Purge server cache
- 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Market requirements document (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article contained copyrighted material which was removed, and now page is virtually blanked. It is best it be deleted and recreated when relevant. Author requesting speedy delete or AFD. Thanks. Spinacia (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Product Architect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Author asking for speedy delete or AFD. Copyright issues.Spinacia (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Para Brahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deletion of this page
The explanation of Para Brahman has never been discovered. Please delete this ariticle. Brahman is a person irresptive of caste and is purely based on vara system. Recommended for deletion. If a so called castly brahmin can dethrone kings all other caste can dethrone brahman. This is a personalization of Hindu philosophy and no reference has been found. No has anything against a brahmin accept for this selfish pride of being the supreme right from birth. Please remove this page
bebrahmin (bebrahmin) 17:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge somewhere. Consensus is that this building exists but isn't notable enough for a standalone article. There's no clear consensus to delete the content, though, so the logical consequence is a merger to an appropriate article. The target and extent of the merger are to be determined through the editorial process; in the meantime, I'm redirecting the article to Naval Station Great Lakes. Sandstein 20:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(A shame, really, for the lack of sources – if only because part of me feels that the slightly surreal notion of hundreds of people living in a building and enthusiastically pretending it's a ship should deserve an article. And I say this as a commissioned officer of a national military myself, albeit one who has never felt the slightest inclination to write an article about his training barracks. Sandstein 20:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable building located at a military facility. Tom (talk - email) 23:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very significant building. Responsible for the training of over 4,500 Navy Sailors each year! It is the only building in the history of the United States to be commissioned USS Enterprise, and may be the only US Property to bear the name once CVN-65 is decommissioned. Rossusna02 (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)— Rossusna02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I do feel that the USS Enterprise is a VERY significant building. I am saddened that you fail to see the significance of a Commissioned United States Building which bears the name Enterprise. This particular Enterprise is named in honor of the two previous US Carriers to bear the name. She is responsible for training 1/9th of the 43,000 Recruits that join the Navy each year. Soon she may be the only USS Enterprise in service. She has a Ship's Officer, who fills the role of Commanding Officer, a Ship's LCPO, a Chaplain, a Chief's Mess, and a full complement of Petty Officers who train Recruits from Reveille to Taps, seven days a week, every day of the year. Buildings such as the UCSD Medical Center, San Diego Convention Center, and Petco park all have an entry, and in my opinion, the USS Enterprise is MUCH more significant than a convention center or park. Rossusna02 (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)— Rossusna02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If you feel these facts make the article notable, then you should add them to the article and back them up with verifiable sources. Otherwise, what is the point for having an article if what makes it notable is left unsaid? --Tom (talk - email) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's the latest bearer of a storied name, and, as such, of interest to fans everywhere. Sad that we won't have a ship by that name anymore. Ray Yang (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Interesting" is your personal opinion, and not a valid reason for keeping an article. You will need to back it up with reputable/verifiable sources that agree with you.--Tom (talk - email) 00:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should leave the article long enough for additional information to be added. Dan (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of an article must be established upon its creation, or it risks being deleted. If an article is non-notable, it should not be on Wikipedia. --Tom (talk - email) 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- No, those are the criteria for speedy deletion and the conditions for their use are strictly limited. Articles on topics which don't meet basic policies such as WP:NOTE can be deleted after a discussion such as this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dowling (talk • contribs) 10:29, July 14, 2008
- The Wikipedia Notability Guideline "is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Dan (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One of ten buildings which has been commissioned by the United States Navy to train new recruits seems very notable to me. Furthermore, the information is being contributed by a commissioned officer of the United States Navy. I believe notability is being established by ongoing editing and contribution (the wiki process). Certainly as notable as the fictional and obscure USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-F) which has its own page. Dan (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge to Naval Station Great Lakes. The article on NSGL could use some filling out and merging the article there will help and not be mistaken for an actual floating ship. Its notable when in context with Great Lakes. --Brad (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm changing my mind on this. I've looked around at some links provided and there is a building 7115 @ NSGL but it isn't mentioned by name (at least on the website) and another link given was to: Gary Ross | Navy Career | Present| which goes along closely to Rossusna02 (talk · contribs) and borders on a vanity article. Please don't use WP to further your Navy career. Danswezy (talk · contribs) other than making some edits to Kevin Dean (porn star) in September 2006 has suddenly come out of nowhere to crow about the notability of the article. This is beginning to smell. --Brad (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I do not think this article should be merged with Naval Station Great Lakes (although it should be referenced there). The term "ship" is the issue, so perhaps the description of the USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) should clarify that this ship is a building. However, it IS a USS Enterprise and it IS a commissioned United States Navy ship. Dan (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GIVE IT A CHANCE. This article was up for a grand total of 19 minutes before it was nominated for deletion. A great way to welcome a new user to the site, isn't it? Hitting him with an immediate inappropriate speedy delete, threatening him with a block, accusing him of having a conflict of interest, then putting it at AFD way too early. Just sunk the teeth right into his neck. SashaNein (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Hold on a minute. His article was speedily deleted multiple times as it did not assert its importance or significance, just that there is some RTC organization that has a building named USS Enterprise. That means nothing. He recreated it multiple times anyways, despite warnings, which is grounds for a temporary block from editing. As for the conflict of interest, his username is User:Rossusna02 and he linked to a personal website for the commanding officer, Lt. Ross, which led me to a logical conclusion that this issue is personal to him (and the fact that basically brand-new User:Danswezy in this discussion has said a commissioned officer is writing the article, so it should be kept; that shows me he has a conflict of interest as well and smells of WP:CANVASS). Considering his persistence, I decided it is possible I, in my infinite wisdom, could make a mistake, so I brought it up for AFD to see if anything can be salvaged and to get more input, or if it should be deleted. So, before you jump to conclusions, there's no need to "sink your teeth" into the old-timers, either. --Tom (talk - email) 04:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is logical to assume that the author, User:Rossusna02, is Lt. Ross (per article link) and lieutenants are commissioned officers. Tom wrote, "just that there is some RTC organization that has a building named USS Enterprise. That means nothing." Are you kidding me? Some RTC Organization? My brother was an instructor at RTC about 20 years ago, so this issue is personal to me. RTC is the United States Navy Recruit Training Command and every single person who enlists in the United States Navy goes there for bootcamp. Dan (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At issue here is verifiability. The importance of the article is irrelevant. My father was navy, and served at Great Lakes, and I would rank the importance of this article ahead of about 1.2 million of the current articles here. However, in the absence of independent WP:RS, there is no article. WP:ILIKEIT is never grounds for keeping any article. If the article is to be saved, reliable sources must be added. