to the core of the article.
- Hmm. All this circular contemplation is only adding to the sheer pointlessness of this article :) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It has coverage of various events between the nations, and we already had this discussion last year. And it is in bad taste that those who want to delete an article, who don't get their way, then go and delete parts of it after the AFD ends in keep. If you aren't interested in the content, then leave it alone. Surely you have something better to do than destroy other people's work. Dream Focus 10:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
-
WP:JUSTAVOTE. this argument contains no description of how the article meets
WP:N. again another keep vote with zero evidence of significant thrid party coverage.
LibStar (
talk)
10:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I said in my opening sentence It has coverage of various events between the nations. There is significant coverage of anything involving these two countries already found in English sources, and if someone spoke the languages of the nations involved, they'd surely find more. Do you doubt that nations would have in their newspapers reports of their activities between countries? Dream Focus 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
yes I highly doubt it that there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. this has been listed in Croatian related AfDs since May 4 which would have been picked up by Croatian speakers. it is a very weak argument to say additional sources exist and not providing any evidence of it. LibStar ( talk) 07:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is highly doubtful that the relationship is viewed as important in either nation. The evidence is the lack of embassies and the total lack of
secondary sources. Do you believe that every nation views its relationship with every other nation as important?
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Many nations don't have embassies, since they can't afford it, or simply have no reason to have someone representing their interest there all the time. With modern communications and transportation being what it is, they could contact them whenever possible without the need for such things. Lack of an embassy does not indicate anything.
Dream Focus
22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have secondary sources to back up these claims? Abductive ( reasoning) 23:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Many nations don't have embassies, since they can't afford it, or simply have no reason to have someone representing their interest there all the time. With modern communications and transportation being what it is, they could contact them whenever possible without the need for such things. Lack of an embassy does not indicate anything.
Dream Focus
22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is highly doubtful that the relationship is viewed as important in either nation. The evidence is the lack of embassies and the total lack of
secondary sources. Do you believe that every nation views its relationship with every other nation as important?
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is not the dollar amount of a loan that determines notability, it is that reliable media took note of the loan and reported it. The article is sourced and has enough information for a stand alone article. There is no Wikipedia rule that says that relations have to be superlative to have an article. Superlative relations have multiple articles such as the US and Russia. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is indeed no rule about superlatives, but there is an accepted standard of
Wikipedia:Notability wher we require significant coverage. Reliable media also take note of everyone who gets born or gets hit by a bus in Croatia, but that still doesn't meet the standard of inclusion in a standalone English Wikipedia article. I don't see how a single dignitary visit (three days in passing over to China) is something that can be significantly covered, and a lack of mutual embassies despite two years having passed from that visit supports the notion that it wasn't a significant visit per se, so its coverage can't really be any more significant - at least not in this case. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
21:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, everyone covered with a biography in reliable media is notable by Wikipedia standards, but, we exclude people that are in the news only once, for a single event. That is the One Event clause of notability. What does that have to do with anything we are discussing here? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again you are fixating on the number, three days, rather than that it was reported in reliable media. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
22:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why did you ignore the rest of what I said? --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
10:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". It meets that standard set out by Wikipedia. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Disregarding for the moment my opinion on the spirit of that guideline; I still don't really see how it even meets the letter of guideline - none of the sources are really non-trivial coverage, because there is simply no real depth to the issues at hand that would warrant it. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
22:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- 10 facts from 10 sources are mathematically identical to 10 facts from a 1 source. Wikipedia doesn't demand a single source for all the facts in an article, it actually discourages a single source article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Disregarding for the moment my opinion on the spirit of that guideline; I still don't really see how it even meets the letter of guideline - none of the sources are really non-trivial coverage, because there is simply no real depth to the issues at hand that would warrant it. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
22:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". It meets that standard set out by Wikipedia. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why did you ignore the rest of what I said? --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
10:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is indeed no rule about superlatives, but there is an accepted standard of
Wikipedia:Notability wher we require significant coverage. Reliable media also take note of everyone who gets born or gets hit by a bus in Croatia, but that still doesn't meet the standard of inclusion in a standalone English Wikipedia article. I don't see how a single dignitary visit (three days in passing over to China) is something that can be significantly covered, and a lack of mutual embassies despite two years having passed from that visit supports the notion that it wasn't a significant visit per se, so its coverage can't really be any more significant - at least not in this case. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
21:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. A comparison with the other Foo-Mongolia relations articles reveals the utter poverty of the keep arguments in this AfD. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again you are arguing the subjective importance. I am sure if we rank them all this would fall in the bottom third, but it still meets the Wikipedia requirements. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, it falls at the bottom. The simple fact is that the topic of Croatia–Mongolia relations does not have what are called "
secondary sources", which according to consensus are supposed to analyze the topic. Since no such source exists in any language, the topic must be deleted.
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I don't see any primary sources in the article, can you point one out to me? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus is that topics without secondary sources are to be deleted. Primary sources are irrelevant. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again, Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Your opinion is interesting, but I am quoting Wikipedia policy directly. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- That out of context bit of text will not save this article from deletion. Abductive ( reasoning) 05:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you please point out a forbidden primary source used in the article? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I don't see any primary sources in the article, can you point one out to me? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, it falls at the bottom. The simple fact is that the topic of Croatia–Mongolia relations does not have what are called "
secondary sources", which according to consensus are supposed to analyze the topic. Since no such source exists in any language, the topic must be deleted.
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again you are arguing the subjective importance. I am sure if we rank them all this would fall in the bottom third, but it still meets the Wikipedia requirements. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment none of the keep arguments have provided any evidence of substantial third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 07:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- The evidence is in the article already, no reason for us to repeat it. Every fact in the article is referenced to a reliable source. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Let me sum up the deletion arguments:
- The article is Original Research. No, it is not. Wikipedia defines OR as: "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources." For instance if I were to say that the meeting between dignitaries was "awesome" or was "embarrassing" or was "scary", that would be OR, because it is not in the original, it is me adding my personal interpretation. I don't see that anywhere in the article.
- The article has no Significant Coverage in the references. Wikipedia defines SC as: "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Every fact is referenced and Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from one source or 10 facts come from ten sources. Mathematically they are identical. Wikipedia discourages single source articles and we have a tag for that:
 | This article relies largely or entirely on a
single source. |
- The article uses only Primary Sources. No primary sources are used at all. A primary document would be a transcript of the meeting, or a copy of a signed agreement, or a photograph of two leaders shaking hands. All the sources are news agencies and one is a fact taken from the embassy website.
- This isn't an important relationship. There are no embassies, there was a loan of only a small amount of money. The leaders only met once. The meeting only lasted 3 days. Wikipedia isn't only about superlatives. That is the the Guinness book of World Records. That will show you the richest country, the biggest, the first, the last, the most populous. Wikipedia only cares if it is notable. Notability is when the media takes notice and writes about something. Every fact is sourced in the article to reliable media.
- In summary the article meets every Wikipedia requirement, and since there have been additions to the article since the nomination, the consensus has shifted to keep from delete. 7 more footnotes were added from three new sources, and the article was put in chronological order. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
-
consensus can change and the last closing admin has now been banned from closing bilateral AfDs due to poor judgements in closing.
LibStar (
talk)
13:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Quoting Mr. Norton and since there have been additions to the article since the nomination, the consensus has shifted to keep from delete. That's not what happened. A bunch of puff unrelated to the subject and generally from poor sources was restored to the article. So what? That the arse canvassing tag brought in a couple of keep for the sake of the kittens votes is risible, but not particularly surprising or reflective of the content of the article.
Bali ultimate (
talk)
13:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Puff" and "poor sources" are subjective. What source is unreliable to you? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- There's still a not single independent secondary source in the article that address the topic of these countries' relations directly and in detail. Sure, all the individual facts in the article are cited to reliable (though not necessarily independent) sources, but the article is just an assemblage of these factoids. WP:N requires the existence of sources that address the topic itself, and there aren't any. Yilloslime T C 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Puff" and "poor sources" are subjective. What source is unreliable to you? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again, Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from one source or 10 facts come from 10 sources. Mathematically they are identical, Wikipedia discourages single source articles. Can you quote the rule that says that the information needs to come from a single in-depth source? I have never seen the rule. Are you suggesting that the word "relations" needs to appear in the source material to be considered a source on the topic itself? It would be great if all the information came from one source, it would make writing it much easier. Wikipedia makes no such requirement. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
00:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You've missed the point. Yilloslime T C 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Quoting Mr. Norton and since there have been additions to the article since the nomination, the consensus has shifted to keep from delete. That's not what happened. A bunch of puff unrelated to the subject and generally from poor sources was restored to the article. So what? That the arse canvassing tag brought in a couple of keep for the sake of the kittens votes is risible, but not particularly surprising or reflective of the content of the article.
Bali ultimate (
talk)
13:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Mr Norton, additional non trivial sources (not barrel scraping) would further your case for notability. please provide 7 more new non trivial sources of actual bilateral relations, and I'll happily change my vote.
LibStar (
talk)
00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Barrel scraping" is again a subjective term and is derogatory to the BBC and the English versions of the Croation and Mongolian and Chinese news services. Please quote the Wikipedia rule that discusses barrel scraping. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You again are putting forth the argument that the cited work must use the term "bilateral relation" in the text or title to be used in the article or to be considered "in depth". Wikipedia has no such requirement. Any synonym for the relationship can be used by the cited article: war, state-visit, commerce, loans, agreements, exchanges. All the things that are listed on the United States Department of State website for US relations with other countries. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You've missed the point.
LibStar (
talk)
00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's amazing how much effort you spend arguing semantics and not actually looking for actual sources that would strengthen your case. is it that there does not exist significant in depth coverage of these bilateral relations? LibStar ( talk) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You've missed the point.
LibStar (
talk)
00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- One more time, Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from 1 source, or 10 facts come from 10 sources, mathematically they are identical. If you know of some rule that says otherwise please quote it here for me. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment an editor here has introduced a novel interpretation of the notability criteria: 10 non-trivial sources. I think this was invented because there already were non trivial sources, and the usual (and appropriate if true) argument that there were none had been exploded. I think the ed. means this absurd condition quite literally: after three more were added, he asked for another 7. Then he asked that they contain the exact wording of the title. And all this was after major parts of the content were removed before the AfD. Apparently he really does believe that no article on bilateral relations except between major countries can possibly be notable, and that no possible evidence can prove otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course the real standard is more than one non-trivial source. Fortunately, there are zero non-trivial sources on the topic of Croatian/Mongolian relations, so the article will be deleted in due time. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you quote directly from the Wikipedia rule on "trivial sources" right here please? I have quoted directly all the refutations, please do me the same favor. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, WP:Notability mentions "trivial" twice plus once in a footnote. The term "non-trivial source" has been used in 979 AfDs, the term "trivial mention" has been used in 2,616 AfDs, and the term "significant coverage" has been used in 11,959 AfDs. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Telling me a word is used is in a guideline is not defining it for me. It is just telling me the word appears. You can't define a word by just typing the word. Tell me the rule that distinguishes trivia from something substantive, tell me the number of words a reference must have to go from trivial to substantive, what is the magic number? If there is a magic number then it will no longer be subjective, we can distinguish trivia. To me all sports statistics are trivia, and to others it is their raison d'être. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The "rule" is rather dispersed but has consensus, subject of course to different interpretations of what "significant" means. I can say little else.
Abductive (
reasoning)
04:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't a rule if you can't quote it, it is just a vague concept you and a few others have. Until a firm number is put forth, I will stand by the concept: 10 facts from 1 source, or 10 facts from 10 sources, mathematically they are identical in their depth. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
05:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- First off, this is not a concept held by a few; in fact, your position is in the minority. An exact quote from WP:N is third parties "... have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it...". Most of the participants in this AfD are of the opinion that there are no non-trivial sources that focus on the topic. Put another way, if a topic has no sources at all it fails WP:V, but if sources exist it can still fail WP:N. All non-SNOW AfDs revolve around the interpretation of the strength of the sources. If it was clear-cut, then there would never be any AfDs. Abductive ( reasoning) 05:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't a rule if you can't quote it, it is just a vague concept you and a few others have. Until a firm number is put forth, I will stand by the concept: 10 facts from 1 source, or 10 facts from 10 sources, mathematically they are identical in their depth. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
05:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The "rule" is rather dispersed but has consensus, subject of course to different interpretations of what "significant" means. I can say little else.
Abductive (
reasoning)
04:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you quote directly from the Wikipedia rule on "trivial sources" right here please? I have quoted directly all the refutations, please do me the same favor. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article establish notability. Alansohn ( talk) 12:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep quality articles, sources present easilly sufficient to establish notability. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment While this bilateral relations AfD has been jumped on by the "usual suspects" (myself, Mansford, Libstar, DGG, Bali ultimate, Abductive, MQS, Bearian, Dream Focus, RAN 1958, Alansohn, & FeydHuxtable), it's interesting to note that the "new faces" here (Joy, DustFormsWords, Quantpole, Joal Beal and to a lesser extent Nick-D, & Mkativerata) have all argued for deletion. I think that says something. Yilloslime T C 18:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple independent sources which demonstrate a seemingly improbable international relationship.--
TM
00:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- They demonstrate something exists (even if just barely), but my primary argument for deletion wasn't verifiability, it's notability. (The deletion policy says that failure to meet the notability guideline can be a valid reason for deletion.) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- State Visits and loans are what make up bilateral relationships. Clearly, the two states have a relationship and multiple independent sources demonstrate this relationship. To me, this relationship is clearly both notable and verifiable.--
TM
11:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have secondary sources that claim that "State Visits and loans are what make up bilateral relationships"? Abductive ( reasoning) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? Do you not understand what
Bilateralism is? Are you disputing that State Visits by high ranking officials and intergovernmental loans are not part of the basis for bilateral relations?--
TM
19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- What I see is a claim with no sources. You say loans and state visits. Do secondary sources say that those two things are the totality of "bilateral relations"? Can you proffer any sources? Abductive ( reasoning) 19:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- State Visits and loans are what make up bilateral relationships. Clearly, the two states have a relationship and multiple independent sources demonstrate this relationship. To me, this relationship is clearly both notable and verifiable.--
TM
11:30, 11 May 2010 (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. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Minmae ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a musical group. Prod removed by IP. tedder ( talk) 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- tedder ( talk) 06:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder ( talk) 06:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for now - There are two decent sources, but one is really about Brooks and not the band. Otherwise everything else I found was record release notices and event listings. Try again when a few more reliable sources exist. Aboutmovies ( talk) 08:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Delete — Per nom.
moɳo
00:34, 11 May 2010 (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. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- M. Qaiser Fatmi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of an academic with no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Google scholar finds published papers [20] but not at a level of citation that would demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF #1. Additionally, the article has no reliable sources, which are needed especially for biographies of living persons. David Eppstein ( talk) 04:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Scopus shows 8 published papers, but the citations are 11, 9 , 6, 2, Not yet notable. This was listed as a BLP prod, but his basic accomplishments were easily verifiable--it's just that they aren't enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Delete — Not enough to survive AfD; enough to survive BLP prod.
moɳo
00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Per DGG.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:54, 11 May 2010 (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. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Cyrus Vanderburg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. "Best known for his friendship with Albert Einstein." Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 04:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Darkwind ( talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, I can find no trace of the books: Burnstein, M (1967). "Cyrus Vanderburg: A True Czech Hero" Random House or Vanderburg, C, Vanderburg, E. (1976). "The Way I See It: Letters from Cyrus" New Zion Press. I suspect a hoax. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Delete — Possible hoax; lacking
n.
moɳo
00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I am assume this is not a hoax. Even with that assumption, this person is just not notable. Einstein had lots of "friends" and there were lots of Holocaust survivors, thankfully, who started life anew in Isreal. It is a heartening tale, but hardly notable. Bearian ( talk) 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is true that we always should assume good faith when responding to the opinions voiced by others in the nomination process, including the nomination itself, and we should always be careful before labeling a person as being a purveyor of lies. However, WP:AGF does not require us to assume good faith when it comes to any statement offered as fact, and there is nothing uncivil about expressing suspicion of dubious contributions to an encyclopedia, so it's OK if you want to say that you're skeptical. The negative return from the Google search, combined with the fact that this is a contribution from what is called an "SPA" (single purpose account), is enough for me. Mandsford ( talk) 13:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. I find it staggeringly hard to believe that a real published book would have no Google hits, much less two different ublished books on the same topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not a bad attempt at a hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. I loved the titles for the made-up sources-- A True Czech Hero and The Way I See It. Mandsford ( talk) 12:51, 11 May 2010 (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. Tim Song ( talk) 02:43, 19 May 2010 (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}}. |
- Vinismo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Very thinly-sourced, one local media reference. I'm not sure this is terribly notable but would be glad to be proven wrong. — e. ripley\ talk 02:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- Darkwind ( talk) 05:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Vinismo is becoming a recognized and reliable site for information about wines, a topic near and dear to many Wikipedians' hearts. There are not very many non-commercial sites to which one can refer on this topic. In fact at least 4 current Wikipedia pages link to Vinismo.com as sources for their content. Please see Sauvignon blanc, Mendoza Province, Yarra Valley and Marlborough Region. I had hoped that it would be possible to improve many other wine-related pages by having a {vinismo]] page here in Wikipedia. Gaiamei ( talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)q
- Vinismo is notable for being a Open Content wine guide. Beyond the merits of its content and its usefulness as a source for Wikipedia, it has value as a proof-of-concept for authoritative, collaborative, copyleft content. Maj ( talk) 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Prior to this vote, last edit was in 2007. — e. ripley\ talk 17:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly support having a page about Vinismo here on Wikipedia. It is a very good site and I use it frequently. I like to know more about it. Please do not delete it. Thank you. Albert Albertmost (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note, Albertmost ( talk · contribs)'s first edit. Meatpuppets are discouraged here. — e. ripley\ talk 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Vinismo is an OPEN and non-commercial wine resource. World famous? No, not yet. --ron k jeffries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.225.71 ( talk) 19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Besides being the only open-content wine guide out there, Vinismo is notable specifically because it's the right place for many wiki articles about wine that don't belong on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide I disagree with deleting this article. Zach ( talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- At the risk of sounding rude (I don't mean to so I hope you will forgive me), did you end up here because of some sort of canvassing, Zcopley? I ask because prior to this, your last edit was in January. —
e. ripley\
talk
19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- E. Ripley: Does hearing that the page is up for deletion directly from a friend count as being canvased? Not sure why that's relevant. I was a bit baffled as to why the Vinismo page is up for deletion and wanted to voice my opinion that it should not be. I'm a light contributor to both Wikipedia and Vinismo (as well as other wikis) and it's an article I care about.
Zach (
talk)
20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- It does, in fact; take a look at WP:Canvassing. In this case it's inappropriate because someone is clearly recruiting people to come to this page to influence the vote tally toward the "keep" side. These AFD debates are supposed to be composed mostly of neutral parties evaluating an article on its merits. That being said, it's mostly just important to note for the closing admin. — e. ripley\ talk 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- E. Ripley: Does hearing that the page is up for deletion directly from a friend count as being canvased? Not sure why that's relevant. I was a bit baffled as to why the Vinismo page is up for deletion and wanted to voice my opinion that it should not be. I'm a light contributor to both Wikipedia and Vinismo (as well as other wikis) and it's an article I care about.
Zach (
talk)
20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- At the risk of sounding rude (I don't mean to so I hope you will forgive me), did you end up here because of some sort of canvassing, Zcopley? I ask because prior to this, your last edit was in January. —
e. ripley\
talk
19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Vinismo is notable project and I'm adding a couple more references to support this claim. Its important free culture resource, just like some other wikis out there that also provide a wealth of knowledge. Jon Phillips ( talk) 20:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
-
undefined — No one has voted on this yet...
moɳo
00:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. References meet our guidelines. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 04:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Montreal Gazette source, predating nomination. - BalthCat ( talk) 06:09, 11 May 2010 (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. According less weight to the argument of WP:SPAs and taking into consideration the effective rebuttals by Nuujinn, I find a consensus to delete. Tim Song ( talk) 22:24, 11 May 2010 (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}}. |
- EFront (eLearning software) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion for non-notable software product, article by company employee. No independent references are given, and no significant coverage can be found. In its previous AfD, [23] and [24] were pointed out, but none of these are significant. Haakon ( talk) 20:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious advertising: ....designed to help create online courses with opportunities for rich interaction. eFront comes with a distinctive icon-based user interface that is intuitive to use. The platform offers a wide range of features from content creation, test builder, project management, extended statistics, internal messaging system, forum, chat, surveys and more. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, Hello and thanks for letting me share my option before you proceed to any deletion.
First of all I do not intent to hide the fact that I support this project and I can certainly accept any criticism and feedback regarding the neutrality and quality of the topic. However, this is a well known project and I post here a few evidence for its importance.
1. First of all eFront is a SCORM 1.2 certified and one of the first SCORM 2004/4th edition compliant products You can find such evidence on ADL's website http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/Custom%20Pages/SCORM%20Adopters.aspx or at http://webapps.adlnet.gov/SCORMAdopters/Adopter.aspx?i=539
2. Jfusion (a known Joomla plugin) and Amember (well known payment solution) have dedicated forums to support their eFront integrations:
http://www.jfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewforum.php?f=53
http://amember.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8632
3. The product is one of the highest ranked systems on opensourcecms
http://php.opensourcecms.com/scripts/details.php?scriptid=222&name=eFront
4. The product is part of Brandon's Hall LMS review and Capterra's LMS directory
http://www.brandon-hall.com/publications/lmskb/lmskb_firms.shtml
5. The system can be found on several open-source software directories. I include a few of them below
http://osliving.com/content-management/e-learning/efront/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/efrontlearning/
http://www.ohloh.net/projects/11528
6. Techworld had an indepth review for several eLearning tools including eFront
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/223565/10_open_source_e-learning_projects_watch
7. Alexa report the project's portal as the 84,124 most visited site on the internet today
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/efrontlearning.net#
8. There are several blog posts concerning the pro's and con's of the project.
http://daveperso.mediaenglishonline.com/2009/12/23/getting-your-own-lms-part-2-efront/
http://frumpyhausfrau.com/business/efront-lands-in-the-hot-seat/
http://techno-realism.blogspot.com/2008/11/open-source-learning-management-systems.html
http://kavitaragoobar.blogspot.com/2010/03/efront-learning.html
http://www.zimbio.com/Ecommerce+software+Solution/articles/15/Open+Source+LMS+Beyond+Moodle
9. The project is watched by several security lists which informs about security issues
http://securityreason.com/exploitalert/7985
10. Known hosting providers offer dedicated support for hosting eFront on their infrastructure
http://www.siteground.com/efront-hosting.htm
http://www.facebook.com/notes/siteground/xmb-efront-and-glfusion-at-sitegroundcom/73372089834
11. Last but not least, the project itself has an active discussion forum that can be found at: http://forum.efrontlearning.net and a simple google search can reveal thousand of web-sites that are powered from the software (just try a google search with allinurl: "index.php?ctg=contact") Papagel ( talk) — Papagel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Ok, but none of those are keep reasons; what's needed are cases of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Haakon ( talk) 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but significant coverage is a bit controversial under various aspects. The fact that thousand public web-sites have installed and use this software is or not a "significant-coverage"?. I spend some more time today on the web for other sources of information for eFront and I post here a few more findings that may help make a more informative decision:
- Brandon-Hall eLearning Trends Research include eFront on the list of the well known open-source learning management system:
http://discovery-thru-elearning.blogspot.com/2009/07/learning-management-systems-trends-and.html
- Genbeta, a very well known tech news portal in Spain posted a detailed article regarding eFront on March 2010
http://www.genbeta.com/herramientas/efront-intuitiva-plataforma-de-e-learning
- Another article about eFront in Spanish
http://www.aplicacionesempresariales.com/efront-mas-rapido-y-productivo.html
- eFront was part of the research work on evaluating learning management systems with test-tools
Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. (2008). Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 5261-5266). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
- A few more blog mentions of eFront
http://barrysampson.com/2009/04/open-source-lms-10-alternatives-to-moodle/
http://dilancreativo.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/efront-plataforma-de-aprendizaje-online/
http://loquenecesita.com/2010/03/efront-plataforma-de-aprendizaje/
- The CENTRE FOR LEARNING & PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGIES includes eFront in its resource directory:
http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/Directory/Tools/instructional.html
- Edutools (an lms comparison web-portal) includes eFront on its short list of LMSs
http://www.edutools.info/item_list.jsp?pj=4
- Another LMS comparison article in French that includes eFront
http://www.lms-selection.com/fr2/?p=74
- Eduwiki refers to eFront as "probably the most user friendly LMS"
http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/LMS
- Delicious has assembled 371 different bookmarks for eFront's website
http://delicious.com/url/4cca5fc536ee79166c46b65d15210808
- You can find several eFront references on search engines by using as keywords something like "eFront LMS". Otherwise, and due to the fact that there were other services on the past that used the same name the results can be fuzzy.
- Keep, I am active in the educational technology space as well as being a former developer for the Moodle LMS project. I find that this article is useful. I do agree that some of the verbiage of the article is written in a marketing/spammy tone and should be corrected as well as including the more notable references provided above where applicable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Skippybosco (
talk •
contribs) —
Skippybosco (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Ok, but you finding it "useful" is not a keep reason; what's needed are cases of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Haakon ( talk) 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. It seems there are numerous links above from the previous poster which I would assume would be sufficient? A more recent one, while they have not yet posted the public link to the announcement, Brandon Hall ( http://www.brandon-hall.com) just awarded eFront the bronze award for "Best Advance in Learning Management Technology for Small and Medium-Sized Businesses". It is a fairly big deal for the e-learning community, which I assumed would be the populous interested in this article, does that qualify it as "significant" or "reliable" for these purposes?
Delete, no hits on efrontlearning or efrontlearning.net in google news, nothing on "efront lms" after the mid 1980s. However, if this efront is related to the efront mentioned in [ this], it may be notable on that basis. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 00:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Skippybosco ( talk)
- While used internationally, eFront is developed by a Greek company (Epignosis). As such, you will find a result for eFront in Google News dated April 27, 2010 here ( http://www.google.com/news/search?cf=all&ned=el_gr&hl=el&q=efront+lms). This specific news article is in reference to the earlier posters #1 link regarding being one of the first LMS in the industry to achieve SCORM 2004/4th edition compliance.
- If absence from google news could work as a reject reason for accepting a software article then more than half of them should be deleted (since it covers mainly big media). Also, there are a series of wikipedia articles for similar open-source elearning packages with similar coverage (e.g, like Atutor or Dokeos).
- I would suggest a Google Scholar for several research work that mention or have as main topic the system or a direct google search using as keywords something like "eFront LMS" or "efrontlearning". Otherwise, and due to the fact that there were other services on the past that used the same name the results can be fuzzy.I include two such search links below:
- Google search for "efront learning management system" google search
- Google scholar search for "efront learning management system" Google Scholar Search.
- Just one more bit of information regarding notability. Brandon-hall research just released the winners for "2009 Excellence in Learning Technology Awards". eFront won a bronze metal on the category for best advance for small-medium enterprises
http://www.brandon-hall.com/awards/award_winners/lta2009_winners.shtml
- Comment I'm not sure how being compliant to a standard is supposed to confer notability. A general google search reveals expected advertising and discussion, most from various vendor sites and fora. I took a quite look at google scholar, what I found were papers about elearing that mention efront in passing as the software used. As for the award, I'll just say Brandon-Hall seems to hand out a lot of medals. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF in regard to other possible non-notable software packages. I'm not convinced that this is notable. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 14:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Compliance to a standard (especially an early adopter on a widely used standard) guarantees at least some dedication from the developers on the related field (in this case eLearning). The main question here is the following: among a series of articles about open-source elearning systems does this one satisfies the criteria for a valid contribution or not?
- Comment Dedication does not establish notability, and what other articles exist isn't really relevant. What is relevant here is significant coverage by reliable sources. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 12:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There are several published research papers that either have as main topic eFront or refer to it. I assembled a list from scholar.google.com:
Zaharias, P (2007). Heuristic evaluation in e-learning context: Selecting the appropriate tasks and reporting usability problems. International Conference on eLearning (ICEL) 2007 (main topic)
Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. (2008). Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 5261-5266). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. (major topic)
Ozarslan, Y., Ozan, O. (2010). eFront Öğrenme Yönetim Sistemi, Akademik Bilisin 2010 (In turkish) (main topic)
Fontanin, M. (2008). Developing an English course for in-service librarians, Library Management (reference)
Martens, B. & Acthen, H (2008). Do you moodle? 26th eCAADe Conference (reference)
Matsunaga, N & Kwan, A. (2008). 6th AECEF Symposium in Vilnius (reference)
Williams, G., A Multi-factor Authentication Model for E-learners and Virtual Learning Systems.Federated Approach.Proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-learning overcome barriers of Life-Long learning? Maastricht University (reference)
e-Learning Delivery of the Course “Advanced Multimedia Systems Design” SK Toh - 2008 - sst.unisim.edu.sg http://sst.unisim.edu.sg:8080/dspace/handle/123456789/116 (reference)
Malik, N (2008). Discovering Dependencies in Courseware Repositories, M.Tech.Dissertation, Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (reference)
- Finally, eFront appears as one of the suggested LMS's from the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS) on a related report:
Functional Specification for NMLS Approved Instructor-Led Online Courses
http://publish.nationwidelicensingsystem.org/courseprovider/Course%20Provider%20Resources/Online%20Functional%20Spec.pdf Papagel ( talk)
- Comment. Please. I couldn't get to all of those, but none that I could access do anything to establish notability:
- Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z is a presentation about tools used to test various elearning software packages, the abstract is here.
- Ozarslan, Y., Ozan, O. is basically a product review based largely on efront's web pages. [25]
- SK Toh's research paper is an ENG499 CAPSTONE ELECTRONICS PROJECT, that mentions efront once, in a list of vendors: "Open-source Virtual Learning Environments (VLE): ATutor, Claroline, Dokeos, eFront, The eLearning XHTML editor (eXe), KEWL GLO Maker, Moodle, OLA T, Sakai Project, Virtual Training Studio, WebPA, Xerte" [26]
- Fontanin, M., is an analysis of blending learning, and used moodle as the test LNS. The article mentions efront once, in a list: "Moodle is not the only LMS available nowadays; many others could have been used, both open source (such as ETutor, Claroline, eFront and so on) and commercially developed (such as Blackboard, eCollege, Learn.com etc.)"
- Williams, G. is about secure VLEs, and mentions efront once, in a list: "Common VLE tools for developing and driving VLEs include but not limited to blackboard, firstclass, EFRONT, WEBCT (Part of blackboard, Dokeos, Cyber Extension." [27]
- Matsunaga, N & Kwan, A is also about blended learning in general, and mentions efront once, in a list: "A simple search on the internet for “Moodle” [7], “ILIAS” [8], “eFront” [9], “Sakai” [10], or “Dokeos” [11] will reveal much information and sources of free VLEs." [28]
- Malik is a master's thesis on searching, and the article mentions efront once, in a list: "There are other open source LMSs also available such as Moodle, SCORM, eFront etc. Every type of LMS supports the following features"/ [29]
- The NMLS report (you guessed it) mentions efront once, in a list, as an item in List of Learning Management Systems, found in Appendix A.
- None of these, I think, meet the bar of significant coverage in a reliable source. Passing reference does not establish notability. If you searched the web for my name IRL you find many hits, but I'm notable. Still not convinced, sorry. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 12:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment:Controversy makes the world go round :) You can check next to the references I added what discovered papers seem to have eFront as a main topic and which have a reference to eFront. This obviously is not an exhausted list but pieces of information that together (and combined with other sources) tell a story.
- Especially the first three papers are peer-reviewed papers that cover eFront in some considerable extend. I don't understand the point made for the paper (Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools) about being a "presentation"- this is a peer-reviewed article on EDMEDIA 2008 (World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications).
- Also, regarding the paper from Ozarslan, Y. and Ozan, O they specifically mention on the abstract "In this study, the open source learning management system eFront is evaluated based on literature review and authors experiences during 2008-2009 academic year".
- About the NMLS report your remark is a bit unfair. The report has an extensive list of characteristics that are expected from an LMS that is compliant with their needs. At the beginning of Apendix A they state "The following is a list of Learning Management Systems (LMS) that a course provider may want to consider in order to meet many of the conditions associated with offering instructor-led pre-licensure courses". It seems they have done some due diligence before suggesting. On top of this, for each LMS they also provide a short description of their findings instead of just a reference.
- Finally, the first paper dealing with "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context" uses eFront as the main evaluation medium. I could find only a part of the paper online from the conference proceedings at: http://books.google.gr/books?id=QX_e-RlW89UC&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=%22Heuristic+evaluation+in+e-learning+context%22&source=bl&ots=GYnNO2dLg2&sig=OalgBTleLwFBd3ydwHpfyvttOz8&hl=el&ei=UJfiS73OJoOlOKPq5NsN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Heuristic%20evaluation%20in%20e-learning%20context%22&f=false (pages 527-534)
- Regarding the "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context" provide a good translation of the introduction/abstract and relevant section from the above, showing that efront's software is the topic of the paper, not just a vehicle used for the study of something else. Likewise, if you can provide access to Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. I'll be happy to take a look, but I can't get to it. Ozarslan, Y. and Ozan, O is really not a scholarly work, they have 4 references, two of which go to efront. It's just a review of features. As for NMLS I stand by my reading of it.
- You need to provide significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources you're referencing are pretty reliable, but in my opinion the coverage is not significant--these articles with the exception of Ozarslan, Y. and Ozan, O aren't about efront's LMS, they are about other subjects and mention efront's LMS. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment A software system can rarely be the only context of a scientific paper; it is usually combined with some sort of evaluation under several dimensions.
Since I could not find the "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context" article I asked the author to send me the part of the paper that directly relates with eFront. Here is the link to the related part (3 pages): http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B8vrY4OEQsbRYjE1NGJkZmQtNzkyMy00ZjAzLWFkMjMtZmRhNjVlMWEyOGM0&hl=en
I'll try to get a full copy of Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z paper as well.
Regarding the paper from Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O it was presented in a Turkish Conference - I don't know how the number of references can be a valid criterion for the paper quality. For your reference here is the main page of this conference: http://ab2010.mugla.edu.tr/
Finally, there is an MSC thesis on University of Crete called "Towards standards based e-Learning tools and technologies" that deals with the eLearning standards in general but also with the implementation of SCORM 2004/4th edition inside eFront. I got the permission from the author to add a link here to this document: http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B8vrY4OEQsbRN2JjMTM4Y2UtODk5YS00NjdiLTg3ZjYtN2ZhNzI1MGZjZDFl&hl=en Papagel ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC).
- Re: "A software system can rarely be the only context of a scientific paper; it is usually combined with some sort of evaluation under several dimensions." Yes, and there's a reason for that--software projects are generally not of interest in scientific papers. One one of the articles we have discussed, Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O, is about efront's software. The rest mention it in lists, or use it as a tool for some other purpose, but are not about it--and for that reason, they do not, in my opinion, help establish WP:notability of the software or the company behind it. Usually, notability for software projects is established by reviews from reputable sources. You have found lots of web sites, portal, blogs, bit and pieces, but I see no such reviews.
- Re: "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context", where's the rest of the article? It looks at first glance that this article is like the others, and not really about efront's software. Same for the master's thesis, it appears to be about scorm, not efront's LMS (although I readily admit that I didn't read the thesis, just the abstract, tables of contents and glanced around a bit).
- So we're back to Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O as apparently the best source. Yes, for a scholarly work, references are important, both the ones used in the paper and number of times the paper itself is referenced in other scholarly works. As a scholarly work, this seems to be very weak. As a software review, it is also weak, since the authors are not professional software reviewers, and this work doesn't appear in a reputable source oriented to software packages. So I'm still not convinced. You have my sympathy, but not my support. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has concentrated on scientific literature due to the exact fact that it is a reliable source of notability. As discussed on notability section on wikipedia "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". There are (at least) 3 scientific papers and 1 master thesis that have extended sections that discuss eFront under different angles (features, usability, standards). And there are several more scientific papers that refer to it.
Apart from this, there are a lot of other pieces of information reported throughout this discussion including reviews on tech sites like techworld and genbeta.