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Naval Station Great Lakes. My brother was Navy and trained there, but this seems a trivial thing like naming a building after someone. The building itself is not notable because the ships named Enterprise were. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The only interesting fact is the name of the building. That should take one sentence in the other article. Also give it a mention in USS Enterprise. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Naval Station Great Lakes. Just because it has the name Enterprise doesn't make it notable, no matter how interesting it is for the fanboys. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When someone researches "USS Enterprise", they should be able to find the building named USS Enterprise and they should be able to find facts about it. Before this article, I didn't know there are Navy buildings which serve as training "ships" for every person who enlists in the Navy. Dan (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless some references can be found which demonstrate the the building is notable in isolation, which doesn't look likely. I don't see anything which is worth including in the Naval Station Great Lakes article. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Nick Dowling. Just a thought - we are beginning to chronicle individual buildings within the US military, while whole armies, navies, and air forces of other nations lie sadly neglected in comparison. Buckshot06(prof) 10:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a poor argument to delete an article just because there may be more notable topics. Someone took the time to write this article and others will take the time to add to it. Dan (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is in large part determined by the interest of the reader. You may find something notable and I may think it's a waste of time. However, it is still notable to you and others. Dan (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Naval Station Great Lakes. I don't see anything that makes it notable by itself, and there are no references to make such a case.--Boffob (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No sources to prove this is notable per WP:N's definition of "Notability, much less even true. The USN generally only has one ship bearing a particular name, and USS Enterprise (CVN-65) is still in commission. Hard to understand that they would "commission" a building as a "ship" while an actual ship with the same name is still in commission! Smells of a hoax, or at least a compelete misunderstanding of what a USN ship commision actually is. As written, the article seems to describe a training establishment meant to simulate the organization of a ship, and that its "commissioning" is for that purpose only, not an actual ship commisioning. With no sources, the article is not Verifiable per WP policy, and the creator and his advocate have shown no effort to add reliable sources at all to this point. - BillCJ (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- You do understand that the sources are actually supposed to be in the article, right? Perhaps you should have spent your time today adding the souces to the article instead of trying to convince people to ignore WP policies. And you do understand that a picture or webpage showing a building has been "named" after a ship is not the same thing as prof that the building has been "commissioned as a ship" of the USN? Still, a single building named after a ship to be used in training sailors is not notable on its own. - BillCJ (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand that sources are actually supposed to be in the article. I didn't write the article, but I guess I could spend all of my time editing an AfD and then watch my work disappear after this kangaroo court comes to an end. Dan (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But "Delete" is not the only option being discussed here. Of the 19 entires (not votes per se) so far, 9 are for "Merge" to a suitable article, and most of the 6 "Deletes" have some caveat for merging info that is sourced. If nothing is sourced when the AfD closes, nothing will be kept. Besides, you can always copy the article to your user space, and work with the creator to souce it properly, and then at some point appeal the AfD. I'd recommend covering all 10 buildings in one article, as they are all used for the same kind of training, right? What makes this building more important than the other 9, other than its name? Seriously, I think an article on all 10 buildings could be notable, with proper sources, or at least part of an article on the RTC. I am sure I'm not the only person here who had never heard of this type of training, and there are others out there who haven't either. Don't let the fact that the article probaly won't be kept in its current form disuade you from seeing that the story of the training is told elsewhere on WP. The training is the really import part, not the merely the name. - BillCJ (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Merge, but only after checking sources. A cursory visit to various Great Lakes sites didn't turn up anything reliable. If it's a building at GLAKES, it's worthy of mention in that article. If it's named after a ship or if there's some sort of "commissioning" aspect to it, such facts could be mentioned in the Great Lakes article. Lou Sander (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If useful information can be saved for the Great Lakes article, fine, but this article doesn't satisfy notability requirements. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Naval Station Great Lakes, assuming reliable sources are located. I was unable to locate anything particularly helpful via Google, and frankly I was concerned that it might be a hoax, so I (OR warning) called the Recruit Training Command Great Lakes Public Affairs office. The lady with whom I spoke indicated that 10 buildings including 7115, that formerly were galleys, had been converted into "ships" in which recruits live. The idea is that they spend their days in a fashion calculated to prepare them for shipboard life. She stated that these buildings are in fact commissioned as training facillites, along the lines USS Trayler, although that facility serves a different purpose. As one of ten training facillities at the Recruit Training Command, I don't see why one in particular is particularly notable. It does appear, however, that there are a great many sources for USS Trayler that reference the large capital expenditure to make a modern training facillity. If someone wanted to write that article, this could merge there. Absent that, simply merge to Naval Station Great Lakes IF sources can be found. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously the general public doesn't have almost any information regarding Recruit Training Command and its buildings. If this article is deleted or merged, with all this bureaucracy an "acceptable" article may never get published and this information won't be available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. — J. Wales, Founder of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the IP address above is owned by the U.S. Navy. --Tom (talk - email) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverified article about a non-notable building. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Add to my above !vote: "…with no prejudice against recreation should independent reliable sources be produced to establish notability." — Bellhalla (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with
NTC RTC Every building at RTC is named for a ship so the RDCs can call them ships and the boots have to call the floor a "deck" and the wall a "bulkhead". the fact that this particular building was named for a particularly notable ship isn't really important. It is most certainly not a hoax, but neither is it very memorable. Call me grumpy but I'm not inclined to consider this particularly notable even though I went through there. It is, to repeat the refrain, notable if the subject has been covered in independent press. Check All Hands. It is printed by the navy but it is basically independent of RTC/NTC so we might consider coverage of a particular "ship" in boot camp to be independent. As it stands most of the text up there (in the article) is boilerplate material for an RTC building. Every building has a divo, every building has a chief, etc. Some of us may have memories (fond or otherwise) of the experience there, but that can't serve as a stand in for a reliable source discussing the subject in significant detail. And for the people bemoaning the fate of a building named after the enterprise, please note that notability is not inherited. The enterprise is notable (and radioactive...:) ), her follow-on ships will be notable (PLEASE name the CVN-X the enterprise!). Derivative buildings named after her are not notable. Would we likewise create articles for street names on military bases because they are named for famous battles, ships or commanders? No. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much for the info - that can guide us in looking for reliable sources. As one who mentioned the "hoax" word, my only point was that we had no proof that anything in the article was even true. I do note you haven't mentioned that the buildings are "commissioned ships"! That one defitely seemed far fetched, and fits the rest of my sentence about a hoax: "or at least a complete misunderstanding of what a USN ship commision actually is." I would like to see us hqave something on the 10 ship-builfings, either in a stand-alone article, or in the RTC article. But I agree each building isn't notable. - BillCJ (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how legit the "commisioning" is. Recruits are taught to treat each building like a ship. No other training command I saw treated buildings in the same fashion. Each building flies an ensign (though some bases have more than one ensign, each building in a base doesn't usually have one). It isn't a hoax or a misunderstanding, just (IMO) a convenient fiction to tell people in boot camp in order to raise the intensity to the required high drama of shipboard life (mmm...high drama, shipboard life, perhaps not. :) ). But check out all hands, I'm sure they have something on recruits in general if not this building. Protonk (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with United States Navy Boot Camp not the Naval Station Great Lakes article, Recruit training is but one of several tenant commands at Naval Station Great Lakes. I don't like the idea of putting a bunch of boot camp buildings into an article about the naval station. Maybe all that is needed is a referenced list of buildings their names and the significance of that name / maybe other notable things about the building. I'm nNot sure if a building is officially commissioned, but USS Trayer (BST 21) a training simulator, appears to be commissioned[1] though I can't find it in the Naval Vessel Register. Certainly the buildings are not in the NVR either. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OBSERVATIONS:
- There are pictures of the USS Enterprise building on the Internet at http://www.cvn65.us/enterprise_rtc_great_lakes.htm The signage clearly shows that it is the USS Enterprise, so it is not a hoax. Whether we like it or not, the Navy commissioned the building. At least it's more legitimate than any science fiction Enterprise on Wikipedia. Dan (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are already articles about military buildings on Wikipedia (some less notable than the USS Enterprise). Bancroft Hall, United States Disciplinary Barracks, U.S. Naval Hospital, Subic Bay, Redstone Technical Test Center, The Pentagon, etc., etc., etc. Dan (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Pentagon. Is. Less. Notable. Than. Building 7115 at RTC? Come on now. If you find ONE source in an independent publication that mentions the subject of the article in significant detail (or many sources that cover it in less detail), this AfD will close as keep, I almost guarantee it. That's all it takes. And for my money, those buildings you listed are all more notable than the one in question. Remember, we aren't concerned with the USS Enterprise in this AfD. The notability of CVN-65 is not in question. The Notability of Building 7115 is. Protonk (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We are concerned with the USS Enterprise in this AfD. Building 7115 is USS Enterprise. Dan (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. It is named after the enterprise. Just because some boots go through there doesn't make it special. Are you an RDC or something? Protonk (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I said SOME of the buildings are less notable, not all of them (the Pentagon IS notable). And that is the heart of this issue - For your money, the USS Enterprise is not notable. For my money, a building that trains over 4,000 sailors a year to defend our way of life is notable. Dan (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're assuming, of course, that all of us are in the U.S. and support your worldview with that last statement. While that may be true for some, it is not for all. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that mention the USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115):
- A note on the links provided:
- The third link is a photo gallery at a self-described "personal on-line museum". The first photo clearly shows the sign outside the building; the rest of the photos are of trainees or the interior of the building. Great for demonstrating that the building exists, but provides no assessment of the building's notability. Also, as a personal- or hobby-type website, it would most likely not be considered a reliable source.
- The second link is a PowerPoint file (.ppt) from RTC Great Lakes that shows the building on a map (slide 5 of 10), but with no other mention. Coupled with the photo gallery above, I'm convinced the building exists.
- The first link is a re-hosted U.S. Navy press release with a one paragraph mention of the building in the larger context of "Pre-commissioning Unit (PCU) George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)". Approaching a hint of notability with this one, but since the source is not independent of the subject, it alone should not be used to establish notability.
- From these three links I'm convinced that USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) is not a hoax. But there are still no independent, reliable sources that establish notability. My !vote of delete above remains. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no real notablilty - no 3rd party reliable sources that make more than a trival mention of this building. Which is a shame - I like articles on real things. I'll have a poke around and see what I can turn up.... --Allemandtando (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. If this article is merged it should be merged to Recruit Training Command's article, which is where the building is physically located. Of course Recruit Training Command is a Tennant command of Naval Service Training Command, but Recruit Training Command, being the Navy's only basic training facility should be notable enough for its own article.
2. If this article is merged to RTC's entry, then RTC's entry would really be incomplete as now only one of the ten new ships would be mentioned. Keeping RTC's article up to date will be very challenging considering the limited contributions so far and the huge recapitalization project which is currently underway.
3. Every other Enterprise (save one) has its own page, even the fictional ones with only a cameo appearance.
4. The notability of this Enterprise may be established by pointing out that it is Commissioned as a United States Ship, even though it is a building and there is currently another United States Ship Enterprise in service, that seems rather unique. If you go to an official Navy Website: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm you will find that the prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission.
5. My recommendation is still to keep this article and not merge it. Even over the last few days it has already evolved and sparked new learning for many people. If it is deleted several noteworthy events (buildings being commissioned and two USS Enterprises at the same time) will be deleted with it. If it is merged, the article will no longer be special to the Enterprise fans and will just be part of a larger un-maintained article. Rossusna02 (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For item #3: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping this article. Each article is evaluated on the notability and verifiability of its subject. If you feel that other articles are lacking in that respect, then feel free to nominate them for deletion.