On a personal note and no matter what this was an interesting discussion. Papagel ( talk)
- Yes, indeed. As you say, there are lots of pieces. You left out the first line "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail," and as I've said, I believe you have one article, Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O, that meets that criteria. Personally, I don't regard it as a good source, neither fish nor fowl, but it is a source. General notability guidelines also state "Multiple sources are generally expected" with a note to the effect that a paucity of sources suggests a better use of the information would be in an article on a general topic, eg. inclusion in Learning Management Systems. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 13:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Summary
Since this has gotten long, here's a summary of the votes so far:
- Keep Skippybosco ( talk) • Skippybosco ( talk) contribs) has made few or no other edits
Please let me know if I missed anyone, -- Nuujinn ( talk) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
As suggested on the top of this topic consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
I would like to comment a bit on the last bit of criticism. Wikipedia needs resources that deals with the proposed system directly and in detail. I do believe that all 3 papers and the master thesis are valid eFront sources since they cover the system in depth under different angles (functionality, usability and standards). For example, the paper from Zaharias is about usability in eLearning context. It does *not* use eFront as a medium to report on something else. eFront is an essential part of its report and the system which is both examined and benefited from the findings. The same stands for the paper from Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. (Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools). Since the scope of the paper is indeed to evaluate learning management systems this cannot be considered a distant but rather a direct reference to the included systems. Finally, the master thesis does not passively use eFront but it directly analyzes its architecture and extend it to include SCORM 2004 support. Papagel ( talk)
- If by "the thesis" you mean Towards Standards Based eLearning, it's 108 pages and mentions efront 5 times, once in a footnote reference to your project's web page. I do not believe that is significant coverage.
- In the Zacharias paper, from what I can tell from the limited view I get from google, efront appears three times, and I think once is an acknowlegement. From what I have read of it, the paper does not appear to be about efront, and the coverage is not, in my opinion, significant.
- Regarding Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools, you said "I'll try to get a full copy of Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z paper as well". Did you get a copy of the paper, or are you basing your interpretation on the abstract (which makes it appear that the paper is not about efront, but rather about evaluating elearning software, and happens to use efront among others as test cases)?
- I'm sorry to have to say this, and I'm assuming that you are acting good faith, but you might ask yourself whether your conflict of interest about this topic might perhaps skew your judgment as to the quality of these sources somewhat. I'm just not seeing significant coverage. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 23:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to be as unbiased as possible although certainly this can be difficult. However, perhaps you should question yourself as well regarding being stuck in your initial position. There is a known "anchor" in people decisions that is well explained in a recent book (Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely).
I will just comment on the MSC thesis since you say "it appears in the thesis only 5 times" - and this counting argument stands as well for the rest of the criticism. You forgot to mention the fact that all the MSC is about extending the system providing as a result a SCORM 2004 compliant eFront. Here is a part of the thesis abstract without any more comments. "This thesis aims to provide a reference implementation of the latest version of the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM 2004 4th Edition) grounded in a fully functional pre-existent learning management system. For the purpose of this thesis we selected the learning management system eFront which is used in the course “CS-100 Introduction to Computer Science” offered by the Computer Science Department of the University of Crete. Our goal is to accomplish a fully compliant implementation, according to the requirements defined in the SCORM 2004 4th Edition Testing Requirements (TR) Version 1.1" Papagel ( talk)
- I think that quote supports my point quite well, it seems to me that the thesis is about implementing scorm, and efront is just the vehicle. It certainly does not seem as if there's anything notable about efront that led to their choosing it.
- Did you get a copy of Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools?
- Perhaps I am stuck, certainly I am very stringent in regard to articles about software. I'll think about it. But I'm pretty comfortable about my judgments regarding these sources. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 10:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is a difference in points of view after all and it is certainly pointless to try to enforce ones opinion over the other - at least at this stage. I have asked the authors for a full copy for the "Evaluation of Learning Managements Systems with Test Tools" but I have not heard from them yet. Assuming they will answer timely I will add the full paper to this discussion as well. Papagel ( talk)
- 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. Obviously, the canvassed votes were disregarded. However, those delete votes made (at least partly) in response to the canvassing were not helpful either; at best they included string of TLAs. The actual debate, therefore, ended up taking place between just a few people on each side. The key issue here is whether the sources are sufficient to show notability. It is obvious that each of the four sources offers covers the subject nontrivially; the question now is whether the sources themselves are significant enough. The consensus is that the UCSD Guardian articles alone do not show notability. WP:GNG makes no mention of whether sources need to be local, but WP:CORP does state that coverage cannot be solely local. In the end, it comes down to the other two non-local sources, and an agreement does not appear to have been reached on their status. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Muir Skate Longboard Shop ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most of the coverage I'm finding for this company is either local and/or not independent of the subject. Contested prod. See my proposal at the end of this discussion.
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:09, 4 May 2010 (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}}. |
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
To the administrator reading this. The opinions of the "Keep" voters are organized at the bottom of the page because in this long debate, everyone's points were in fragments.
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill ( talk) 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This shop was on the UCSD campus for years and because of that, it is notable.
PÆonU (
talk)
03:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Read
WP:CORP.
Joe Chill (
talk)
20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- They were featured in an international magazine, Concrete Wave Magazine volume 6 issue 4, on page 31. At the time they were known as "Muir Surf and Skate".
- Read
WP:CORP.
Joe Chill (
talk)
20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
[35] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's one source, not multiple.
Joe Chill (
talk)
22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- One international source and multiple local sources. It's notable as hell, and in addition, it's part of UCSD. Even though it's off-campus now, it was the one of the first board stores on a college campus. That is BIG. You have literally no idea how notable Muir Skate is. It's the biggest online longboarding store and has a huge presence on the campus.
PÆonU (
talk)
22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- You literally have no idea how most editors consider local news as not showing notability.
Joe Chill (
talk)
22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here's my question. Why are there so many skate articles like this with just as many, and even less sources? And another question, since the store was on the UCSD campus for many years, wouldn't it be protected like the other UCSD articles?
PÆonU (
talk)
22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Read
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If businesses on a campus are non-notable (none are protected unless they are notable), they could be merged to the college. I'm not sure if this could be merged since it's not on the campus anymore. I'm not tracking to attack your article or anything.
Joe Chill (
talk)
22:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I found some more sources.
- Read
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If businesses on a campus are non-notable (none are protected unless they are notable), they could be merged to the college. I'm not sure if this could be merged since it's not on the campus anymore. I'm not tracking to attack your article or anything.
Joe Chill (
talk)
22:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here's my question. Why are there so many skate articles like this with just as many, and even less sources? And another question, since the store was on the UCSD campus for many years, wouldn't it be protected like the other UCSD articles?
PÆonU (
talk)
22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- You literally have no idea how most editors consider local news as not showing notability.
Joe Chill (
talk)
22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- One international source and multiple local sources. It's notable as hell, and in addition, it's part of UCSD. Even though it's off-campus now, it was the one of the first board stores on a college campus. That is BIG. You have literally no idea how notable Muir Skate is. It's the biggest online longboarding store and has a huge presence on the campus.
PÆonU (
talk)
22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Oct 2005: [36]
Oct 2007: [37]
Nov 2009: [38] PÆonU ( talk) 23:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Joe Chill, when you say You literally have no idea how most editors consider local news as not showing notability., I'm curious. If you are looking for multiple coverage in something, because you believe in following the notability guideline, then why not consider local news sources as well? Is there somewhere in that suggested guideline that is against them? Dream Focus 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Google news search for their original name, Muir Surf & Sport, showed one result.
[39] It gets coverage there. So that's another source found.
Dream Focus
13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Dream Focus, I'm not going to get into a debate with an ultra inclusionist like you. It would be pointless.
Joe Chill (
talk)
20:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- I feel the same way about talking to guys like you, who can't defend your position with logical statements. Dream Focus 20:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Dream Focus, I'm not going to get into a debate with an ultra inclusionist like you. It would be pointless.
Joe Chill (
talk)
20:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Rescue. This store is notable and is still part of the UCSD campus. It has international notability and has been in The Guardian multiple times. Therefor, I think this article deserves a chance to be worked on. PÆonU ( talk) 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PÆonU ( talk) 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. This might be hard for some to believe but I'm new at this sort of thing. I've been relisting and closing AFDs for a few years but until now, almost all my nominations have been of the hoaxy variety. Slam dunk deletes and I have no problem doing my best to get bullshit deleted. I don't like telling good faith editors who create pages on subjects that they care about that their submissions are not "good enough" for Wikipedia. In this case, I found the article doing new page patrol and it seemed like a cut and dry case of a company with little or no notability outside of the local area.
- Such AFDs are quite common. A new editor creates an article about a local restaurant or something, it get's taken to AFD where everybody says "delete", quotes a bunch of WP:TLAs, parrots the common term "significant coverage in reliable sources", and insists that the coverage be "non local". Well, I went back and reviewed our notability guidelines and it does not mention anything about how geographically diverse the coverage has to be. A restaurant in a small town that's been a local institution for 50 years will likely have quite a bit of local press coverage which one might call "significant" so why not have an article on it? If we are to continue arguing in deletion debates that coverage needs to be widespread then that needs to be written into the guidelines. This is an issue I may bring up at the village pump.
- My main concern with having a lot of articles about small local companies like this is that they vulnerable to some of the same risks as articles about marginally notable
living people. Most will be on few watchlists. Let's say you have an article about a local restaurant and a dis-satisfied customer or a competitor adds in some unverified but credible sounding bull about them failing several health inspections or the premises being unsafe or in the case of a store, about the product being safe. This can actually harm the business in question. TL;DR "wall of text" over :) --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just local, it has been featured in an international magazine. Even if it was purely local, the rules say nothing about local sources not being good enough. Your interpretation only limits the use of Wikipedia. An important part of this website is the ability to change things yourself. If a dissatisfied customer vandalizes the page, it will be caught fast. There are plenty of people checking recent edits for vandalism, so I wouldn't worry about that. PÆonU ( talk) 03:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Merge to something, Im not familiar with the area but if there is a category/article that includes stuff relating to campus culture it would make sense to have it there. This might be construed as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but almost all major universities have a bunch of peripheral businesses that are only notable because they are within walking distance of campus and everyone who has attended has been there, e.g. Harvard Book Store Grolier Poetry Bookshop.-- Savonneux ( talk) 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Very strong delete nothing in gnews, the one hit that Dream Focus found makes a mockery of the significant coverage test as per WP:GNG. LibStar ( talk) 10:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- And you make a mockery of the system by attacking me(with a false accusation of something I clearly wasn't doing) in another AFD [40] and then six minutes later, your next edit of the day, is to post here insulting me directly. This isn't the type of article you normally participate in. How did you find it, if you weren't following me? You seem rather angry once again, had a fit, then followed me to another AFD I participated in, which you wouldn't have found or bothered with otherwise, and made a comment like that. Taken in context with your past behavior, this seems to be wikistalking. Dream Focus 21:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I laugh at your accusation of me having a fit or being so angry. None of which is true. I participate in a wide range of deletion discussions. and have partipated in an AfD on a very similar topic last month: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orchard_Skate_Shop. suggest you WP:CHILL with paranoid accusations, none of which refutes my claims for deletion here. have a good day. LibStar ( talk) 07:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - there are no significant claims to or references for notability (as per WP:CORP) in the article. The references included and the only mentions I could find through Google searches are nothing more than trivial mentions. The article appears to exist solely as a soapbox. -- Pump me up 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- What about the international sources and newspaper articles? This is getting ridiculous. I mean, come on. Is there even any point in debating this out anymore if nobody is going to listen? I think I should stop wasting my time debating this out and give up on the article if nobody will listen to logic. PÆonU ( talk) 01:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep(in spite of attempted canvassing by PÆonU) UCSD Guardian appears to be a reliable source, which when combined with the short, but not insignificant mention found by Dream Focus, appears to establish notability under WP:CORP. VernoWhitney ( talk) 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)- That is not independent of the subject. It is a student newspaper for UCSD. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Changing to Delete While I feel the the Guardian meets the requirement of being independent (as it is not a press vehicle for the store, or similar), while rereading WP:CORP I came across the line "attention solely from local media…is not an indication of notability", which means that for these purposes, while independent, the Guardian isn't an indication of notability, leaving only the short non-local mention; so barring any new developments I feel it fails the notability guidelines as written. VernoWhitney ( talk) 00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't know "canvassing" even existed. Muir Skate was featured in an international magazine. Don't forget, they are not just a company, they are much like the Harvard bookstore. I bet 99% of the country has no idea of either stores' existence, but they're both part of the school's culture and are protected. With your delete vote, you're basically stating that articles like the Harvard Bookstore aren't worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Why not nominate that article for deletion too? PÆonU ( talk) 05:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A few local and one international source is enough to meet WP:CORP 74.103.239.178 ( talk) 02:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC) — 74.103.239.178 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note The above comment by 74.103.239.178 was copied verbatim from a list of comments posted on a forum here with instructions to copy and paste them to this page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
- When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.
Referring to 1., multiple local newspaper articles (The Guardian is a HUGE magazine) and an international source meets the requirements. WP:GNG states that this article needs "reliable sources." Reliable sources are any reputable magazines or newspapers, not just national and international ones. Your interpretation only causes unnecessary deletion. Some idiot tried to use this interpretation of reliable sources to try (and fail) to delete the page on Black Angus Steakhouse, which is gigantic in California. Until you get the rules changed, you can either search for and delete the thousands of articles with only local notability or leave them like they should be. The rules encourage more good articles, not less good articles.
Referring to 2., Muir Skate, being the first board store on a campus, has turned UCSD into one of, if not the best, skate schools. Thanks to Muir Skate, a huge population of students use longboards to travel around campus. While they were on the campus, they offered skate classes to students, so even non-customers with no prior experience could start skating. Because of this, I believe Muir Skate has affected the school's culture and athletics. UCSD has over 22,000 students, whereas Harvard has about 1,000 less students. Another point brought up by Savonneux is that the Harvard Book Store and Grolier Poetry Bookshop have articles. Since UCSD is a larger school, it should have articles about it's campus businesses too. PÆonU ( talk) 12:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Just to clarify my recommendation was to merge, my opinion is that since that most of its notability is derived from the school it should be included in the school or a school related article. It's not prejudicial, most small or even most non public companies don't meet
WP:CORP unless they have done something remarkably unique (and even then most are only referenced in the aricles about the unique thing they have done.)--
Savonneux (
talk)
09:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Muir Skate was the first board store on a continental U.S. college campus. I can't say the same about the Harvard bookstore. PÆonU ( talk) 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Has affected UCSD culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.101.74 ( talk) 00:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC) — 72.220.101.74 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note The above comment by 72.220.101.74 was copied verbatim from a list of comments posted on a forum here with instructions to copy and paste them to this page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It has more sources than Harvard Book Store —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.245.247 ( talk) 01:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC) — 24.214.245.247 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note The above comment by 24.214.245.247 was copied verbatim from a list of comments posted on a forum here with instructions to copy and paste them to this page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete local notability only shown. Fails WP:N -- RP459 Talk/ Contributions 02:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here's an international magazine they were featured in. [41] PÆonU ( talk) 02:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete- I do not feel that the sources provided establish notability. They seem to be passing mentions or very local coverage. The relentless canvassing is distasteful as well. Reyk YO! 07:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, you're right. An interview with an international magazine is something any schmuck can get. Sadly, the Transworld Business link is not the full article, but it's definitely not a quick mentioning. Don't forget, when a new shoe store, skate store, or card store opens, it isn't announced by a national publication. Something has to be notable to even get a single sentence about them in a national or international publication. PÆonU ( talk) 12:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin there have been 3 not so random single purpose editors "voting" here not to mention potential canvassing. LibStar ( talk) 13:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, I've opened a report at ANI regarding the "potential" canvassing. VernoWhitney ( talk) 14:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Potential" is being extremely cautious. This is the most extreme and blatant example of canvassing and attempting to stir up personal attacks that I have ever seen. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I read the article in Concrete Wave, which has been referred to throughout this AfD discussion as an "international magazine" - at a guess, "international" is intended to mean "outside the US" as Concrete Wave is published in Canada, but that's just my guess - in any case it's not a local publication. The same applies to the Transworld Business site which mentioned the store in 2006. These two articles are, however, not enough to show that the company meets WP:CORP to my mind - they do not constitute significant coverage in multiple independent publications. All the misbehaviour and canvassing don't exactly help the article's case, but even if it hadn't happened I don't see how the article could be saved. (Yes, I have searched for additional sources.) -- bonadea contributions talk 16:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:CORP. The coverage I'm seeing is not very significant. "Concrete Wave"? Yeah, so? Notabilty just because it was on a campus? I'm sure there is a maintainence shed near the athletic fields too, but I doubt it's notable either.... Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Fails corp, no extensive coverage from reliable sources. The canvassing was just plain stupid. -- Terrillja talk 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Libstar. If the phases "significant coverage" and "non-trivial" mean anything at all, then surely this fails WP:N, or WP:CORP Yilloslime T C 01:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you explain how the coverage is trivial? It may not be significant but a Q&A with a skate magazine and one of the two UCSD Guardian write-ups is detailed. Cptnono ( talk) 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
disruptive editor's attempt to co-opt this discussion compressed
|
|---|
CompromiseThis is the classic deletionist vs. inclusionist vs. middle ground debate. Everything that can be said about the article has already been repeated by all sides and there's no point in continuing the debate. To the administrator who decides the fate of this article, if you're leaning towards the deletionists' side, at least merge it here. Muir Skate was the first campus board store in the continental U.S., has multiple local sources and an international source (not even the Harvard Book Store has that), and has had an effect on the culture of a campus with over 20,000 people. If that's not notable enough for an article, it at least deserves a merge. PÆonU ( talk) 02:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
SummaryDue to the lack of structure in this debate, I would like to put the "keep" voters' ideas, plus additional evidence in one summary. I'd prefer it if any attacks on it be done in a new section below the summary, because the goal of this is that with this summary, I am completely done with the debate and do not need to return to the page until a decision is made. Literally nobody here will change their mind, so more debating is useless. The text in quotes comes directly from WP:CORP.
Muir Skate has had a significant effect on the culture of UCSD, a college with at least 20,000 students. The store's skate lessons increased the number of skateboarders in the college, making skateboarding culture more popular than ever. The events it hosted on campus, one of which introduced the store to a writer for Concrete Wave, have not stopped since they left the campus. They are close enough to the campus to host UCSD skate events like the giant Gravity Slidefest, so they are still very much affecting UCSD culture. [42]
Muir Skate has been featured three times in the UCSD Guardian and the owner of the store was interviewed by international magazine Concrete Wave (volume 6 issue 4, page 31). Additional media attention comes from Transworld Business, which is a national magazine owned by the Bonnier Corporation, a large American publisher. Unfortunately, the entire article is not available, but the beginning of it is free to read. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Although the Guardian is a local publication, Transworld Business is a national publication and Concrete Wave is an international publication. Upon reviewing the links provided, it becomes fairly obvious that Muir Skate receives "attention from international or national, or at least regional, media," and does not receive "attention solely from local media or media of limited interest and circulation."