- For item #4: there are no sources—reliable or otherwise—for anyone to confirm that it really is a "commissioned ship" as is claimed. The Naval Vessel Register (as I understand it, the official register of all commissioned ships) has no mention of it. If this building is really unique in being the only building that's a "commissioned ship" in the U.S. Navy, it will have been reported in independent sources. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bellhalla, to save all of us time, it would help if you read #4 fully before you make general comments. I never said this was the only building that's commissioned, I said this was notable because it was a building that was commissioned and done so prior to the other USS Enterprise being decommissioned. With respect to #3, I have no intention of going on a deletion rampage.Rossusna02 (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you get the greater two points, right? That if it "really" is commissioned (and not just "commissioned for boots") it will be in the NVR. and that the existence of pages about fictional versions of the enterprise does not change the fate or notability of this page one jot. Those are the two takeaways. Protonk (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Protonk, yes, and I do appreciate your comments on my personal discussion page. The reason why USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) is not in the NVR is actually quite a wonderful story. The Navy used to have a Boot Camp in San Diego. One of their training facilities there was a building which actually looked like a ship. This building was also commissioned and put in the NVR. When Vietnam was in full swing congress actually launched an inquiry to determine why that ship had never deployed in support of operations. To prevent this embarrassing confusion from happening again the Navy no longer adds non-deployable training ships (Commissioned or Not) to the NVR.Rossusna02 (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an interesting story. If you have a source for it, my suggestion is that you could probably do to add it to the section, providing some explanation as to why it is not in the NVR. I also appreciate your zeal for this article. I understand that plenty of military history and custom are opaque to outsiders (often deliberately). I also strive to remember that wikipedia has a common language not spoken in the outside world. I can say WP:ITSA and expect to convey meaning to other wikipedians--however an outsider sees only gibberish. This means that the nuance may be lost on people--rather than stress the importance of subject when speaking from special knowledge, perhaps we should look for some sourcing that we all can agree on? I can tell you that the argument that notability flows from the Enterprise (which, even if she didn't carry the name, would still be notable due to her status as the first nuclear surface ship) to the building by virtue of the name won't get much traction. All Hands works. Seapower works. Stories on the AFNN work. Waukegan news outlets. Cast a wide net and you might find something. If we don't, we might have to consider merging this article with RTC. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This building, which is aparantly one of 10 barracks at the base, seems similar to a hall of residence at a university (eg, as its a place where students live and study but most teaching is done elsewhere). There's a long-standing convention that these generally aren't notable, and notability has to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis in line with WP:NOTE. While commissioned warships and naval bases are automatically notable, as are universities (due to large amount of references on these topics which means that demonstrating notability is pretty easy), this doesn't extend to individual buildings within the base or campus. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This building, USS Enterprise, is more than a hall of residence at a university. As the article states, "This facility integrates berthing, classrooms, learning resource centers, a galley, and quarterdeck, all under one roof." In addition, this building is commissioned unlike a hall of residence at a university. Article 2001 (Navy Regulations 1948) stated that only those ships which were on "Active status" and "In commission" could carry the prefix "USS." Dan (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you were going to name a building in honor of a ship rather than commission a building wouldn't you also name it "USS Enterprise"? What about UIC's? Personnel stationed at this building most likely are assigned to the recruit training command. I seriously doubt there is a separate UIC for this building and the people sleeping there. Those people would be assigned to the RTC, not USS Enterprise (the Building). The fact that the Navy named a building after USS Enterprise it noteworthy to mention in an article about USS Enterprise, but not as an article on its own. Just because they treat a building like a ship at boot camp does not mean it is a legally / officially commissioned US Navy Ship. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. UIC's. The divo in charge of the "ship" probably doesn't wield authority to mete out non-judicial punishment. I'm pretty sure my orders to RTC said RTC, not ship 13 (or whatever it was). More to the point, we aren't arguing that 7115 fulfills the exact same purpose as a dormitory (although it seems pretty similar to the class houses at Rice, although to be fair those have their own article) but that it occupies the same role vis the organization as a whole. As such, it isn't likely to be presumed notable. If, however, some sourcing exists that mentions this building specifically, I'm sure that the article can be kept. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Dual Freq, please read the previous entries more closely. You will notice that If you go to an official Navy Website: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm you will find that the prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission and at NO OTHER TIME. The navy does not just go around naming things USS that are not commissioned.
- Also, a Unit Identification Code has NOTHING to do with a commission. It just so happens that most units are commissioned, so I can see how you would be confused on this matter, but just because a facility has its own UIC doesn’t mean it’s commissioned, and vice Aversa. You may also find it is helpful to look up the definition of commission.
- In response to Protonk, you are right, only the tenant command gets its own UIC, however as stated previously, that has nothing to do with commissions. Additionally, you are right again when you say your orders should have had you report to RTC, as your Reporting Senior would be the Commanding Officer of RTC. The Ship’s Officer, as it is already stated in the article, fills the role of Commanding Officer for the ship. As the ship’s commanding officer he or she holds Group Commanders Inquiry where certain NJP type punishments may be awarded, like a setback in training. Just like any ship in the navy, the punishments a ship’s CO may award are based on the ship CO’s rank. Hopefully this helps to clear things up for you too.Rossusna02 (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. I think we are on the same page. I'm not contesting that the building is commissioned (although some source needs to be cited in the article to show this). I think it IS interesting that buildings in bootcamp are "commissioned". My greater point is this: even if the building is commissioned in a sense that we may agree on, we can not imply that it is notable because it is an USS Enterprise--call me skeptical but I don't think the next ship named enterprise will carry a plaque denoting she is the tenth ship in the fleet following building 7115. I'm willing to bend on that topic, really. If we find some article covering this subject with more than 2-3 lines, I think we can work to keep this article. If we work on the assumption that all commissioned ships are notable, it follows that this building is notable. We need some source that says that, though. We can't rely on specialist knowledge to assert the (arguably) contentious statement that the building is commissioned.
- As for the UIC/NJP issues, I'm sure we can see eye to eye on this. I think that dual freq and I were trying to show that the importance of this "ship" relative to other commissioned units in the Navy is relatively low--I mean that only in the sense of command latitude and organizational structure. In the same sense I would classify NR-1 as a less importance command than COMSUBPAC. It appears that the place is pretty different from when I was there (the "ships" then were little more than places to sleep).
- Here's an idea. Let's see if there are articles (or even government documents) detailing this process of commissioning for training commands. Let's also see if there is some sort of reference that discusses the new "ships", various other changes to RTC, or the process in general. If we can find only general references, it may be better to merge this article into a larger article on RTC (and only that mentions each "ship"). If we can find special references, we can work to keep this article in question. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to whether the "USS" measn this building is "commisioned". As I understand it there are very specific Navy rules for the use of USS in the name of an actual ship, including only one commisioned use of a name at a time. As far as naming building I don't know what the Navy regs are, but no matter how the recruits are asked to treat the building, it is not a watercraft.
- Either the original editor misudnerstaood what they were telling him, or the Navy does not really consider this building to be a "commisioned ship". —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My suspicion is that we have approached one of those quirky points in naval tradition where broad generalizations will not serve us well. And as much as I demand sources from the two editors surrounding the article here, I don't think I'll agree to a blanket statement about Navy regs without some recitation, chapter and verse. This is the navy we are talking about. Somewhere, someone has documented this. All we have to do is find out where. Protonk (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Where do I live? section of the RTC website it says:"The barracks in which you will live is called a "Ship" and is named for an important ship in naval history." If you were to name a building after a ship and not the ship's namesake it would be named "USS Enterprise" or "USS John F Kennedy". These are not commissioned ships, they are buildings named after historically significant ships. I did read the Navy naming FAQ and to say that USS in front of a building name means it is in commission is what would be called synthesis. Nothing in that FAQ suggests that buildings can be commissioned as a United States "Ship", in fact its usage of ship and vessel would argue against a building being a ship. Sadly, the time we've spent in this discussion would be much better spent improving the inadequate United States Navy Boot Camp article. It currently provides no history, no prior locations of boot camp, no mention of coed training or changes relating to the addition of women in the navy. It is apparent that this article will be deleted or merged, and our time would be better spent improving the merger target and general coverage in wikipedia of recruit training. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as we're doing original research, the building address is 3425 Sailor Drive from this image and mailing addresses during boot camp, as listed here, indicate 3425 Sailor Drive is simply Ship 10 to the base post office. USPS zip+4 database doesn't seem to care what is put on Address line two it lists it as 3425 SAILOR DR, GREAT LAKES IL 60088-3525. You can put USS FLintstone into it and is still lists 3425 SAILOR DR 60088-3525. The mailing address for CVN-65 is USS ENTERPRISE, FPO AE 09543-2810 in case anyone is curious. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dual Freq, I am please that you are doing research before you make comments, well done. The page you are referring to is sort of a “beginner’s guide to the Navy” so that Recruits and their families know a little about what to expect. I can tell you that the USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) is commissioned. I walk by the commissioning plaque several times a day. (USS Enterprise Recruit Barracks Building, Commissioned May 27th, 2005…) I can also tell you that per Executive Order 549, 8 January 1907 and -- United States Navy Regulations, 1990, Article 0406 In order that there shall be uniformity in the matter of designating naval vessels, it is hereby directed that the official designation of vessels of war, and other vessels of the Navy of the United States, shall be the name of such vessel, preceded by the words, United States Ship, or the letters U.S.S., and by no other words or letters. Therefore, unless you are suggesting that the Navy violated an executive order and countermanded one of its own regulations, this building is a United States Ship. I agree that it is not a ship in the sense that it does not have the ability to get underway, but by executive order, USS is a designation of vessels of war, and other vessels of the Navy of the United States.
- As for the mailing address, you would have to contact the post office, but common sense would suggest that the preferred addressing of mail is chosen to minimize misdirected mail to one USS Enterprise that was meant for the other.
- I agree that a lot of time is wasted trying to defend this page. If it didn’t need so much defending perhaps I would have more time to research and add more information. If it gets merged or deleted, then you all can make the best of it. My interest extends to this subject only as a stand alone subject and NOT as a merged subject.Rossusna02 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rossusna02: I don't follow this article or the talk page closely, but I'm in sympathy with your desire to defend this article as a standalone. There needs to be one or more instances of newspaper coverage or something similar to show that the subject is notable enough to have its own article. If you can't find 'em, it's pretty good evidence that there's a notability deficit here, in spite of any sympathies any of us may have. Jane's Fighting Ships would be a good source, but I'm kind of doubting if the building is in there. Find something else, and life will get easier. One could also consider renaming (moving) the article as "USS Enterprise (Building)" or something similar that says unequivocally that we're dealing with a building here. The present title doesn't quite do that.
- Also, if there's a commissioning plaque or whatever, it would be nice if somebody could take a picture of it and upload it, then show it in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing all of the comments and the press releases I could find, I suspect that the real issue here is the word "commisioned". As the original editor quoted with regard to ships, only commisioned ships of the U.S. Navy carry the USS prefix. However a building (regardless of how it is treated) is not an actual ship, and so may not fall under those naming rules. I.E. a building may be named USS ... without being considered a ship.
- I also found a press Navy press release describing the "commisioning" of a training division.[2] Based on said article, it is clear that the Navy commisions things other than ships (and does not always even treat them like ships), and so they could commision a building without officially designating said building as a ship. Based on that it is clear to me that:
- The building is named "USS Enterprise"
- It was commissioned in a ceremony
- It is treated by those in the building as if they were on a ship
- But none of that makes it the U.S. Navy's ninth USS Enterprise when it comes to actual ships.
- Are any of the other buildings named for ships that are still in serivce?
- Does any Navy paperwork or press release call the building either the "ninth ship to bear the name", or a succsessor to the existing aircraft carrier ?
- —MJBurrage(T•C) 03:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of the rest of the ships on base can be found in the PowerPoint file I provided earlier as a reference, which I found online.
- The main issue here with respect to press releases is that Recruit Training Command is for the most part a restricted base. Although tours are arranged through our Public Affairs Officer for various Official Groups, in general what we do here is not written about, which makes finding more than a sentence here and there in a few articles very difficult. Perhaps I will write an article for the base news paper about the two divisions I commissioned tonight and mention the ship in the article so that when it is published, if it is released on a public website it can be supplied here.Rossusna02 (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) didn't used to be restricted. I wasn't there after 9/11, tho. you used to be able to just walk on with a driver's license. Force protection changed a whole lot, I guess. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Building a ship[edit]
Lt. Ross, on your last edit to USS Enterprise (list of ships) you moved the buildings entry back to the main ships section with the following description "she is officially commissioned and named USS Enterprise, she is treated like an actual U.S. Navy ship in all respects, even though she is a building."
My questions regarding this wording:
- Do you have a source that states any commissioning by the Navy makes the subject of the commissioning a ship?
I ask because the Navy also commissioned the George H.W. Bush Training Division,[3] which is clearly not a ship (nor even treated like one) despite being commissioned.
- Is Building 7115 (named USS Enterprise) on an official list of U.S. Navy ships such as Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships?
I ask because I have seen nothing that states that the Navy considers the building "to be a ship" as apposed to "treating it like a ship" for training purposes.
—MJBurrage(T•C) 16:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MJBurrage in response to your question, “Do you have a source that states any commissioning by the Navy makes the subject of the commissioning a ship.” The answer is NO. Just because something is commissioned does NOT make it a ship. I commission about two divisions a week here, and they are not ships; moreover, I myself am commissioned and I am clearly not a ship. What I tried to imply was unique about the USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) is that it has been commissioned USS, and as both you and I have pointed out, USS is only for commissioned ships of the navy, and usually only one at a time. And there in lies my argument that since the building is commissioned and its name is preceded by USS it must be a ship, per executive order 549, 8 January 1907. Which is contributing to why I think the building is notable.