All three UCSD Guardian articles and the interview in Concrete Wave meet this requirement. Although the article in Transworld Business is not available as a whole, from the looks of the text available and the fact that it was published a year after the store's opening, it was most likely not a short mention.
|
- Delete Despite attempts by PÆonU and the editors who have responded to his canvassing, they have not managed to show significant evidence of notability. Instead they have come up with arguments which do not relate to Wikipedia policy, such as "This shop was on the UCSD campus for years and because of that, it is notable", and "Has affected UCSD culture", including appeals to "other stuff exists", such as "It has more sources than Harvard Book Store", and "Why are there so many skate articles like this with just as many, and even less sources". PÆonU and DreamFocus have tried to make much of coverage in the UCSD Guardian, but coverage in a student newspaper within one university is a very limited form of coverage, and it is also debatable whether it can be regarded as an independent source. "Local (originally on-campus) shop gets coverage in student on-campus newspaper" does not establish notability. I could go on further to discuss more details of what has been said, but it would not alter the overall point, which is that, despite a very concerted effort, those arguing for "keep" have failed to produce evidence of the sort of substantial coverage required by the notability criteria. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough seems to exist right now to demonstrate notability. Maybe they'll get some press in the next year or two and can try again then. But next time, don't try to game the system. ~ Pesco So say• we all 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment/leaning keep Editors appear to be misreading the General Notability Guidelines and the(edit: oops it is in WP:CORP mot GNG) Corporate specific one. Local coverage can still be significant coverage. "Solely" is the key word so please don't disregard local sources. And why is Transworld Business being disregarded?
Transworld Skateboarding is certainly a big name and their business publication should have a decent reputation. A
write up(note that only part of it is shown here) by one of their editors establishes some notability. And
Concrete Wave Magazine does not need to be the Wall Street Journal to be RS.
That Q&A can certainly improve the article and it is not local or even regional. It is also not a trivial mention even if it isn't a multi-page story. Canvassing is frustrating but that should not impact if the business is notable according to GNG or CORP.
Cptnono
Cptnono (
talk)
00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, I was thinking the same thing after the first 2 !votes in this discussion. (before the whole thing blew up) The GNG doesn't say anything about the coverage needing to be non local (but
WP:CORP does). With a little leaning I could probably make a pretty good case for keeping this article. In an ideal wiki world, that's how AFD would work. That is, editors, some with different interpretations of the guidelines, discussing how they should be applied to a particular article. Instead, AFDs become battlegrounds between those dead set on "getting the cruft off wikipedia" and those who think the world's going to end if some website doesn't have an article on their favorite subject. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. A couple more stories from San Diego or something in Thrasher would make it more clear cut for me. As is I see the potential but am not completely on board. And I totally understand some frustration based on the canvasing and the owners or fans potentially using this as some sort of sign of pride. Cptnono ( talk) 01:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, I was thinking the same thing after the first 2 !votes in this discussion. (before the whole thing blew up) The GNG doesn't say anything about the coverage needing to be non local (but
WP:CORP does). With a little leaning I could probably make a pretty good case for keeping this article. In an ideal wiki world, that's how AFD would work. That is, editors, some with different interpretations of the guidelines, discussing how they should be applied to a particular article. Instead, AFDs become battlegrounds between those dead set on "getting the cruft off wikipedia" and those who think the world's going to end if some website doesn't have an article on their favorite subject. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to be relying on your own interpretation of the guidelines (as do we all), I see no emphasis placed on "solely" or other indication that it is indeed "the key word". This brings us back to the point of AfDs (among other things): determining consensus on the appropriate interpretation of notability guidelines. VernoWhitney ( talk) 00:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree that an article from Thrasher would certainly give a skateboarding-related article credibility, you have to keep in mind that the longboarding community gets much less coverage than the trick-skateboard community. The Concrete Wave is to longboarding what Thrasher, Transworld, and Skateboarding Magazine are to trick-skateboarding. Moogleluvr ( talk) 06:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't clear It isn't that Concrete Wave is not reputable. In fact, it is why I lean keep. A couple more magazine stories (it doesn't even need to be at the same level as Concrete Wave) is needed to establish that there is a good amount of coverage on the subject.
Cptnono (
talk)
06:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You really need to take it to the Village Pump or to the guideline's talk page if you want to argue that local media coverage can not be considered. Yes, I am emphasizing "solely" since people are disregarding it. "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." doesn't mean disregard local media. It could be argued that since it is only skate magazines that the audience is limited but that needs to be considered separate from any assertion that local media cannot assert at least some notability. Two sources are not local or even regional (one is in Canada?) and have at least a national reach (I believe Transworld is distributed throughout the world). So they need to be considered along with the local media. It still may not be enough coverage but I feel it is close. Cptnono ( talk) 00:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment [48] Mentions that they sponsor the surf club at UCSD (I tried searching for owner's name instead of the shop name). Still feel it doesnt meet WP:CORP though.-- Savonneux ( talk) 00:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CORP, WP:N, WP:V. And frankly, the canvassing attempts noted above don't exactly do the article any favours, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – Completely fails WP:CORP. The canvassing attempts make my position more firm. Calling deletionists "douches" doesn't help your case one bit. (Note that PÆonU ( talk · contribs) is blocked.) — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L) 04:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The canvassing atttempts should not affect your position at all. You either believe it meets the requirements or it does not, you don't say delete because you don't like one person who is involved in this.
Dream Focus
04:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- There does appear to be some knee-jerk "voting" to the canvasing. It makes sense that some think the subject fails the requirements but I hope editors can focus on that and not the shenanigans.
Cptnono (
talk)
04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which is why I mentioned in ANI that a good way to get an article deleted is to canvas for keeps. Are some of these new "delete" !votes a knee jerk reaction to the canvassing, probably. They probably didn't know this article and its AFD existed until it was bought up on ANI. How would any of them have !voted if they ran across it by other means, who knows. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
04:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- the irony is that PÆonU has in fact drawn more attention to this AfD that he hoped for. LibStar ( talk) 05:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which is why I mentioned in ANI that a good way to get an article deleted is to canvas for keeps. Are some of these new "delete" !votes a knee jerk reaction to the canvassing, probably. They probably didn't know this article and its AFD existed until it was bought up on ANI. How would any of them have !voted if they ran across it by other means, who knows. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
04:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- There does appear to be some knee-jerk "voting" to the canvasing. It makes sense that some think the subject fails the requirements but I hope editors can focus on that and not the shenanigans.
Cptnono (
talk)
04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The text below has been copy-pasted from PÆonU's userpage. I have been following this discussion and noticed the deletion of these points from the discussion, which I feel is a very underhanded and dishonest act on the part of those rallying for the deletion of this page. I believe that both sides should have the opportunity to have all of their points presented on level grounds for this to constitute a true discussion, and therefore, I have copy-pasted the text below from PÆonU's userpage. While I can understand the frustration both sides are experiencing in this debate, keep in mind Wikipedia was founded upon trust in the community to do the right thing, and playing dirty by deleting the other side's points is entirely uncalled for. Thank you for your consideration. Moogleluvr ( talk) 06:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."
Muir Skate has had a significant effect on the culture of UCSD, a college with at least 20,000 students. The store's skate lessons increased the number of skateboarders in the college, making skateboarding culture more popular than ever. The events it hosted on campus, one of which introduced the store to a writer for Concrete Wave, have not stopped since they left the campus. They are close enough to the campus to host UCSD skate events like the giant Gravity Slidefest, so they are still very much affecting UCSD culture. [49]
"Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."
Muir Skate has been featured three times in the UCSD Guardian and the owner of the store was interviewed by international magazine Concrete Wave (volume 6 issue 4, page 31). Additional media attention comes from Transworld Business, which is a national magazine owned by the Bonnier Corporation, a large American publisher. Unfortunately, the entire article is not available, but the beginning of it is free to read. [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Although the Guardian is a local publication, Transworld Business is a national publication and Concrete Wave is an international publication. Upon reviewing the links provided, it becomes fairly obvious that Muir Skate receives "attention from international or national, or at least regional, media," and does not receive "attention solely from local media or media of limited interest and circulation."
"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
All three UCSD Guardian articles and the interview in Concrete Wave meet this requirement. Although the article in Transworld Business is not available as a whole, from the looks of the text available and the fact that it was published a year after the store's opening, it was most likely not a short mention. "
- Comment after 1 edit in 2 years Moogleluvr ( talk · contribs) returns soley to edit this AfD. certainly a form of single purpose editing in my book. LibStar ( talk) 07:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the IPs didn't present the best reasoning. If one of them came back and actually referred to guidelines it might be better to address that over the editor. You can always drag the editor to a noticeboard somewhere but I don't think there is any doubt that there was some poor form on this one. So any response to his assertions or was it already covered and I missed it?
Cptnono (
talk)
08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The IP editors did not give any reasoning at all. They simply responded to a call on a forum to copy and paste "votes" to this discussion. There is no reason to suppose that they had any understanding of the issues at all. Of course they may have, but we cannot reasonably argue on the basis of speculation as to what they might have said under different circumstances. This issue has to be decided on the basis of what arguments have been put forward, and on that basis the arguments put forward by those editors would be of very little value, even apart from their copy-paste canvassed background.
JamesBWatson (
talk)
10:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- That comment sucks. You essentially just disregarded any comments made by not gaming editors since they said the same thing. [55] Can you respond to this? I get that the IP behavior sucks but it would be appreciated if you could respond or point to timestamps where you have already done so. Cptnono ( talk) 10:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The IP editors did not give any reasoning at all. They simply responded to a call on a forum to copy and paste "votes" to this discussion. There is no reason to suppose that they had any understanding of the issues at all. Of course they may have, but we cannot reasonably argue on the basis of speculation as to what they might have said under different circumstances. This issue has to be decided on the basis of what arguments have been put forward, and on that basis the arguments put forward by those editors would be of very little value, even apart from their copy-paste canvassed background.
JamesBWatson (
talk)
10:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the IPs didn't present the best reasoning. If one of them came back and actually referred to guidelines it might be better to address that over the editor. You can always drag the editor to a noticeboard somewhere but I don't think there is any doubt that there was some poor form on this one. So any response to his assertions or was it already covered and I missed it?
Cptnono (
talk)
08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Moogleluvr ( talk · contribs) that text was already collapsed into the box right above this. There were barely any comments on this article until it turned into a drama fest. The worst that was going to happen was a no prejudice delete or a merge, now all the relevant pages are going to be on multiple watchlists and possibly semi-protected. Is pasting redundant text / breaking format really going to help? -- Savonneux ( talk) 08:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think Moogleluvr could perhaps have assumed a little more good faith. I do not think that the collapsing of the relevant section was "a very underhanded and dishonest act": it was done quite openly, not underhandedly, and I see nothing to indicate that it was dishonest. There have been genuine concerns that there was an "attempt to co-opt this discussion", and an honest attempt to deal with that attempt. If Moogleluvr had said "I think that attempt was mistaken" then that would be one thing, but "underhanded and dishonest" is another. Also it is, of course, inaccurate to describe the collapsing of part of the discussion as "deletion". JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Cptnono says that editors appear to be misreading the guidelines, and I think quite a few other comments above are based on the same view. I don't think this is particularly so. It is possible to pick out various bits and pieces of coverage, and to say that while most of it has been local there has also been some non-local coverage, so we can check off particular points listed in guidelines. However, I do not think this is a good approach. The guidelines are guidelines, not check lists. The overall spirit of the guidelines is that there should have been substantial coverage, not just fragmentary coverage. The most substantial coverage is not just local, as for example in a local town newspaper, but provincial, in a student campus newspaper. The other coverage is mostly fragmentary, and overall it is not possible to say that this business has received substantial attention. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- LOL. We totally agree on somethings and not others but not as I would have expected. Completely agree that the coverage could be read as not substantial. I also agree that a college paper is not the best to rely on for notability. However, the coverage in sources with a national or international reach are not fragmentary. We could right an article about it off those easily. I don't know if those two big magazines is enough though. There is also the question of if they were solicited which opens up another can of worms. This article to me is literally one story in a paper or magazine away from being a slam dunk. I'm not positive as it is though. It is much closer than editors reacting to some completely lame gaming of the system would have a casual reader of the conversation believe.
Cptnono (
talk)
10:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I accept that it is closer than some comments, including perhaps some of mine, might make it look. However, I still think it is not enough. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Proposal. As the "douche" who started this mess, I would like to suggest that this AFD be closed and the article moved out of mainspace to the incubator. A few editors have suggested that it might be possible to demonstrate notability so let's give them their shot. After a reasonable amount of time, let's say 7 days after PÆonU's block expires. The article can be moved back into mainspace and a new AFD started. Hopefully one free of drama. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- disagree, there is sufficient arguments to let these AfD run its course. LibStar ( talk) 23:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Fails WP:CORP despite the addition of a couple of obscure references. Toddst1 ( talk) 14:04, 11 May 2010 (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.
Adding
AfD for
Gary Brewton. (
TW) |
VaginicaWestwood (
talk |
contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevie Starr}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Brewton}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Brewton}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levis poker}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levis poker}} |
||
Revision as of 20:43, 4 May 2010
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 11 May 2010 (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}}. |
- Edward A. Vincent ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Ordinary surveyor whose name is mentioned only peripherally in connection with a few surveys by outside sources. Sounds pretty much like someone's ancestor (genealogy) rather than real notability. Student7 ( talk) 12:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The article has appropriate period (19th century) references. The fact that he receives mention in contemporary media as well, although not used in the article, [12] speaks to his notability as does the building of a replica of his original design of the Atlanta Depot for the Stone Mountain Park Depot in 1987. Given the level of interest in anything related to the Civil War and the antebellum South in particular, I believe readers may well be interested in him. (He mapped both the cities of Atlanta and Savannah prior to Sherman's March through Georgia, both of which survive. [13]) Soapbox: I know this isn't the place but this is what is wrong with wikipedia. If it can't be click click seen, it is likely to be gone. Some ace detective/ Civil War buff has gone to a tremendous amount of effort tracking down sources to chronicle an amazing historical individual (He died at age 30!) for wikipedia and it's about to be nixed. "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage." [14] Yeah right. Eudemis ( talk) 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is not temporary. The Union Depot was probably the most significant antebellum building in Atlanta, and one of the most significant in the South when Sherman burned the place down. It was notable enough to be rebuilt in replica He is well-documented in the media of the time, and was clearly notable in 1853 for multiple reasons in several places. His documentation of antebellum Atlanta and Savannah is a significant historical resource and reference. Acroterion (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I am the author of this article and have spent some time reading over the notability page. To better satisfy those requirements, I have added additional sources. I plan to add the AJC article referenced by Eudemis once I can see the actual newspaper. Submitting this information to Wikipedia is part of a longer process that involves writing a paper about him in my graduate studies and submitting a substantial paper about him to the Georgia Historical Quarterly for peer reviewed publication. I think adding information about the re-purposing of his maps during the Civil War, as well as the replica at Stone Mountain, will make for a better article. Vincent is a difficult character to get to know because his family is unknown, he had no children, and his life was cut short right at the beginning of his career. He was a notable figure in Georgia from 1852 to 1854 and scholars have returned to his work repeatedly over the last 100 years. Paul K. Graham ( talk) 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Vincent's work, though brief, is important to early Atlanta and Savannah history, and his life is difficult to research. This is an important entry. At this point, it seems that there is more to come, and I, for one, would like to know what it is. I vote to keep this entry. Deborah E. Harvey, 7 May 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharvey8 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The article is unbiased and has direct relevance to the history of the antebellum South. It allows others interested in the Civil War history of Georgia to add sources that may otherwise lack context. The author has gone to great lengths to provide that context and I hope this will inspire more research on historical figures whose contributions have gone unnoticed. Chapmanmb ( talk) 18:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)MChapman
- Keep I just found this page from a Google search for Edward A Vincent, I had seen his name on a directory of maps at the archives.gov and wanted to determine if he was the cartographer on a map I had found in College Park back in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.134.150 ( talk) 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The extensive research done on Vincent is of great importance to anyone doing research on the early development of Atlanta, Macon, and Savannah. I am also looking forward to seeing what future research on Vincent will uncover. Marycatharine ( talk) 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- AGF Keep. Of course, we cannot check online for references that are more than 100 years old, but the article does assert that such sources do exist. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: While I'm concerned that two of the above might be SPAs, I would like to assume Acroterion knows what they are talking about in asserting that the building is a notable landmark in pre-war Atlanta. With that in mind, I'd prefer to bring up WP:PAPER, and keep the article pending further sources. Coincidentally, I just read about Sherman's March last night! (I'm Canadian, so it's less likely than it might sound.) - BalthCat ( talk) 05:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also, Vincent's depot was the inspiration for the entrance to the Mall of Georgia. Paul K. Graham ( talk) 13:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm quite comfortable with the simple fact that the person is remembered, although locally (his building has been recreated near Stone Mountain - I added reference). A more general note: keep in mind that our subject belonged to a fast-growing culture that was cut down by a war; people who shaped it simply did not have a whole life to practice their art. Coverage of antebellum history (and similar short-lived cultures elsewhere) will be very very incomplete if limited only to unconditionally notable people. East of Borschov ( talk) 06:25, 11 May 2010 (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. Shimeru ( talk) 00:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Croatia–Mongolia relations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a pointless article about an uninteresting relationship between two countries that are many thousands of kilometers apart and which aren't interested in each other enough to maintain mutual embassies. It has undergone PROD and AFD once before, and there has been no real change in content since the last time it was kept, in fact, it only got smaller. This topic has little to no potential and it simply doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a few more intro comments: it doesn't really matter much now, but the original author of the article is a now-blocked sockpuppet account that seems to have created a flurry of similarly strange articles related to countries and peoples. Several other users worked on this article since, yet IMHO it remains as pointless as it was once it was first written. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Hard to believe that it was only a year ago that we had the big debate over each of the Groubani articles, of which this was one, and the "call it off, call it off!" intervention by the task force for better pancakes, but even after the addition of some news about a stopover by a leader during a tour, and paying off of a mortgage (OK, it was a loan for $148,496 and 50 cents), I don't see anything that couldn't be thrown in to the foreign relations articles. There had been an initial push to rescue the Groubani articles, until people realized just how damn many (hundreds) that sock had cranked out. Mandsford ( talk) 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - No content here that can't more appropriately be covered in the existing articles on Croatia and Mongolia. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 01:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete there is no real ongoing relations here. a few limited visits, and a one off loan hardly relates in notable bilateral relations. yes the 2 presidents met in 2008 but it really needs to be a lot more than this to be a notable article. LibStar ( talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is about a bilateral relationship. There are reliable sources presented. But those sources analyse individual events, not the relationship as a whole. That is the critical distinction. Cobbling together coverage of individual events to form an article about a bilateral relationship amounts to synthesis (in its ordinary meaning more than its WP:NOR meaning). -- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the sources now present do actually talk about the overall relationshiop, even if the title would imply they are just about one event, e.g. [18]
- Keep Loans, embassies, and official visits are what make up international relations. Relationships ads a whole are made up of particulars. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- did you even read this article? they don't even have embassies. the
World Bank and
IMF loan even more money to Mongolia than Croatia ever has, perhaps we should create
World Bank-Mongolia relations.
LibStar (
talk)
00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- The US does not have an embassy in either Iran or Cuba or Bhutan or Taiwan or North Korea. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
US does not have embassies in Iran, Cuba and North Korea because they have embargoes and not having diplomatic relations with those countries for a long time. US does not have an embassy in Taiwan after China insisted they didn't. Croatia and Mongolia have diplomatic relations and no embargoes. your argument is very weak. LibStar ( talk) 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would not oppose it. I do not see that I said that they have an embassy directly yet.
DGG (
talk )
00:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- why did you mention embassies then? LibStar ( talk) 00:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would not oppose it. I do not see that I said that they have an embassy directly yet.
DGG (
talk )
00:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Mkativerata said it better than I could. Quantpole ( talk) 10:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Mkativerata Nick-D ( talk) 10:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete an article on a relationship of so little interest to the two countries involved they don't care to exchange ambassadors. There are no non-trivial treatments of this relationship in reliable sources to be found. Bali ultimate ( talk) 13:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Mkativerata. If reliable sources aren't covering the relationship itself then neither should we. Yilloslime T C 15:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC) More: I think this discussion highlights a fundamental difference between how editors interpret WP:N and, to a lesser extent, WP:OR. I read WP:N as requiring the existence of sources that address the topic itself. Sources on individual aspects of the topic are not sufficient, and assembling them into a treatment of the topic is WP:SYN. For example, let's say a reliable source mentions that John Doe coaches a little league team called the Cougars. Let's say a different news paper article, this one on Local Pizzeria, mentions that it sponsors the Cougars. Let's further suppose that the city Parks & Recs website has the team's wins and losses tabulated. And maybe a newspaper profile of the middle valedictorian mentions that he plays on the Cougars. Does all this add to the Cougars meeting WP:N. I'd argue no, because of none the sources address the Cougars directly or in detail, and I'd further argue that assembling into an article would require WP:OR, since there are no reliable secondary sources to guide article drafting. And I think this is pretty much what's going on with this article. Yilloslime T C 23:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator and Mandsford. Joal Beal ( talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete When an encylopedia article talks about repaying a loan that is about 5 times the size of my outstanding student loan debt, the best thing is to just delete it. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Shame, shame, shame to "make it shrink" since it was last nominated. One can always pick the cherries out of a pie and then claim it is not a cherry pie. That does not mean the cherries cannot be properly returned to the pie... and make it even better than it was before. That the article was properly "kept" last time, is not a reason to whittle it to nothing and return it to AFD until it is finally deleted. I opined a keep at the last AFD due to considerable improvements that has been made that addressed concerns at that time. It should be kept, revereted to an earlier and properly encyclopedic version, and further improved to meet its WP:POTENTIAL through the opportunites presented in Google Scholar, Google News and Google Books, that could assist in further expansion and sourcing.... that is... if improvements will be allowed by those who would rather it not be here at all. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- shame shame shame, all your google scholar, books searches simply show multilateral relations where Mongolia and Croatia are mentioned with several other countries. you have not proven any significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. In fact this search you provided in
Google News yields nothing, which makes me wonder if you even checked these searches beforely blindly posting here.
LibStar (
talk)
23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Seems a reason to consider corecting the focus
through regular editing, but not one for deletion.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q.
01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- please provide evidence of specific coverage of actual bilateral relations. LibStar ( talk) 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Seems a reason to consider corecting the focus
through regular editing, but not one for deletion.
Schmidt,
MICHAEL Q.
01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - yet another vandalized article that has been nominated for deletion. This was kept last time in decent shape. Please save the best version of fix it before nominating again. Don't let the vandals win this one. Bearian ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- please provide sources otherwise it's a WP:JUSTAVOTE, if you provide 10 non trivial sources, I will happily change my vote. LibStar ( talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD at this point in the discussion. |
- Referring to the reasoned edits of others as vandalism is a failure to WP:AGF. You, me, Libstar, RAN--we may not always agree with each other, but I think it's evident that we all have the 'pedia's best interests in mind with our edits. Calling this a "vandalized article" isn't helpful. Yilloslime T C 00:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, not vandalism. But I note that many of those voting delete above are those same editors who wished it gone last time 'round, and some were/are themselves involved in "shrinking" the article to make it into what they claimed. Had it not been "shrunk" it would/should have had the same notability as established last time, thus making this a push to overturn that earlier consensus. And I am hearing the same reasons in argument as used before, but now used against a lessor article than what survived the last AFD. Sure, its not JUSTAVOTE, but it makes shrinking an article to support opinion of non-notability into a self-fulfilling prophecy. As it is... we do have the time to expand the article and further source it while this repeat of the last AFD is ongoing, and I appreciate that LibStar granted that improvemnets might change his mind. -- Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I saw everything you mention post res, with fresh eyes, and yet I am convinced that all mentioned revisions of the article should be deleted because there is no real potential. If you actually read the nomination at the top you will see that I explicitly acknowledged the existence of an old version with more content, and by doing that and doing nothing about it I also implicitly acknowledged the removal of that content. The tangential story from several centuries ago that has no practical relevance to the relationship of countries today known as Croatia and Mongolia was rightly removed because it contributes nothing to the core of the article.
- Hmm. All this circular contemplation is only adding to the sheer pointlessness of this article :) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It has coverage of various events between the nations, and we already had this discussion last year. And it is in bad taste that those who want to delete an article, who don't get their way, then go and delete parts of it after the AFD ends in keep. If you aren't interested in the content, then leave it alone. Surely you have something better to do than destroy other people's work. Dream Focus 10:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
-
WP:JUSTAVOTE. this argument contains no description of how the article meets
WP:N. again another keep vote with zero evidence of significant thrid party coverage.
LibStar (
talk)
10:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I said in my opening sentence It has coverage of various events between the nations. There is significant coverage of anything involving these two countries already found in English sources, and if someone spoke the languages of the nations involved, they'd surely find more. Do you doubt that nations would have in their newspapers reports of their activities between countries? Dream Focus 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
yes I highly doubt it that there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. this has been listed in Croatian related AfDs since May 4 which would have been picked up by Croatian speakers. it is a very weak argument to say additional sources exist and not providing any evidence of it. LibStar ( talk) 07:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is highly doubtful that the relationship is viewed as important in either nation. The evidence is the lack of embassies and the total lack of
secondary sources. Do you believe that every nation views its relationship with every other nation as important?
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Many nations don't have embassies, since they can't afford it, or simply have no reason to have someone representing their interest there all the time. With modern communications and transportation being what it is, they could contact them whenever possible without the need for such things. Lack of an embassy does not indicate anything.
Dream Focus
22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have secondary sources to back up these claims? Abductive ( reasoning) 23:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Many nations don't have embassies, since they can't afford it, or simply have no reason to have someone representing their interest there all the time. With modern communications and transportation being what it is, they could contact them whenever possible without the need for such things. Lack of an embassy does not indicate anything.
Dream Focus
22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is highly doubtful that the relationship is viewed as important in either nation. The evidence is the lack of embassies and the total lack of
secondary sources. Do you believe that every nation views its relationship with every other nation as important?
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is not the dollar amount of a loan that determines notability, it is that reliable media took note of the loan and reported it. The article is sourced and has enough information for a stand alone article. There is no Wikipedia rule that says that relations have to be superlative to have an article. Superlative relations have multiple articles such as the US and Russia. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is indeed no rule about superlatives, but there is an accepted standard of
Wikipedia:Notability wher we require significant coverage. Reliable media also take note of everyone who gets born or gets hit by a bus in Croatia, but that still doesn't meet the standard of inclusion in a standalone English Wikipedia article. I don't see how a single dignitary visit (three days in passing over to China) is something that can be significantly covered, and a lack of mutual embassies despite two years having passed from that visit supports the notion that it wasn't a significant visit per se, so its coverage can't really be any more significant - at least not in this case. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
21:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, everyone covered with a biography in reliable media is notable by Wikipedia standards, but, we exclude people that are in the news only once, for a single event. That is the One Event clause of notability. What does that have to do with anything we are discussing here? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again you are fixating on the number, three days, rather than that it was reported in reliable media. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
22:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why did you ignore the rest of what I said? --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
10:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". It meets that standard set out by Wikipedia. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Disregarding for the moment my opinion on the spirit of that guideline; I still don't really see how it even meets the letter of guideline - none of the sources are really non-trivial coverage, because there is simply no real depth to the issues at hand that would warrant it. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
22:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- 10 facts from 10 sources are mathematically identical to 10 facts from a 1 source. Wikipedia doesn't demand a single source for all the facts in an article, it actually discourages a single source article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Disregarding for the moment my opinion on the spirit of that guideline; I still don't really see how it even meets the letter of guideline - none of the sources are really non-trivial coverage, because there is simply no real depth to the issues at hand that would warrant it. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
22:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". It meets that standard set out by Wikipedia. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why did you ignore the rest of what I said? --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
10:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is indeed no rule about superlatives, but there is an accepted standard of
Wikipedia:Notability wher we require significant coverage. Reliable media also take note of everyone who gets born or gets hit by a bus in Croatia, but that still doesn't meet the standard of inclusion in a standalone English Wikipedia article. I don't see how a single dignitary visit (three days in passing over to China) is something that can be significantly covered, and a lack of mutual embassies despite two years having passed from that visit supports the notion that it wasn't a significant visit per se, so its coverage can't really be any more significant - at least not in this case. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
21:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. A comparison with the other Foo-Mongolia relations articles reveals the utter poverty of the keep arguments in this AfD. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again you are arguing the subjective importance. I am sure if we rank them all this would fall in the bottom third, but it still meets the Wikipedia requirements. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, it falls at the bottom. The simple fact is that the topic of Croatia–Mongolia relations does not have what are called "
secondary sources", which according to consensus are supposed to analyze the topic. Since no such source exists in any language, the topic must be deleted.
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I don't see any primary sources in the article, can you point one out to me? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus is that topics without secondary sources are to be deleted. Primary sources are irrelevant. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again, Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Your opinion is interesting, but I am quoting Wikipedia policy directly. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- That out of context bit of text will not save this article from deletion. Abductive ( reasoning) 05:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you please point out a forbidden primary source used in the article? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I don't see any primary sources in the article, can you point one out to me? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, it falls at the bottom. The simple fact is that the topic of Croatia–Mongolia relations does not have what are called "
secondary sources", which according to consensus are supposed to analyze the topic. Since no such source exists in any language, the topic must be deleted.
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again you are arguing the subjective importance. I am sure if we rank them all this would fall in the bottom third, but it still meets the Wikipedia requirements. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment none of the keep arguments have provided any evidence of substantial third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 07:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- The evidence is in the article already, no reason for us to repeat it. Every fact in the article is referenced to a reliable source. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Let me sum up the deletion arguments:
- The article is Original Research. No, it is not. Wikipedia defines OR as: "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources." For instance if I were to say that the meeting between dignitaries was "awesome" or was "embarrassing" or was "scary", that would be OR, because it is not in the original, it is me adding my personal interpretation. I don't see that anywhere in the article.
- The article has no Significant Coverage in the references. Wikipedia defines SC as: "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Every fact is referenced and Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from one source or 10 facts come from ten sources. Mathematically they are identical. Wikipedia discourages single source articles and we have a tag for that:
| This article relies largely or entirely on a
single source. |
- The article uses only Primary Sources. No primary sources are used at all. A primary document would be a transcript of the meeting, or a copy of a signed agreement, or a photograph of two leaders shaking hands. All the sources are news agencies and one is a fact taken from the embassy website.
- This isn't an important relationship. There are no embassies, there was a loan of only a small amount of money. The leaders only met once. The meeting only lasted 3 days. Wikipedia isn't only about superlatives. That is the the Guinness book of World Records. That will show you the richest country, the biggest, the first, the last, the most populous. Wikipedia only cares if it is notable. Notability is when the media takes notice and writes about something. Every fact is sourced in the article to reliable media.
- In summary the article meets every Wikipedia requirement, and since there have been additions to the article since the nomination, the consensus has shifted to keep from delete. 7 more footnotes were added from three new sources, and the article was put in chronological order. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
-
consensus can change and the last closing admin has now been banned from closing bilateral AfDs due to poor judgements in closing.
LibStar (
talk)
13:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Quoting Mr. Norton and since there have been additions to the article since the nomination, the consensus has shifted to keep from delete. That's not what happened. A bunch of puff unrelated to the subject and generally from poor sources was restored to the article. So what? That the arse canvassing tag brought in a couple of keep for the sake of the kittens votes is risible, but not particularly surprising or reflective of the content of the article.
Bali ultimate (
talk)
13:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Puff" and "poor sources" are subjective. What source is unreliable to you? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- There's still a not single independent secondary source in the article that address the topic of these countries' relations directly and in detail. Sure, all the individual facts in the article are cited to reliable (though not necessarily independent) sources, but the article is just an assemblage of these factoids. WP:N requires the existence of sources that address the topic itself, and there aren't any. Yilloslime T C 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Puff" and "poor sources" are subjective. What source is unreliable to you? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again, Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from one source or 10 facts come from 10 sources. Mathematically they are identical, Wikipedia discourages single source articles. Can you quote the rule that says that the information needs to come from a single in-depth source? I have never seen the rule. Are you suggesting that the word "relations" needs to appear in the source material to be considered a source on the topic itself? It would be great if all the information came from one source, it would make writing it much easier. Wikipedia makes no such requirement. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
00:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You've missed the point. Yilloslime T C 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Quoting Mr. Norton and since there have been additions to the article since the nomination, the consensus has shifted to keep from delete. That's not what happened. A bunch of puff unrelated to the subject and generally from poor sources was restored to the article. So what? That the arse canvassing tag brought in a couple of keep for the sake of the kittens votes is risible, but not particularly surprising or reflective of the content of the article.
Bali ultimate (
talk)
13:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Mr Norton, additional non trivial sources (not barrel scraping) would further your case for notability. please provide 7 more new non trivial sources of actual bilateral relations, and I'll happily change my vote.
LibStar (
talk)
00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Barrel scraping" is again a subjective term and is derogatory to the BBC and the English versions of the Croation and Mongolian and Chinese news services. Please quote the Wikipedia rule that discusses barrel scraping. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You again are putting forth the argument that the cited work must use the term "bilateral relation" in the text or title to be used in the article or to be considered "in depth". Wikipedia has no such requirement. Any synonym for the relationship can be used by the cited article: war, state-visit, commerce, loans, agreements, exchanges. All the things that are listed on the United States Department of State website for US relations with other countries. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You've missed the point.
LibStar (
talk)
00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's amazing how much effort you spend arguing semantics and not actually looking for actual sources that would strengthen your case. is it that there does not exist significant in depth coverage of these bilateral relations? LibStar ( talk) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You've missed the point.
LibStar (
talk)
00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- One more time, Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from 1 source, or 10 facts come from 10 sources, mathematically they are identical. If you know of some rule that says otherwise please quote it here for me. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment an editor here has introduced a novel interpretation of the notability criteria: 10 non-trivial sources. I think this was invented because there already were non trivial sources, and the usual (and appropriate if true) argument that there were none had been exploded. I think the ed. means this absurd condition quite literally: after three more were added, he asked for another 7. Then he asked that they contain the exact wording of the title. And all this was after major parts of the content were removed before the AfD. Apparently he really does believe that no article on bilateral relations except between major countries can possibly be notable, and that no possible evidence can prove otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course the real standard is more than one non-trivial source. Fortunately, there are zero non-trivial sources on the topic of Croatian/Mongolian relations, so the article will be deleted in due time. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you quote directly from the Wikipedia rule on "trivial sources" right here please? I have quoted directly all the refutations, please do me the same favor. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, WP:Notability mentions "trivial" twice plus once in a footnote. The term "non-trivial source" has been used in 979 AfDs, the term "trivial mention" has been used in 2,616 AfDs, and the term "significant coverage" has been used in 11,959 AfDs. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Telling me a word is used is in a guideline is not defining it for me. It is just telling me the word appears. You can't define a word by just typing the word. Tell me the rule that distinguishes trivia from something substantive, tell me the number of words a reference must have to go from trivial to substantive, what is the magic number? If there is a magic number then it will no longer be subjective, we can distinguish trivia. To me all sports statistics are trivia, and to others it is their raison d'être. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The "rule" is rather dispersed but has consensus, subject of course to different interpretations of what "significant" means. I can say little else.
Abductive (
reasoning)
04:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't a rule if you can't quote it, it is just a vague concept you and a few others have. Until a firm number is put forth, I will stand by the concept: 10 facts from 1 source, or 10 facts from 10 sources, mathematically they are identical in their depth. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
05:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- First off, this is not a concept held by a few; in fact, your position is in the minority. An exact quote from WP:N is third parties "... have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it...". Most of the participants in this AfD are of the opinion that there are no non-trivial sources that focus on the topic. Put another way, if a topic has no sources at all it fails WP:V, but if sources exist it can still fail WP:N. All non-SNOW AfDs revolve around the interpretation of the strength of the sources. If it was clear-cut, then there would never be any AfDs. Abductive ( reasoning) 05:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't a rule if you can't quote it, it is just a vague concept you and a few others have. Until a firm number is put forth, I will stand by the concept: 10 facts from 1 source, or 10 facts from 10 sources, mathematically they are identical in their depth. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
05:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The "rule" is rather dispersed but has consensus, subject of course to different interpretations of what "significant" means. I can say little else.