- And as mentioned throughout this debate, it is a building, but by the US governments definition of USS it must be recognized that this building is classified as a United States Ship. And as you already know, everyone here treats it like a ship too. We have a brow, a quarterdeck, a commanding officer (ship’s officer), Command Senior Chief (Ship’s LCPO), Chaplain, Galley, Compartments, Passageways, Racks, Heads, Swabs… etc….Rossusna02 (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rossusna02, I think you've gotten to the heart of the problem with the discussion here: there are many differing uses for the verb "commission" in the United States Navy. For Wikipedia notability purposes, a ship that is commissioned, i.e. goes through the ship commissioning process, is considered by consensus to be notable. Other entities—like officers (such as yourself), or units, buildings, or what-have-you—that are commissioned (in other senses of the word) do not have that same consensus of notability. So taking your point, that you were commissioned but are (obviously) not a ship nor claiming to be one, it seems clear you understand that there are differing definitions of the word commission. What I see here is that the "commissioning" of building 7115 is one of these other uses of commission. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at the new External Reference Link I added. It is an official Navy Video which should explain my position quite well, and provide the much needed reference we have been in search of.Rossusna02 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I created a reference to the external link you added. It is an official Navy video which clearly states that the building is commissioned and this building will be part of history as it carries on the lineage of the Enterprise name. I think notability has been established with this reliable source. Please KEEP this article and allow the author to continue developing it (instead of defending it). Dan (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All the other discussion aside - althought it truly is interesting to follow, and much of it is new information to me - the bottom line to me is still that despite a significant effort by numerous experienced editors, and subject-matter experts, we still have a dearth of independant reliable sources. We know that the building exists, and that it is commssioned as a training facillity, and treated a ship. Still, to exist as its own free standing article, there needs to be some sort of reliable sourcing. Absent that, while I would never support outright deletion in a case like this, a merge to an appropriate notable target still seems most appropriate. I agree with Rossusna2002 that Recruit Training Command would be the most appropriate merge target, and if no one else has gotten to it by this weekend, I will have a go at gathering sources to start that article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Sandstein 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Edvarda Aslaksen Braanaas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Autobiographical article (consider content of User:Jahibadkaret) that fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTREPOSITORY and possibly others. The vast majority of the info in this article is unreferenced, and the little that is doesn't establish notability.
I'd PROD this but considering the conflict of interest that exists for the contributor, this would just end up at AfD in a day or two anyway. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of good references increased by 1 due to Tyrenius' work :) If we get to 2, I'll change my position. RayAYang (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've cleaned up the article and added a ref from the Norwegian Embassy site. There are refs in the external links section which could be used, but most, like most of the google results are not in English. Ty 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well that appears to take care of the WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTREPOSITORY problems, but I still don't see evidence that she passes WP:CREATIVE; she may have been part of a significant exhibition, but was she a substantial part thereof? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary requirement per WP:N is multiple independent sources. I've added more refs and it's looking better. I've posted on Wikiproject Norway to see if anyone can help with sources and translation, which is a stumbling block. I'm inclined to think she passes the bar. Henne is, I understand, a leading magazine. The useful references are certainly not 0, as stated above. Ty 01:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm not going to have an opinion about the article nor the process, but I can help with Norwegian language text if desired. I live in Norway & read and write the languages fluently. In quick searches I find nothing about this artist in no:wikipedia. What I do find on Google certainly confirms that she exists but it appears that descriptions/opinions of her work is (primarily) in her own words, in interviews and the like. She lists as relevant work experience jobs as guide at the Edvard Munch Museum and similar, and in the staff one year of the major national art exhibit Høstutstillingen (Haustutstillinga), but I can't see that her work has been included there. --Hordaland (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet notability requirements. __meco (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am the original author of EAB. (It is holiday here so I have not been able to follow what's been happening here.) I must say that I appreciate the critique given above, however this is my first significant wikipedia entry and have not been able to immediately address all issues alone... I do however, feel that EAB satisfy both part 2 and part 3 (multiple independent periodical articles or reviews) under WP:CREATIVE. In particular, if the Henne article counts, certainly the VG article should count as well, since it represents one of the 5 largest Norwegian newspapers. Finally, I believe that her work style is not just a simple iconic juxtaposition. Although it could partially be described as such, I think there is more thought and originality to her technique than that, since she is not only changing the iconic meaning, but also using it as fundamental part integrated as a whole. This is how I have understood it and that seems very original to me. (AFAIK. I have not seen any contemporary painters do this, in this manner.) Thus I do not agree with Meco's notability failure. I would also be very happy to contribute with specific translations or additional material regarding this article. I will also attempt to contact EAB regarding clarification of the above mentioned issues. -- Jahibadkaret (talk) -- —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep but needs a more substantial basis for substance - public collections? important private collections? etc..Modernist (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I'd found another item in her favor, but it didn't work out. She is still listed at: [14], a half-public organization which rents out works of art to "the workplace", canteens etc. (Click for the continuation of the list, search on page for edvarda.) You'll find a link to her participation in the project, but it's a dead (404) link. Oh, well, it's not listed on her CV, either.
--Hordaland (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Ooops, sorry. None of the "Go to" links on that page work, apparently. Clicking on her name does get you to a new site, but the link there takes you right back where you were. --Hordaland (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your participation which is very helpful. Is this site of any use? You mentioned interviews above. Are any of these on sites of any substance? Also I wonder if you could evaluate the status newspapers and magazines given in references and the external links section, Aftenposten, VG and Henne. Ty 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again. Haven't really found much in the way of articles or criticisms. Have found that she shows and sells etchings and drawings as well as the oil paintings. Still seems strange to me that an article should appear on en: before no: or nn: Wikipedia, but maybe there aren't many art-interested editors on nn and no. Has apparently been shown in London this spring; see poster at the bottom of this page.
- Henne is a glossy magazine for women aged 20-40 owned by a publisher which owns lots of glossy magazines. 17 print issues/year.
- Aftenposten, VG and Dagbladet are probably the three best known daily newspapers in Norway. All three are from Oslo but sold all over the country. I think all three use only bokmål, the majority version of written Norwegian, though some softening up may be underway.
- Aftenposten is staid, conservative, respectable almost to a fault. It's sold in major newsstands but not in every grocery store or gas station. (You can click on their main page for News in English.) A search for Braanaas on their website gives: 25.04.08, announcement of her exhibit in Oslo; and 17.03.06, article/announcement about her sales exhibit in Oslo.
- VG is a tabloid which will put anything on the front page if they can use the word sex in the headline; murder and kidnapping sells well, too. Lots of Sport. Available wherever newspapers are sold.
- Dagbladet, which may not have been mentioned here (yet), is in between. Site search for Edvarda Braanaas gives announcement of a 3 artist exhibition in 1998.
- KIK is "The Artists' Information Office" established in 1986 by several artists', craftsmen's and photographers' organizations. Online since 2005. Receives some public funding. Presents living Norwegian artists and their works; has a huge collection of slides. Publishes a yearbook. Provides consultants for public purchases of art. The page you've found about Braanaas presents her, her background, education and ideals; I would assume that it was written by or in collaboration with her.
- --Hordaland (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read thoroughly all the critique given here including the details addressing WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:CREATIVE and WP:N issues. However, I fail to see a clear picture of the issues at hand that remains to be addressed. Could you be more specific? There are some very cloudy statements above. Perhaps because much of the original article have been removed instead of rewritten. (Personally I think it should be part of general courtesy to first inform article authors before significant parts are removed or rewritten, but then again I am new to this so I don't know what laws rule in this jungle. ;)
To be specific (comments and questions):
- What is an important private collection? (Is a person who buys several of the artists works considered as important, or does the buyer have to be famous in some other sensedd?)
- Important private collections generally indicate an art collection that has a wide variety of artists works, both known and unknown, a wide variety of art both new and older considered to be worth while as a collection of viable aesthetic substance.Modernist (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it mean to be part of a substantial exhibition? This can be intrinsically unclear as the Norwegian art scene is very small although very active.
- Museum show, important gallery, both, group show with international or national figures, Modernist (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not clear why wikipedia links and references to EAB educational institutions have been removed? This seem very non standard.
- RayYang: It is not clear where one should put a reference to an inspirational source. Certainly by every other reference standard, one would list it along the other sources.
- Hordaland seem confused by the work experience which should have been part of the EAB Biography and not understood as relevant artistic work. (This would have been understood if the original text was not deleted, wherein work experience was never included!) He also state that the descriptions and opinions are primarily by her own words, which is incorrect. These are the words of the journalist authors, some of who are art critic's. Although I leave the obvious possibility open for someone having paraphrased EAB in a possible interview.
- I have contacted EAB for obtaining further references and working links to relevant material. I'm Awaiting her respons.
- Personal Comment: I have written this article without any personal gain or interest other than my pleasure in I letting people know about a contemporary artist who I and others find interesting and original enough that we believe she should be part of the other wikipedia artist entries from that country. As such, I followed a number of other artist entries in writing style and content. I was therefore very surprised to find most of entries removed. This especially since I can easily list a number of contemporary artists on both the Swedish and Norwegian wikipedia who certainly are both less eligible and less noteworthy, at least in comparison to the strict criteria EAB have been faced with. Could it be that the English wikipedia part are overly restrictive in comparison to what you find on wikipedias from smaller countries? (Or perhaps the opposite?)
Furthermore (as I already mentioned earlier) I also reject the idea of her work style being simple juxtapositions of recognizable iconography. This is like saying that Beethoven's symphonies are just simple juxtapositions of sounds iconofied by notes. It completely misses the point.
-- Jahibadkaret (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC) --[reply]
- What is needed is to establish notability through coverage in independent secondary sources. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Under the edit box it states: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." This is an article in progress: it can be added to or amended, provided material is cited. The artist's web site can be used as a source for non-contentious material such as education and birth place. The article doesn't say simple "juxtapositions of recognizable iconography". The statement was derived from the reference. Please specify how the reference does not indicate that and what you consider the reference does indicate. That should be done on the article talk page, though, not here. Ty 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too little coverage of her work by third-party reliable sources as of yet, much less than it is customarily required by WP:BIO for creative artists. Does not pass WP:CREATIVE for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of major awards or of work in major museums. DGG (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Most "keep" opinions do not address the principal issue, i.e., WP:WEB (a community-accepted guideline) requiring substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, or the winning of an important award. Numerous weblinks have been posted in the later stages of the AfD, but none of them appear prima facie to fulfill these criteria. Sandstein 22:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 | 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}}. |
- The Mana World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Article describes an open-source MMORPG. However, the game does not appear to pass notability standards. The game was nominated for an award, but does not appear to have significant third party coverage beyond that. A Google search does not give any significant hits either, beyond the same advert blurb repeated on a number of different sites. TN‑X-Man 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the deletion of The Mana World article[edit]
- This article was market for deletion in first 10 minutes after being created, being in the stub state. Unless Tnxman307 is an expert in any software field, s/he shouldn't mark it for deletion while the the article is at its creation stage.
- The project has won much attention on one of biggest OSS colaboration sites (sourceforget.net) and is one of finalists of Community Choice Awards 2008 in prominent "Best Project for Gamers" category.
http://sourceforge.net/community/cca08-finalists
- The project is included in mainstream Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian Arch Linux and Fedora.
- It is also one of very few MMORPG for UNIX-like operating systems.
- It high ratings at gaming and software distributions pages such as Linux Game Tome, Softopedia, Freshmeat, Linuxappfinder
- Why similar pages such as Eternal Lands are included in the Wikipedia?
- It is ranked 50 at top 100 MMORPG ranking http://www.mmorpg100.com/index.php?cat=2d%20mmorpg
- Exact phrase "The Mana World" typed in Google returns 55000 results - where most of them are about this project.
- What do TMW stands for? http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/TMW
- The game is described and recomended on:
- XFCE official website: http://wiki.xfce.org/games
- Gentoo Wiki http://gentoo-wiki.com/Software/Games
- Open SuSE site: http://tr.opensuse.org/Games
- Ubuntu Guide: http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Alternatives
- Fedora official website: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Games
and many other software sites over the Internet.