Abductive (
reasoning)
04:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you quote directly from the Wikipedia rule on "trivial sources" right here please? I have quoted directly all the refutations, please do me the same favor. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article establish notability. Alansohn ( talk) 12:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep quality articles, sources present easilly sufficient to establish notability. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment While this bilateral relations AfD has been jumped on by the "usual suspects" (myself, Mansford, Libstar, DGG, Bali ultimate, Abductive, MQS, Bearian, Dream Focus, RAN 1958, Alansohn, & FeydHuxtable), it's interesting to note that the "new faces" here (Joy, DustFormsWords, Quantpole, Joal Beal and to a lesser extent Nick-D, & Mkativerata) have all argued for deletion. I think that says something. Yilloslime T C 18:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple independent sources which demonstrate a seemingly improbable international relationship.--
TM
00:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- They demonstrate something exists (even if just barely), but my primary argument for deletion wasn't verifiability, it's notability. (The deletion policy says that failure to meet the notability guideline can be a valid reason for deletion.) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- State Visits and loans are what make up bilateral relationships. Clearly, the two states have a relationship and multiple independent sources demonstrate this relationship. To me, this relationship is clearly both notable and verifiable.--
TM
11:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have secondary sources that claim that "State Visits and loans are what make up bilateral relationships"? Abductive ( reasoning) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? Do you not understand what
Bilateralism is? Are you disputing that State Visits by high ranking officials and intergovernmental loans are not part of the basis for bilateral relations?--
TM
19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- What I see is a claim with no sources. You say loans and state visits. Do secondary sources say that those two things are the totality of "bilateral relations"? Can you proffer any sources? Abductive ( reasoning) 19:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- State Visits and loans are what make up bilateral relationships. Clearly, the two states have a relationship and multiple independent sources demonstrate this relationship. To me, this relationship is clearly both notable and verifiable.--
TM
11:30, 11 May 2010 (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. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Minmae ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a musical group. Prod removed by IP. tedder ( talk) 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- tedder ( talk) 06:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder ( talk) 06:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for now - There are two decent sources, but one is really about Brooks and not the band. Otherwise everything else I found was record release notices and event listings. Try again when a few more reliable sources exist. Aboutmovies ( talk) 08:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Delete — Per nom.
moɳo
00:34, 11 May 2010 (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. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- M. Qaiser Fatmi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of an academic with no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Google scholar finds published papers [20] but not at a level of citation that would demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF #1. Additionally, the article has no reliable sources, which are needed especially for biographies of living persons. David Eppstein ( talk) 04:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Scopus shows 8 published papers, but the citations are 11, 9 , 6, 2, Not yet notable. This was listed as a BLP prod, but his basic accomplishments were easily verifiable--it's just that they aren't enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Delete — Not enough to survive AfD; enough to survive BLP prod.
moɳo
00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Per DGG.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:54, 11 May 2010 (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. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Cyrus Vanderburg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. "Best known for his friendship with Albert Einstein." Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 04:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Darkwind ( talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, I can find no trace of the books: Burnstein, M (1967). "Cyrus Vanderburg: A True Czech Hero" Random House or Vanderburg, C, Vanderburg, E. (1976). "The Way I See It: Letters from Cyrus" New Zion Press. I suspect a hoax. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Delete — Possible hoax; lacking
n.
moɳo
00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I am assume this is not a hoax. Even with that assumption, this person is just not notable. Einstein had lots of "friends" and there were lots of Holocaust survivors, thankfully, who started life anew in Isreal. It is a heartening tale, but hardly notable. Bearian ( talk) 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is true that we always should assume good faith when responding to the opinions voiced by others in the nomination process, including the nomination itself, and we should always be careful before labeling a person as being a purveyor of lies. However, WP:AGF does not require us to assume good faith when it comes to any statement offered as fact, and there is nothing uncivil about expressing suspicion of dubious contributions to an encyclopedia, so it's OK if you want to say that you're skeptical. The negative return from the Google search, combined with the fact that this is a contribution from what is called an "SPA" (single purpose account), is enough for me. Mandsford ( talk) 13:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. I find it staggeringly hard to believe that a real published book would have no Google hits, much less two different ublished books on the same topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not a bad attempt at a hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. I loved the titles for the made-up sources-- A True Czech Hero and The Way I See It. Mandsford ( talk) 12:51, 11 May 2010 (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. Tim Song ( talk) 02:43, 19 May 2010 (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}}. |
- Vinismo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Very thinly-sourced, one local media reference. I'm not sure this is terribly notable but would be glad to be proven wrong. — e. ripley\ talk 02:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- Darkwind ( talk) 05:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Vinismo is becoming a recognized and reliable site for information about wines, a topic near and dear to many Wikipedians' hearts. There are not very many non-commercial sites to which one can refer on this topic. In fact at least 4 current Wikipedia pages link to Vinismo.com as sources for their content. Please see Sauvignon blanc, Mendoza Province, Yarra Valley and Marlborough Region. I had hoped that it would be possible to improve many other wine-related pages by having a {vinismo]] page here in Wikipedia. Gaiamei ( talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)q
- Vinismo is notable for being a Open Content wine guide. Beyond the merits of its content and its usefulness as a source for Wikipedia, it has value as a proof-of-concept for authoritative, collaborative, copyleft content. Maj ( talk) 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Prior to this vote, last edit was in 2007. — e. ripley\ talk 17:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly support having a page about Vinismo here on Wikipedia. It is a very good site and I use it frequently. I like to know more about it. Please do not delete it. Thank you. Albert Albertmost (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note, Albertmost ( talk · contribs)'s first edit. Meatpuppets are discouraged here. — e. ripley\ talk 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Vinismo is an OPEN and non-commercial wine resource. World famous? No, not yet. --ron k jeffries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.225.71 ( talk) 19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Besides being the only open-content wine guide out there, Vinismo is notable specifically because it's the right place for many wiki articles about wine that don't belong on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide I disagree with deleting this article. Zach ( talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- At the risk of sounding rude (I don't mean to so I hope you will forgive me), did you end up here because of some sort of canvassing, Zcopley? I ask because prior to this, your last edit was in January. —
e. ripley\
talk
19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- E. Ripley: Does hearing that the page is up for deletion directly from a friend count as being canvased? Not sure why that's relevant. I was a bit baffled as to why the Vinismo page is up for deletion and wanted to voice my opinion that it should not be. I'm a light contributor to both Wikipedia and Vinismo (as well as other wikis) and it's an article I care about.
Zach (
talk)
20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- It does, in fact; take a look at WP:Canvassing. In this case it's inappropriate because someone is clearly recruiting people to come to this page to influence the vote tally toward the "keep" side. These AFD debates are supposed to be composed mostly of neutral parties evaluating an article on its merits. That being said, it's mostly just important to note for the closing admin. — e. ripley\ talk 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- E. Ripley: Does hearing that the page is up for deletion directly from a friend count as being canvased? Not sure why that's relevant. I was a bit baffled as to why the Vinismo page is up for deletion and wanted to voice my opinion that it should not be. I'm a light contributor to both Wikipedia and Vinismo (as well as other wikis) and it's an article I care about.
Zach (
talk)
20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- At the risk of sounding rude (I don't mean to so I hope you will forgive me), did you end up here because of some sort of canvassing, Zcopley? I ask because prior to this, your last edit was in January. —
e. ripley\
talk
19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Vinismo is notable project and I'm adding a couple more references to support this claim. Its important free culture resource, just like some other wikis out there that also provide a wealth of knowledge. Jon Phillips ( talk) 20:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
-
undefined — No one has voted on this yet...
moɳo
00:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. References meet our guidelines. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 04:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Montreal Gazette source, predating nomination. - BalthCat ( talk) 06:09, 11 May 2010 (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. According less weight to the argument of WP:SPAs and taking into consideration the effective rebuttals by Nuujinn, I find a consensus to delete. Tim Song ( talk) 22:24, 11 May 2010 (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}}. |
- EFront (eLearning software) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion for non-notable software product, article by company employee. No independent references are given, and no significant coverage can be found. In its previous AfD, [23] and [24] were pointed out, but none of these are significant. Haakon ( talk) 20:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious advertising: ....designed to help create online courses with opportunities for rich interaction. eFront comes with a distinctive icon-based user interface that is intuitive to use. The platform offers a wide range of features from content creation, test builder, project management, extended statistics, internal messaging system, forum, chat, surveys and more. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, Hello and thanks for letting me share my option before you proceed to any deletion.
First of all I do not intent to hide the fact that I support this project and I can certainly accept any criticism and feedback regarding the neutrality and quality of the topic. However, this is a well known project and I post here a few evidence for its importance.
1. First of all eFront is a SCORM 1.2 certified and one of the first SCORM 2004/4th edition compliant products You can find such evidence on ADL's website http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/Custom%20Pages/SCORM%20Adopters.aspx or at http://webapps.adlnet.gov/SCORMAdopters/Adopter.aspx?i=539
2. Jfusion (a known Joomla plugin) and Amember (well known payment solution) have dedicated forums to support their eFront integrations:
http://www.jfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewforum.php?f=53
http://amember.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8632
3. The product is one of the highest ranked systems on opensourcecms
http://php.opensourcecms.com/scripts/details.php?scriptid=222&name=eFront
4. The product is part of Brandon's Hall LMS review and Capterra's LMS directory
http://www.brandon-hall.com/publications/lmskb/lmskb_firms.shtml
5. The system can be found on several open-source software directories. I include a few of them below
http://osliving.com/content-management/e-learning/efront/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/efrontlearning/
http://www.ohloh.net/projects/11528
6. Techworld had an indepth review for several eLearning tools including eFront
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/223565/10_open_source_e-learning_projects_watch
7. Alexa report the project's portal as the 84,124 most visited site on the internet today
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/efrontlearning.net#
8. There are several blog posts concerning the pro's and con's of the project.
http://daveperso.mediaenglishonline.com/2009/12/23/getting-your-own-lms-part-2-efront/
http://frumpyhausfrau.com/business/efront-lands-in-the-hot-seat/
http://techno-realism.blogspot.com/2008/11/open-source-learning-management-systems.html
http://kavitaragoobar.blogspot.com/2010/03/efront-learning.html
http://www.zimbio.com/Ecommerce+software+Solution/articles/15/Open+Source+LMS+Beyond+Moodle
9. The project is watched by several security lists which informs about security issues
http://securityreason.com/exploitalert/7985
10. Known hosting providers offer dedicated support for hosting eFront on their infrastructure
http://www.siteground.com/efront-hosting.htm
http://www.facebook.com/notes/siteground/xmb-efront-and-glfusion-at-sitegroundcom/73372089834
11. Last but not least, the project itself has an active discussion forum that can be found at: http://forum.efrontlearning.net and a simple google search can reveal thousand of web-sites that are powered from the software (just try a google search with allinurl: "index.php?ctg=contact") Papagel ( talk) — Papagel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Ok, but none of those are keep reasons; what's needed are cases of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Haakon ( talk) 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but significant coverage is a bit controversial under various aspects. The fact that thousand public web-sites have installed and use this software is or not a "significant-coverage"?. I spend some more time today on the web for other sources of information for eFront and I post here a few more findings that may help make a more informative decision:
- Brandon-Hall eLearning Trends Research include eFront on the list of the well known open-source learning management system:
http://discovery-thru-elearning.blogspot.com/2009/07/learning-management-systems-trends-and.html
- Genbeta, a very well known tech news portal in Spain posted a detailed article regarding eFront on March 2010
http://www.genbeta.com/herramientas/efront-intuitiva-plataforma-de-e-learning
- Another article about eFront in Spanish
http://www.aplicacionesempresariales.com/efront-mas-rapido-y-productivo.html
- eFront was part of the research work on evaluating learning management systems with test-tools
Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. (2008). Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 5261-5266). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
- A few more blog mentions of eFront
http://barrysampson.com/2009/04/open-source-lms-10-alternatives-to-moodle/
http://dilancreativo.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/efront-plataforma-de-aprendizaje-online/
http://loquenecesita.com/2010/03/efront-plataforma-de-aprendizaje/
- The CENTRE FOR LEARNING & PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGIES includes eFront in its resource directory:
http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/Directory/Tools/instructional.html
- Edutools (an lms comparison web-portal) includes eFront on its short list of LMSs
http://www.edutools.info/item_list.jsp?pj=4
- Another LMS comparison article in French that includes eFront
http://www.lms-selection.com/fr2/?p=74
- Eduwiki refers to eFront as "probably the most user friendly LMS"
http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/LMS
- Delicious has assembled 371 different bookmarks for eFront's website
http://delicious.com/url/4cca5fc536ee79166c46b65d15210808
- You can find several eFront references on search engines by using as keywords something like "eFront LMS". Otherwise, and due to the fact that there were other services on the past that used the same name the results can be fuzzy.
- Keep, I am active in the educational technology space as well as being a former developer for the Moodle LMS project. I find that this article is useful. I do agree that some of the verbiage of the article is written in a marketing/spammy tone and should be corrected as well as including the more notable references provided above where applicable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Skippybosco (
talk •
contribs) —
Skippybosco (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Ok, but you finding it "useful" is not a keep reason; what's needed are cases of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Haakon ( talk) 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. It seems there are numerous links above from the previous poster which I would assume would be sufficient? A more recent one, while they have not yet posted the public link to the announcement, Brandon Hall ( http://www.brandon-hall.com) just awarded eFront the bronze award for "Best Advance in Learning Management Technology for Small and Medium-Sized Businesses". It is a fairly big deal for the e-learning community, which I assumed would be the populous interested in this article, does that qualify it as "significant" or "reliable" for these purposes?
Delete, no hits on efrontlearning or efrontlearning.net in google news, nothing on "efront lms" after the mid 1980s. However, if this efront is related to the efront mentioned in [ this], it may be notable on that basis. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 00:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Skippybosco ( talk)
- While used internationally, eFront is developed by a Greek company (Epignosis). As such, you will find a result for eFront in Google News dated April 27, 2010 here ( http://www.google.com/news/search?cf=all&ned=el_gr&hl=el&q=efront+lms). This specific news article is in reference to the earlier posters #1 link regarding being one of the first LMS in the industry to achieve SCORM 2004/4th edition compliance.
- If absence from google news could work as a reject reason for accepting a software article then more than half of them should be deleted (since it covers mainly big media). Also, there are a series of wikipedia articles for similar open-source elearning packages with similar coverage (e.g, like Atutor or Dokeos).
- I would suggest a Google Scholar for several research work that mention or have as main topic the system or a direct google search using as keywords something like "eFront LMS" or "efrontlearning". Otherwise, and due to the fact that there were other services on the past that used the same name the results can be fuzzy.I include two such search links below:
- Google search for "efront learning management system" google search
- Google scholar search for "efront learning management system" Google Scholar Search.
- Just one more bit of information regarding notability. Brandon-hall research just released the winners for "2009 Excellence in Learning Technology Awards". eFront won a bronze metal on the category for best advance for small-medium enterprises
http://www.brandon-hall.com/awards/award_winners/lta2009_winners.shtml
- Comment I'm not sure how being compliant to a standard is supposed to confer notability. A general google search reveals expected advertising and discussion, most from various vendor sites and fora. I took a quite look at google scholar, what I found were papers about elearing that mention efront in passing as the software used. As for the award, I'll just say Brandon-Hall seems to hand out a lot of medals. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF in regard to other possible non-notable software packages. I'm not convinced that this is notable. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 14:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Compliance to a standard (especially an early adopter on a widely used standard) guarantees at least some dedication from the developers on the related field (in this case eLearning). The main question here is the following: among a series of articles about open-source elearning systems does this one satisfies the criteria for a valid contribution or not?
- Comment Dedication does not establish notability, and what other articles exist isn't really relevant. What is relevant here is significant coverage by reliable sources. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 12:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There are several published research papers that either have as main topic eFront or refer to it. I assembled a list from scholar.google.com:
Zaharias, P (2007). Heuristic evaluation in e-learning context: Selecting the appropriate tasks and reporting usability problems. International Conference on eLearning (ICEL) 2007 (main topic)
Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. (2008). Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 5261-5266). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. (major topic)
Ozarslan, Y., Ozan, O. (2010). eFront Öğrenme Yönetim Sistemi, Akademik Bilisin 2010 (In turkish) (main topic)
Fontanin, M. (2008). Developing an English course for in-service librarians, Library Management (reference)
Martens, B. & Acthen, H (2008). Do you moodle? 26th eCAADe Conference (reference)
Matsunaga, N & Kwan, A. (2008). 6th AECEF Symposium in Vilnius (reference)
Williams, G., A Multi-factor Authentication Model for E-learners and Virtual Learning Systems.Federated Approach.Proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-learning overcome barriers of Life-Long learning? Maastricht University (reference)
e-Learning Delivery of the Course “Advanced Multimedia Systems Design” SK Toh - 2008 - sst.unisim.edu.sg http://sst.unisim.edu.sg:8080/dspace/handle/123456789/116 (reference)
Malik, N (2008). Discovering Dependencies in Courseware Repositories, M.Tech.Dissertation, Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (reference)
- Finally, eFront appears as one of the suggested LMS's from the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS) on a related report:
Functional Specification for NMLS Approved Instructor-Led Online Courses
http://publish.nationwidelicensingsystem.org/courseprovider/Course%20Provider%20Resources/Online%20Functional%20Spec.pdf Papagel ( talk)
- Comment. Please. I couldn't get to all of those, but none that I could access do anything to establish notability:
- Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z is a presentation about tools used to test various elearning software packages, the abstract is here.
- Ozarslan, Y., Ozan, O. is basically a product review based largely on efront's web pages. [25]
- SK Toh's research paper is an ENG499 CAPSTONE ELECTRONICS PROJECT, that mentions efront once, in a list of vendors: "Open-source Virtual Learning Environments (VLE): ATutor, Claroline, Dokeos, eFront, The eLearning XHTML editor (eXe), KEWL GLO Maker, Moodle, OLA T, Sakai Project, Virtual Training Studio, WebPA, Xerte" [26]
- Fontanin, M., is an analysis of blending learning, and used moodle as the test LNS. The article mentions efront once, in a list: "Moodle is not the only LMS available nowadays; many others could have been used, both open source (such as ETutor, Claroline, eFront and so on) and commercially developed (such as Blackboard, eCollege, Learn.com etc.)"
- Williams, G. is about secure VLEs, and mentions efront once, in a list: "Common VLE tools for developing and driving VLEs include but not limited to blackboard, firstclass, EFRONT, WEBCT (Part of blackboard, Dokeos, Cyber Extension." [27]
- Matsunaga, N & Kwan, A is also about blended learning in general, and mentions efront once, in a list: "A simple search on the internet for “Moodle” [7], “ILIAS” [8], “eFront” [9], “Sakai” [10], or “Dokeos” [11] will reveal much information and sources of free VLEs." [28]
- Malik is a master's thesis on searching, and the article mentions efront once, in a list: "There are other open source LMSs also available such as Moodle, SCORM, eFront etc. Every type of LMS supports the following features"/ [29]
- The NMLS report (you guessed it) mentions efront once, in a list, as an item in List of Learning Management Systems, found in Appendix A.
- None of these, I think, meet the bar of significant coverage in a reliable source. Passing reference does not establish notability. If you searched the web for my name IRL you find many hits, but I'm notable. Still not convinced, sorry. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 12:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment:Controversy makes the world go round :) You can check next to the references I added what discovered papers seem to have eFront as a main topic and which have a reference to eFront. This obviously is not an exhausted list but pieces of information that together (and combined with other sources) tell a story.
- Especially the first three papers are peer-reviewed papers that cover eFront in some considerable extend. I don't understand the point made for the paper (Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools) about being a "presentation"- this is a peer-reviewed article on EDMEDIA 2008 (World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications).
- Also, regarding the paper from Ozarslan, Y. and Ozan, O they specifically mention on the abstract "In this study, the open source learning management system eFront is evaluated based on literature review and authors experiences during 2008-2009 academic year".
- About the NMLS report your remark is a bit unfair. The report has an extensive list of characteristics that are expected from an LMS that is compliant with their needs. At the beginning of Apendix A they state "The following is a list of Learning Management Systems (LMS) that a course provider may want to consider in order to meet many of the conditions associated with offering instructor-led pre-licensure courses". It seems they have done some due diligence before suggesting. On top of this, for each LMS they also provide a short description of their findings instead of just a reference.
- Finally, the first paper dealing with "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context" uses eFront as the main evaluation medium. I could find only a part of the paper online from the conference proceedings at: http://books.google.gr/books?id=QX_e-RlW89UC&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=%22Heuristic+evaluation+in+e-learning+context%22&source=bl&ots=GYnNO2dLg2&sig=OalgBTleLwFBd3ydwHpfyvttOz8&hl=el&ei=UJfiS73OJoOlOKPq5NsN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Heuristic%20evaluation%20in%20e-learning%20context%22&f=false (pages 527-534)
- Regarding the "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context" provide a good translation of the introduction/abstract and relevant section from the above, showing that efront's software is the topic of the paper, not just a vehicle used for the study of something else. Likewise, if you can provide access to Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. I'll be happy to take a look, but I can't get to it. Ozarslan, Y. and Ozan, O is really not a scholarly work, they have 4 references, two of which go to efront. It's just a review of features. As for NMLS I stand by my reading of it.
- You need to provide significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources you're referencing are pretty reliable, but in my opinion the coverage is not significant--these articles with the exception of Ozarslan, Y. and Ozan, O aren't about efront's LMS, they are about other subjects and mention efront's LMS. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment A software system can rarely be the only context of a scientific paper; it is usually combined with some sort of evaluation under several dimensions.
Since I could not find the "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context" article I asked the author to send me the part of the paper that directly relates with eFront. Here is the link to the related part (3 pages): http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B8vrY4OEQsbRYjE1NGJkZmQtNzkyMy00ZjAzLWFkMjMtZmRhNjVlMWEyOGM0&hl=en
I'll try to get a full copy of Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z paper as well.
Regarding the paper from Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O it was presented in a Turkish Conference - I don't know how the number of references can be a valid criterion for the paper quality. For your reference here is the main page of this conference: http://ab2010.mugla.edu.tr/
Finally, there is an MSC thesis on University of Crete called "Towards standards based e-Learning tools and technologies" that deals with the eLearning standards in general but also with the implementation of SCORM 2004/4th edition inside eFront. I got the permission from the author to add a link here to this document: http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B8vrY4OEQsbRN2JjMTM4Y2UtODk5YS00NjdiLTg3ZjYtN2ZhNzI1MGZjZDFl&hl=en Papagel ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC).
- Re: "A software system can rarely be the only context of a scientific paper; it is usually combined with some sort of evaluation under several dimensions." Yes, and there's a reason for that--software projects are generally not of interest in scientific papers. One one of the articles we have discussed, Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O, is about efront's software. The rest mention it in lists, or use it as a tool for some other purpose, but are not about it--and for that reason, they do not, in my opinion, help establish WP:notability of the software or the company behind it. Usually, notability for software projects is established by reviews from reputable sources. You have found lots of web sites, portal, blogs, bit and pieces, but I see no such reviews.
- Re: "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context", where's the rest of the article? It looks at first glance that this article is like the others, and not really about efront's software. Same for the master's thesis, it appears to be about scorm, not efront's LMS (although I readily admit that I didn't read the thesis, just the abstract, tables of contents and glanced around a bit).
- So we're back to Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O as apparently the best source. Yes, for a scholarly work, references are important, both the ones used in the paper and number of times the paper itself is referenced in other scholarly works. As a scholarly work, this seems to be very weak. As a software review, it is also weak, since the authors are not professional software reviewers, and this work doesn't appear in a reputable source oriented to software packages. So I'm still not convinced. You have my sympathy, but not my support. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has concentrated on scientific literature due to the exact fact that it is a reliable source of notability. As discussed on notability section on wikipedia "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". There are (at least) 3 scientific papers and 1 master thesis that have extended sections that discuss eFront under different angles (features, usability, standards). And there are several more scientific papers that refer to it.
Apart from this, there are a lot of other pieces of information reported throughout this discussion including reviews on tech sites like techworld and genbeta.
On a personal note and no matter what this was an interesting discussion. Papagel ( talk)
- Yes, indeed. As you say, there are lots of pieces. You left out the first line "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail," and as I've said, I believe you have one article, Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O, that meets that criteria. Personally, I don't regard it as a good source, neither fish nor fowl, but it is a source. General notability guidelines also state "Multiple sources are generally expected" with a note to the effect that a paucity of sources suggests a better use of the information would be in an article on a general topic, eg. inclusion in Learning Management Systems. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 13:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Summary
Since this has gotten long, here's a summary of the votes so far:
- Keep Skippybosco ( talk) • Skippybosco ( talk) contribs) has made few or no other edits
Please let me know if I missed anyone, -- Nuujinn ( talk) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
As suggested on the top of this topic consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
I would like to comment a bit on the last bit of criticism. Wikipedia needs resources that deals with the proposed system directly and in detail. I do believe that all 3 papers and the master thesis are valid eFront sources since they cover the system in depth under different angles (functionality, usability and standards). For example, the paper from Zaharias is about usability in eLearning context. It does *not* use eFront as a medium to report on something else. eFront is an essential part of its report and the system which is both examined and benefited from the findings. The same stands for the paper from Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. (Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools). Since the scope of the paper is indeed to evaluate learning management systems this cannot be considered a distant but rather a direct reference to the included systems. Finally, the master thesis does not passively use eFront but it directly analyzes its architecture and extend it to include SCORM 2004 support. Papagel ( talk)
- If by "the thesis" you mean Towards Standards Based eLearning, it's 108 pages and mentions efront 5 times, once in a footnote reference to your project's web page. I do not believe that is significant coverage.
- In the Zacharias paper, from what I can tell from the limited view I get from google, efront appears three times, and I think once is an acknowlegement. From what I have read of it, the paper does not appear to be about efront, and the coverage is not, in my opinion, significant.
- Regarding Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools, you said "I'll try to get a full copy of Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z paper as well". Did you get a copy of the paper, or are you basing your interpretation on the abstract (which makes it appear that the paper is not about efront, but rather about evaluating elearning software, and happens to use efront among others as test cases)?
- I'm sorry to have to say this, and I'm assuming that you are acting good faith, but you might ask yourself whether your conflict of interest about this topic might perhaps skew your judgment as to the quality of these sources somewhat. I'm just not seeing significant coverage. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 23:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to be as unbiased as possible although certainly this can be difficult. However, perhaps you should question yourself as well regarding being stuck in your initial position. There is a known "anchor" in people decisions that is well explained in a recent book (Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely).
I will just comment on the MSC thesis since you say "it appears in the thesis only 5 times" - and this counting argument stands as well for the rest of the criticism. You forgot to mention the fact that all the MSC is about extending the system providing as a result a SCORM 2004 compliant eFront. Here is a part of the thesis abstract without any more comments. "This thesis aims to provide a reference implementation of the latest version of the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM 2004 4th Edition) grounded in a fully functional pre-existent learning management system. For the purpose of this thesis we selected the learning management system eFront which is used in the course “CS-100 Introduction to Computer Science” offered by the Computer Science Department of the University of Crete. Our goal is to accomplish a fully compliant implementation, according to the requirements defined in the SCORM 2004 4th Edition Testing Requirements (TR) Version 1.1" Papagel ( talk)
- I think that quote supports my point quite well, it seems to me that the thesis is about implementing scorm, and efront is just the vehicle. It certainly does not seem as if there's anything notable about efront that led to their choosing it.
- Did you get a copy of Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools?
- Perhaps I am stuck, certainly I am very stringent in regard to articles about software. I'll think about it. But I'm pretty comfortable about my judgments regarding these sources. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 10:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is a difference in points of view after all and it is certainly pointless to try to enforce ones opinion over the other - at least at this stage. I have asked the authors for a full copy for the "Evaluation of Learning Managements Systems with Test Tools" but I have not heard from them yet. Assuming they will answer timely I will add the full paper to this discussion as well. Papagel ( talk)
- 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. Obviously, the canvassed votes were disregarded. However, those delete votes made (at least partly) in response to the canvassing were not helpful either; at best they included string of TLAs. The actual debate, therefore, ended up taking place between just a few people on each side. The key issue here is whether the sources are sufficient to show notability. It is obvious that each of the four sources offers covers the subject nontrivially; the question now is whether the sources themselves are significant enough. The consensus is that the UCSD Guardian articles alone do not show notability. WP:GNG makes no mention of whether sources need to be local, but WP:CORP does state that coverage cannot be solely local. In the end, it comes down to the other two non-local sources, and an agreement does not appear to have been reached on their status. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Muir Skate Longboard Shop ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most of the coverage I'm finding for this company is either local and/or not independent of the subject. Contested prod. See my proposal at the end of this discussion.
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:09, 4 May 2010 (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}}. |
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
To the administrator reading this. The opinions of the "Keep" voters are organized at the bottom of the page because in this long debate, everyone's points were in fragments.
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill ( talk) 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This shop was on the UCSD campus for years and because of that, it is notable.
PÆonU (
talk)
03:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Read
WP:CORP.
Joe Chill (
talk)
20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- They were featured in an international magazine, Concrete Wave Magazine volume 6 issue 4, on page 31. At the time they were known as "Muir Surf and Skate".
- Read
WP:CORP.
Joe Chill (
talk)
20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
[35] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's one source, not multiple.
Joe Chill (
talk)
22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- One international source and multiple local sources. It's notable as hell, and in addition, it's part of UCSD. Even though it's off-campus now, it was the one of the first board stores on a college campus. That is BIG. You have literally no idea how notable Muir Skate is. It's the biggest online longboarding store and has a huge presence on the campus.
PÆonU (
talk)
22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- You literally have no idea how most editors consider local news as not showing notability.
Joe Chill (
talk)
22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here's my question. Why are there so many skate articles like this with just as many, and even less sources? And another question, since the store was on the UCSD campus for many years, wouldn't it be protected like the other UCSD articles?
PÆonU (
talk)
22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Read
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If businesses on a campus are non-notable (none are protected unless they are notable), they could be merged to the college. I'm not sure if this could be merged since it's not on the campus anymore. I'm not tracking to attack your article or anything.
Joe Chill (
talk)
22:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I found some more sources.
- Read
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If businesses on a campus are non-notable (none are protected unless they are notable), they could be merged to the college. I'm not sure if this could be merged since it's not on the campus anymore. I'm not tracking to attack your article or anything.
Joe Chill (
talk)
22:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here's my question. Why are there so many skate articles like this with just as many, and even less sources? And another question, since the store was on the UCSD campus for many years, wouldn't it be protected like the other UCSD articles?
PÆonU (
talk)
22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- You literally have no idea how most editors consider local news as not showing notability.
Joe Chill (
talk)
22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- One international source and multiple local sources. It's notable as hell, and in addition, it's part of UCSD. Even though it's off-campus now, it was the one of the first board stores on a college campus. That is BIG. You have literally no idea how notable Muir Skate is. It's the biggest online longboarding store and has a huge presence on the campus.
PÆonU (
talk)
22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Oct 2005: [36]
Oct 2007: [37]
Nov 2009: [38] PÆonU ( talk) 23:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Joe Chill, when you say You literally have no idea how most editors consider local news as not showing notability., I'm curious. If you are looking for multiple coverage in something, because you believe in following the notability guideline, then why not consider local news sources as well? Is there somewhere in that suggested guideline that is against them? Dream Focus 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Google news search for their original name, Muir Surf & Sport, showed one result.
[39] It gets coverage there. So that's another source found.
Dream Focus
13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Dream Focus, I'm not going to get into a debate with an ultra inclusionist like you. It would be pointless.
Joe Chill (
talk)
20:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- I feel the same way about talking to guys like you, who can't defend your position with logical statements. Dream Focus 20:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Dream Focus, I'm not going to get into a debate with an ultra inclusionist like you. It would be pointless.
Joe Chill (
talk)
20:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Rescue. This store is notable and is still part of the UCSD campus. It has international notability and has been in The Guardian multiple times. Therefor, I think this article deserves a chance to be worked on. PÆonU ( talk) 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PÆonU ( talk) 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. This might be hard for some to believe but I'm new at this sort of thing. I've been relisting and closing AFDs for a few years but until now, almost all my nominations have been of the hoaxy variety. Slam dunk deletes and I have no problem doing my best to get bullshit deleted. I don't like telling good faith editors who create pages on subjects that they care about that their submissions are not "good enough" for Wikipedia. In this case, I found the article doing new page patrol and it seemed like a cut and dry case of a company with little or no notability outside of the local area.
- Such AFDs are quite common. A new editor creates an article about a local restaurant or something, it get's taken to AFD where everybody says "delete", quotes a bunch of WP:TLAs, parrots the common term "significant coverage in reliable sources", and insists that the coverage be "non local". Well, I went back and reviewed our notability guidelines and it does not mention anything about how geographically diverse the coverage has to be. A restaurant in a small town that's been a local institution for 50 years will likely have quite a bit of local press coverage which one might call "significant" so why not have an article on it? If we are to continue arguing in deletion debates that coverage needs to be widespread then that needs to be written into the guidelines. This is an issue I may bring up at the village pump.
- My main concern with having a lot of articles about small local companies like this is that they vulnerable to some of the same risks as articles about marginally notable
living people. Most will be on few watchlists. Let's say you have an article about a local restaurant and a dis-satisfied customer or a competitor adds in some unverified but credible sounding bull about them failing several health inspections or the premises being unsafe or in the case of a store, about the product being safe. This can actually harm the business in question. TL;DR "wall of text" over :) --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just local, it has been featured in an international magazine. Even if it was purely local, the rules say nothing about local sources not being good enough. Your interpretation only limits the use of Wikipedia. An important part of this website is the ability to change things yourself. If a dissatisfied customer vandalizes the page, it will be caught fast. There are plenty of people checking recent edits for vandalism, so I wouldn't worry about that. PÆonU ( talk) 03:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Merge to something, Im not familiar with the area but if there is a category/article that includes stuff relating to campus culture it would make sense to have it there. This might be construed as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but almost all major universities have a bunch of peripheral businesses that are only notable because they are within walking distance of campus and everyone who has attended has been there, e.g. Harvard Book Store Grolier Poetry Bookshop.-- Savonneux ( talk) 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Very strong delete nothing in gnews, the one hit that Dream Focus found makes a mockery of the significant coverage test as per WP:GNG. LibStar ( talk) 10:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- And you make a mockery of the system by attacking me(with a false accusation of something I clearly wasn't doing) in another AFD [40] and then six minutes later, your next edit of the day, is to post here insulting me directly. This isn't the type of article you normally participate in. How did you find it, if you weren't following me? You seem rather angry once again, had a fit, then followed me to another AFD I participated in, which you wouldn't have found or bothered with otherwise, and made a comment like that. Taken in context with your past behavior, this seems to be wikistalking. Dream Focus 21:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I laugh at your accusation of me having a fit or being so angry. None of which is true. I participate in a wide range of deletion discussions. and have partipated in an AfD on a very similar topic last month: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orchard_Skate_Shop. suggest you WP:CHILL with paranoid accusations, none of which refutes my claims for deletion here. have a good day. LibStar ( talk) 07:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - there are no significant claims to or references for notability (as per WP:CORP) in the article. The references included and the only mentions I could find through Google searches are nothing more than trivial mentions. The article appears to exist solely as a soapbox. -- Pump me up 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- What about the international sources and newspaper articles? This is getting ridiculous. I mean, come on. Is there even any point in debating this out anymore if nobody is going to listen? I think I should stop wasting my time debating this out and give up on the article if nobody will listen to logic. PÆonU ( talk) 01:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep(in spite of attempted canvassing by PÆonU) UCSD Guardian appears to be a reliable source, which when combined with the short, but not insignificant mention found by Dream Focus, appears to establish notability under WP:CORP. VernoWhitney ( talk) 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)- That is not independent of the subject. It is a student newspaper for UCSD. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Changing to Delete While I feel the the Guardian meets the requirement of being independent (as it is not a press vehicle for the store, or similar), while rereading WP:CORP I came across the line "attention solely from local media…is not an indication of notability", which means that for these purposes, while independent, the Guardian isn't an indication of notability, leaving only the short non-local mention; so barring any new developments I feel it fails the notability guidelines as written. VernoWhitney ( talk) 00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't know "canvassing" even existed. Muir Skate was featured in an international magazine. Don't forget, they are not just a company, they are much like the Harvard bookstore. I bet 99% of the country has no idea of either stores' existence, but they're both part of the school's culture and are protected. With your delete vote, you're basically stating that articles like the Harvard Bookstore aren't worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Why not nominate that article for deletion too? PÆonU ( talk) 05:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A few local and one international source is enough to meet WP:CORP 74.103.239.178 ( talk) 02:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC) — 74.103.239.178 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note The above comment by 74.103.239.178 was copied verbatim from a list of comments posted on a forum here with instructions to copy and paste them to this page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
- When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.
Referring to 1., multiple local newspaper articles (The Guardian is a HUGE magazine) and an international source meets the requirements. WP:GNG states that this article needs "reliable sources." Reliable sources are any reputable magazines or newspapers, not just national and international ones. Your interpretation only causes unnecessary deletion. Some idiot tried to use this interpretation of reliable sources to try (and fail) to delete the page on Black Angus Steakhouse, which is gigantic in California. Until you get the rules changed, you can either search for and delete the thousands of articles with only local notability or leave them like they should be. The rules encourage more good articles, not less good articles.
Referring to 2., Muir Skate, being the first board store on a campus, has turned UCSD into one of, if not the best, skate schools. Thanks to Muir Skate, a huge population of students use longboards to travel around campus. While they were on the campus, they offered skate classes to students, so even non-customers with no prior experience could start skating. Because of this, I believe Muir Skate has affected the school's culture and athletics. UCSD has over 22,000 students, whereas Harvard has about 1,000 less students. Another point brought up by Savonneux is that the Harvard Book Store and Grolier Poetry Bookshop have articles. Since UCSD is a larger school, it should have articles about it's campus businesses too. PÆonU ( talk) 12:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Just to clarify my recommendation was to merge, my opinion is that since that most of its notability is derived from the school it should be included in the school or a school related article. It's not prejudicial, most small or even most non public companies don't meet
WP:CORP unless they have done something remarkably unique (and even then most are only referenced in the aricles about the unique thing they have done.)--
Savonneux (
talk)
09:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Muir Skate was the first board store on a continental U.S. college campus. I can't say the same about the Harvard bookstore. PÆonU ( talk) 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Has affected UCSD culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.101.74 ( talk) 00:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC) — 72.220.101.74 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note The above comment by 72.220.101.74 was copied verbatim from a list of comments posted on a forum here with instructions to copy and paste them to this page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It has more sources than Harvard Book Store —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.245.247 ( talk) 01:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC) — 24.214.245.247 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note The above comment by 24.214.245.247 was copied verbatim from a list of comments posted on a forum here with instructions to copy and paste them to this page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete local notability only shown. Fails WP:N -- RP459 Talk/ Contributions 02:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here's an international magazine they were featured in. [41] PÆonU ( talk) 02:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete- I do not feel that the sources provided establish notability. They seem to be passing mentions or very local coverage. The relentless canvassing is distasteful as well. Reyk YO! 07:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, you're right. An interview with an international magazine is something any schmuck can get. Sadly, the Transworld Business link is not the full article, but it's definitely not a quick mentioning. Don't forget, when a new shoe store, skate store, or card store opens, it isn't announced by a national publication. Something has to be notable to even get a single sentence about them in a national or international publication. PÆonU ( talk) 12:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin there have been 3 not so random single purpose editors "voting" here not to mention potential canvassing. LibStar ( talk) 13:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, I've opened a report at ANI regarding the "potential" canvassing. VernoWhitney ( talk) 14:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Potential" is being extremely cautious. This is the most extreme and blatant example of canvassing and attempting to stir up personal attacks that I have ever seen. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I read the article in Concrete Wave, which has been referred to throughout this AfD discussion as an "international magazine" - at a guess, "international" is intended to mean "outside the US" as Concrete Wave is published in Canada, but that's just my guess - in any case it's not a local publication. The same applies to the Transworld Business site which mentioned the store in 2006. These two articles are, however, not enough to show that the company meets WP:CORP to my mind - they do not constitute significant coverage in multiple independent publications. All the misbehaviour and canvassing don't exactly help the article's case, but even if it hadn't happened I don't see how the article could be saved. (Yes, I have searched for additional sources.) -- bonadea contributions talk 16:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:CORP. The coverage I'm seeing is not very significant. "Concrete Wave"? Yeah, so? Notabilty just because it was on a campus? I'm sure there is a maintainence shed near the athletic fields too, but I doubt it's notable either.... Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Fails corp, no extensive coverage from reliable sources. The canvassing was just plain stupid. -- Terrillja talk 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Libstar. If the phases "significant coverage" and "non-trivial" mean anything at all, then surely this fails WP:N, or WP:CORP Yilloslime T C 01:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you explain how the coverage is trivial? It may not be significant but a Q&A with a skate magazine and one of the two UCSD Guardian write-ups is detailed. Cptnono ( talk) 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
disruptive editor's attempt to co-opt this discussion compressed
|
|---|
CompromiseThis is the classic deletionist vs. inclusionist vs. middle ground debate. Everything that can be said about the article has already been repeated by all sides and there's no point in continuing the debate. To the administrator who decides the fate of this article, if you're leaning towards the deletionists' side, at least merge it here. Muir Skate was the first campus board store in the continental U.S., has multiple local sources and an international source (not even the Harvard Book Store has that), and has had an effect on the culture of a campus with over 20,000 people. If that's not notable enough for an article, it at least deserves a merge. PÆonU ( talk) 02:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
SummaryDue to the lack of structure in this debate, I would like to put the "keep" voters' ideas, plus additional evidence in one summary. I'd prefer it if any attacks on it be done in a new section below the summary, because the goal of this is that with this summary, I am completely done with the debate and do not need to return to the page until a decision is made. Literally nobody here will change their mind, so more debating is useless. The text in quotes comes directly from WP:CORP.
Muir Skate has had a significant effect on the culture of UCSD, a college with at least 20,000 students. The store's skate lessons increased the number of skateboarders in the college, making skateboarding culture more popular than ever. The events it hosted on campus, one of which introduced the store to a writer for Concrete Wave, have not stopped since they left the campus. They are close enough to the campus to host UCSD skate events like the giant Gravity Slidefest, so they are still very much affecting UCSD culture. [42]
Muir Skate has been featured three times in the UCSD Guardian and the owner of the store was interviewed by international magazine Concrete Wave (volume 6 issue 4, page 31). Additional media attention comes from Transworld Business, which is a national magazine owned by the Bonnier Corporation, a large American publisher. Unfortunately, the entire article is not available, but the beginning of it is free to read. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Although the Guardian is a local publication, Transworld Business is a national publication and Concrete Wave is an international publication. Upon reviewing the links provided, it becomes fairly obvious that Muir Skate receives "attention from international or national, or at least regional, media," and does not receive "attention solely from local media or media of limited interest and circulation."
All three UCSD Guardian articles and the interview in Concrete Wave meet this requirement. Although the article in Transworld Business is not available as a whole, from the looks of the text available and the fact that it was published a year after the store's opening, it was most likely not a short mention.
|
- Delete Despite attempts by PÆonU and the editors who have responded to his canvassing, they have not managed to show significant evidence of notability. Instead they have come up with arguments which do not relate to Wikipedia policy, such as "This shop was on the UCSD campus for years and because of that, it is notable", and "Has affected UCSD culture", including appeals to "other stuff exists", such as "It has more sources than Harvard Book Store", and "Why are there so many skate articles like this with just as many, and even less sources". PÆonU and DreamFocus have tried to make much of coverage in the UCSD Guardian, but coverage in a student newspaper within one university is a very limited form of coverage, and it is also debatable whether it can be regarded as an independent source. "Local (originally on-campus) shop gets coverage in student on-campus newspaper" does not establish notability. I could go on further to discuss more details of what has been said, but it would not alter the overall point, which is that, despite a very concerted effort, those arguing for "keep" have failed to produce evidence of the sort of substantial coverage required by the notability criteria. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough seems to exist right now to demonstrate notability. Maybe they'll get some press in the next year or two and can try again then. But next time, don't try to game the system. ~ Pesco So say• we all 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment/leaning keep Editors appear to be misreading the General Notability Guidelines and the(edit: oops it is in WP:CORP mot GNG) Corporate specific one. Local coverage can still be significant coverage. "Solely" is the key word so please don't disregard local sources. And why is Transworld Business being disregarded?
Transworld Skateboarding is certainly a big name and their business publication should have a decent reputation. A
write up(note that only part of it is shown here) by one of their editors establishes some notability. And
Concrete Wave Magazine does not need to be the Wall Street Journal to be RS.
That Q&A can certainly improve the article and it is not local or even regional. It is also not a trivial mention even if it isn't a multi-page story. Canvassing is frustrating but that should not impact if the business is notable according to GNG or CORP.
Cptnono
Cptnono (
talk)
00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, I was thinking the same thing after the first 2 !votes in this discussion. (before the whole thing blew up) The GNG doesn't say anything about the coverage needing to be non local (but
WP:CORP does). With a little leaning I could probably make a pretty good case for keeping this article. In an ideal wiki world, that's how AFD would work. That is, editors, some with different interpretations of the guidelines, discussing how they should be applied to a particular article. Instead, AFDs become battlegrounds between those dead set on "getting the cruft off wikipedia" and those who think the world's going to end if some website doesn't have an article on their favorite subject. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. A couple more stories from San Diego or something in Thrasher would make it more clear cut for me. As is I see the potential but am not completely on board. And I totally understand some frustration based on the canvasing and the owners or fans potentially using this as some sort of sign of pride. Cptnono ( talk) 01:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, I was thinking the same thing after the first 2 !votes in this discussion. (before the whole thing blew up) The GNG doesn't say anything about the coverage needing to be non local (but
WP:CORP does). With a little leaning I could probably make a pretty good case for keeping this article. In an ideal wiki world, that's how AFD would work. That is, editors, some with different interpretations of the guidelines, discussing how they should be applied to a particular article. Instead, AFDs become battlegrounds between those dead set on "getting the cruft off wikipedia" and those who think the world's going to end if some website doesn't have an article on their favorite subject. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to be relying on your own interpretation of the guidelines (as do we all), I see no emphasis placed on "solely" or other indication that it is indeed "the key word". This brings us back to the point of AfDs (among other things): determining consensus on the appropriate interpretation of notability guidelines. VernoWhitney ( talk) 00:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree that an article from Thrasher would certainly give a skateboarding-related article credibility, you have to keep in mind that the longboarding community gets much less coverage than the trick-skateboard community. The Concrete Wave is to longboarding what Thrasher, Transworld, and Skateboarding Magazine are to trick-skateboarding. Moogleluvr ( talk) 06:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't clear It isn't that Concrete Wave is not reputable. In fact, it is why I lean keep. A couple more magazine stories (it doesn't even need to be at the same level as Concrete Wave) is needed to establish that there is a good amount of coverage on the subject.
Cptnono (
talk)
06:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You really need to take it to the Village Pump or to the guideline's talk page if you want to argue that local media coverage can not be considered. Yes, I am emphasizing "solely" since people are disregarding it. "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." doesn't mean disregard local media. It could be argued that since it is only skate magazines that the audience is limited but that needs to be considered separate from any assertion that local media cannot assert at least some notability. Two sources are not local or even regional (one is in Canada?) and have at least a national reach (I believe Transworld is distributed throughout the world). So they need to be considered along with the local media. It still may not be enough coverage but I feel it is close. Cptnono ( talk) 00:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment [48] Mentions that they sponsor the surf club at UCSD (I tried searching for owner's name instead of the shop name). Still feel it doesnt meet WP:CORP though.-- Savonneux ( talk) 00:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CORP, WP:N, WP:V. And frankly, the canvassing attempts noted above don't exactly do the article any favours, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – Completely fails WP:CORP. The canvassing attempts make my position more firm. Calling deletionists "douches" doesn't help your case one bit. (Note that PÆonU ( talk · contribs) is blocked.) — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L) 04:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The canvassing atttempts should not affect your position at all. You either believe it meets the requirements or it does not, you don't say delete because you don't like one person who is involved in this.
Dream Focus
04:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- There does appear to be some knee-jerk "voting" to the canvasing. It makes sense that some think the subject fails the requirements but I hope editors can focus on that and not the shenanigans.
Cptnono (
talk)
04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which is why I mentioned in ANI that a good way to get an article deleted is to canvas for keeps. Are some of these new "delete" !votes a knee jerk reaction to the canvassing, probably. They probably didn't know this article and its AFD existed until it was bought up on ANI. How would any of them have !voted if they ran across it by other means, who knows. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
04:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- the irony is that PÆonU has in fact drawn more attention to this AfD that he hoped for. LibStar ( talk) 05:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which is why I mentioned in ANI that a good way to get an article deleted is to canvas for keeps. Are some of these new "delete" !votes a knee jerk reaction to the canvassing, probably. They probably didn't know this article and its AFD existed until it was bought up on ANI. How would any of them have !voted if they ran across it by other means, who knows. --
Ron Ritzman (
talk)
04:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- There does appear to be some knee-jerk "voting" to the canvasing. It makes sense that some think the subject fails the requirements but I hope editors can focus on that and not the shenanigans.
Cptnono (
talk)
04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The text below has been copy-pasted from PÆonU's userpage. I have been following this discussion and noticed the deletion of these points from the discussion, which I feel is a very underhanded and dishonest act on the part of those rallying for the deletion of this page. I believe that both sides should have the opportunity to have all of their points presented on level grounds for this to constitute a true discussion, and therefore, I have copy-pasted the text below from PÆonU's userpage. While I can understand the frustration both sides are experiencing in this debate, keep in mind Wikipedia was founded upon trust in the community to do the right thing, and playing dirty by deleting the other side's points is entirely uncalled for. Thank you for your consideration. Moogleluvr ( talk) 06:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."
Muir Skate has had a significant effect on the culture of UCSD, a college with at least 20,000 students. The store's skate lessons increased the number of skateboarders in the college, making skateboarding culture more popular than ever. The events it hosted on campus, one of which introduced the store to a writer for Concrete Wave, have not stopped since they left the campus. They are close enough to the campus to host UCSD skate events like the giant Gravity Slidefest, so they are still very much affecting UCSD culture. [49]
"Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."
Muir Skate has been featured three times in the UCSD Guardian and the owner of the store was interviewed by international magazine Concrete Wave (volume 6 issue 4, page 31). Additional media attention comes from Transworld Business, which is a national magazine owned by the Bonnier Corporation, a large American publisher. Unfortunately, the entire article is not available, but the beginning of it is free to read. [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Although the Guardian is a local publication, Transworld Business is a national publication and Concrete Wave is an international publication. Upon reviewing the links provided, it becomes fairly obvious that Muir Skate receives "attention from international or national, or at least regional, media," and does not receive "attention solely from local media or media of limited interest and circulation."
"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
All three UCSD Guardian articles and the interview in Concrete Wave meet this requirement. Although the article in Transworld Business is not available as a whole, from the looks of the text available and the fact that it was published a year after the store's opening, it was most likely not a short mention. "
- Comment after 1 edit in 2 years Moogleluvr ( talk · contribs) returns soley to edit this AfD. certainly a form of single purpose editing in my book. LibStar ( talk) 07:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the IPs didn't present the best reasoning. If one of them came back and actually referred to guidelines it might be better to address that over the editor. You can always drag the editor to a noticeboard somewhere but I don't think there is any doubt that there was some poor form on this one. So any response to his assertions or was it already covered and I missed it?
Cptnono (
talk)
08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The IP editors did not give any reasoning at all. They simply responded to a call on a forum to copy and paste "votes" to this discussion. There is no reason to suppose that they had any understanding of the issues at all. Of course they may have, but we cannot reasonably argue on the basis of speculation as to what they might have said under different circumstances. This issue has to be decided on the basis of what arguments have been put forward, and on that basis the arguments put forward by those editors would be of very little value, even apart from their copy-paste canvassed background.
JamesBWatson (
talk)
10:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- That comment sucks. You essentially just disregarded any comments made by not gaming editors since they said the same thing. [55] Can you respond to this? I get that the IP behavior sucks but it would be appreciated if you could respond or point to timestamps where you have already done so. Cptnono ( talk) 10:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The IP editors did not give any reasoning at all. They simply responded to a call on a forum to copy and paste "votes" to this discussion. There is no reason to suppose that they had any understanding of the issues at all. Of course they may have, but we cannot reasonably argue on the basis of speculation as to what they might have said under different circumstances. This issue has to be decided on the basis of what arguments have been put forward, and on that basis the arguments put forward by those editors would be of very little value, even apart from their copy-paste canvassed background.
JamesBWatson (
talk)
10:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the IPs didn't present the best reasoning. If one of them came back and actually referred to guidelines it might be better to address that over the editor. You can always drag the editor to a noticeboard somewhere but I don't think there is any doubt that there was some poor form on this one. So any response to his assertions or was it already covered and I missed it?
Cptnono (
talk)
08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Moogleluvr ( talk · contribs) that text was already collapsed into the box right above this. There were barely any comments on this article until it turned into a drama fest. The worst that was going to happen was a no prejudice delete or a merge, now all the relevant pages are going to be on multiple watchlists and possibly semi-protected. Is pasting redundant text / breaking format really going to help? -- Savonneux ( talk) 08:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think Moogleluvr could perhaps have assumed a little more good faith. I do not think that the collapsing of the relevant section was "a very underhanded and dishonest act": it was done quite openly, not underhandedly, and I see nothing to indicate that it was dishonest. There have been genuine concerns that there was an "attempt to co-opt this discussion", and an honest attempt to deal with that attempt. If Moogleluvr had said "I think that attempt was mistaken" then that would be one thing, but "underhanded and dishonest" is another. Also it is, of course, inaccurate to describe the collapsing of part of the discussion as "deletion". JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Cptnono says that editors appear to be misreading the guidelines, and I think quite a few other comments above are based on the same view. I don't think this is particularly so. It is possible to pick out various bits and pieces of coverage, and to say that while most of it has been local there has also been some non-local coverage, so we can check off particular points listed in guidelines. However, I do not think this is a good approach. The guidelines are guidelines, not check lists. The overall spirit of the guidelines is that there should have been substantial coverage, not just fragmentary coverage. The most substantial coverage is not just local, as for example in a local town newspaper, but provincial, in a student campus newspaper. The other coverage is mostly fragmentary, and overall it is not possible to say that this business has received substantial attention. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- LOL. We totally agree on somethings and not others but not as I would have expected. Completely agree that the coverage could be read as not substantial. I also agree that a college paper is not the best to rely on for notability. However, the coverage in sources with a national or international reach are not fragmentary. We could right an article about it off those easily. I don't know if those two big magazines is enough though. There is also the question of if they were solicited which opens up another can of worms. This article to me is literally one story in a paper or magazine away from being a slam dunk. I'm not positive as it is though. It is much closer than editors reacting to some completely lame gaming of the system would have a casual reader of the conversation believe.
Cptnono (
talk)
10:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I accept that it is closer than some comments, including perhaps some of mine, might make it look. However, I still think it is not enough. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Proposal. As the "douche" who started this mess, I would like to suggest that this AFD be closed and the article moved out of mainspace to the incubator. A few editors have suggested that it might be possible to demonstrate notability so let's give them their shot. After a reasonable amount of time, let's say 7 days after PÆonU's block expires. The article can be moved back into mainspace and a new AFD started. Hopefully one free of drama. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- disagree, there is sufficient arguments to let these AfD run its course. LibStar ( talk) 23:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Fails WP:CORP despite the addition of a couple of obscure references. Toddst1 ( talk) 14:04, 11 May 2010 (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.