Therefore it is definately a notable software project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platyna (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Platyna has been mostly involved with the article. There are a lot of assertions of notability (MMORPG100, Xfce). The Sourceforge ones should be mostly ignored. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article says it all. 60 players online at any given time!?!? Kill it. Come back when it has a real fan base. Ray Yang (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Said comment are textbook examples of WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. MuZemike (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, that's an essay, not a guideline or policy. And, while it's undoubtedly true that in certain regimes numbers are not the sole determinant of quality, in other regimes they can fairly be said to be controlling. I offer three examples the numbers 0, 3000, and 6 billion. If the game is known to 0 people, it is not notable. If it is known to 6 billion people, even if it's the stupidest game ever devised in the rain on a Sunday afternoon, it is notable, if only because 6 billion people all know of it. If it's 3000 ... then that may depend and we go looking for quality sources. In the universe of MMORPGs, I regard 60 as being one hell of a lot closer to 0 than any intermediate regime. RayAYang (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not interpreting what I referenced as guidelines or policies, but as noted common flaws in deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep — This article was created on 18:13, 13 July 2008 and nominated for deletion 19:06, 13 July 2008; nomination for AfD was also bot-assisted. Reasons for nomination is a textbook example of WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, and judging by the quick nomination for deletion, WP:WHOCARES. In addition, if this is not a textbook example of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, I don't know what is. (Surely no one expects a house to build itself in 45 minutes time.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Afds like this are typically put out because it is called New Pages Patrol, not "three-day-old pages patrol". Nifboy (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it should be called the latter, then, if we get a lot of articles that aren't given the chance to prove themselves. --Kizor 04:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We do, but WP:CSD#A7 takes care of the bulk of them. Compared to quietly deleting it when the article creator isn't looking, I find it to be the lesser evil. Nifboy (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But even the New Pages Patrol states that users should be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days. If anything else, under this patrol, this should have put up as a candidate for speedy deletion. MuZemike (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete First, let's please stop derailing this AfD discussion. The nomination is grounded in policy and made in good faith. Attacking the nom's expediency or software expertise is neither. The amount of time that passes between creation and AfD is irrelevant if no reliable sources exist, and so far we don't have any (at least, not from the list Platyna posted above or in the article). By the deletion criteria, what we actually expect from a new article is not for it to be complete upon posting, but for its author to have written enough of a stub, either already referenced or with ready sources to be referenced, to prevent deletion nominations, like this one, for failing basic criteria. Sources that establish notability don't seem to exist for this article, and that is the actual policy question raised by the nom. AfD also lasts five days, during which sources can be found. The article is, therefore, given ample opportunity to prove notability, if the authors neglected to do so prior to creating the page. I am willing to change my vote if reliable sources are found. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This game is recommended by many major Linux distribution projects on their MAIN PAGES (links are posted here), how come it is not enought to consider this project as significiant? And we have real fan base, it takes about 10 minutes to search Google at exact phrase "The Mana World" to find like 50 or more fan websites, listings etc. I may post them but it would be alot of links. Also I am unable to comprehend how the SF Community Choice Awards should be ignored if it is one of more important events in OSS software development. There are many pages such as Eternal Lands that doesn't have as much evidence of their importance as this project's page. Also, since where the Wikipedia is voting for deletion of stubs that are just being built after 10 minutes after their creation? Where is the free speech there?
And a propos WP:GOOGLE hits:
http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&q=The+Mana+World&btnG=Szukaj&lr=
350000 without exact phrase (Since this project is called The Mana World, TheManaWorld, TMW, Mana World etc.)
55000 with exact phrase "The Mana World"
15000 with exact phrase "TheManaWorld"
67000 with exact phrase "Mana World"
Also it is mentioned in most of free MMORPG for Linux topics in many software and gamers forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platyna (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth to note vast majority of these results is about this project.
Platyna (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The reason there are no reliable sources is because the article was nominated for deletion less than an hour after it's creation. It has potential to become an article with decent sources. MuZemike was right on the money there, "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built". I could understand if this was nominated even a day after creation (although I still wouldn't agree with that as articles take days before they even become an acceptable stub), but less than an hour is just ridiculous. --.:Alex:. 08:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter how long it takes to write the article, it has to establish notability. Delete. Andre (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no WP:DEADLINE on establishing notability and significance. My point is not about how long it takes to create an article, my point is that it's been only an hour since creation before being nominated for deletion. Yes, creating an article without first establishing such notability is not necessarily a good idea, but it is not a rule, and this seems very much a case of biting the newcomers. Newcomers aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies and judging by the users talk page, this user was informed about WP:RS and WP:N just 4 minutes before the article was nominated. This all seems extreme. I feel the article has potential, but this seems a case of someone planting a seed, and someone else digging it up in the afternoon. --.:Alex:. 09:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have seven days to improve it. That's more than the 1 day requested before bringing to AfD. If you've made it better after, say, 4 days (or even 7), leave a big bold note here saying that the votes above it refer to a different state of the article. Easy. —Giggy 09:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very new user, however I am contributing to the Wikipedia when I feel fit. I have always avoided wars, but now I indeed feel there is an unjustice, since many articles about games are kept with even lesser proof of being significant. I am speaking on behalf this article especially as a Linux user, since there are not many games for Linux, especially fully open source, and the free open source MMMORPGs for Linux can be counted on one hand fingers. Wikipedia, as the Open Source project itself should underestand the need to provide information about well established Open Source software that gained much audience all over the Internet.
I am very sad, that instead of improving the article I have to waste the time to discuss the sake of its existence, right after the article was created. I have posted enought evidence to prove the need to keep this article on the Wikipedia. Also while creating this article I was fully aware its quality is NOT YET at the level that would satisfy Wikipedia's requirements and mine, but well, AFAIK it is stub's right, since it is STUB not the ARTICLE.
Platyna (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable game. The article seems like an excuse to list a collection of external links. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My biggest concern when nominating this article was the lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Almost all of the Google results are for the same advertising blurb ("…a serious effort to create an innovative free and open source MMORPG…"). In my opinion, there was not enough coverage to meet WP:N. TN‑X-Man 11:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This project has been around since 2004 and has only been growing. It is also as far as I am aware unique in its kind. This is not the first time somebody took the time to write up an article about it on Wikipedia (see User talk:Dr Wahl, earlier this year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjørn (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Disclosure: Bjørn's one of the developers, according to his user page. Also, the only edits he's made since March 2007 have been to this AfD and the article itself. Fin©™ 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are correct in stating that this article has been created once. However, the article was speedily deleted in January for failing to assert significance. TN‑X-Man 16:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Disclosure: EJlol's only contributions (2) have been to the article and this AfD. Fin©™ 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can you explain the following to me: let's say I made 1.000.000 edits before I voted here, do you really think that would change my opinion? I do not think so. This project is unique in it's kind and deserves a wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EJlol (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, this isn't a vote. Secondly, you should read this essay on single-purpose accounts. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Most of software sites copies introduction from the main page, it only speaks on the article behalf that so many sites wants to copy the game website and announce releases of the game client.
Comment/Disclosure:
PS. Thank for the edit counters Falcon9x5, but I have made like thousand of editions to Polish and English Wikipedia as the IP, since it is dynamic and I am lazy to log in, and there are many other persons who logs in just to create new articles or participate in discussions, and they usualy don't have 31337 fancy edit counters on their user pages because their only concern is to contribute to the online community knowledge base not to pump their edit count. Not telling most of non-English users prefers to contribute to their local Wikipedia's (I am the author of Biology article on PL Wikipedia along with ALOT other Biology portal articles). Not to mention that I heard every vote counts the same in the Wikipedia votings.
Platyna (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletions are not granted or denied by counting votes; they are granted or denied based on the merits of the arguments given. If there is no consensus, then the article is not deleted. MuZemike (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability has not been demonstrated with reliable sources unrelated to the project which cover the game in detail. None are coming up in a search. Waiting for a house to be built with materials not fit for purpose doesn't help anyone, the wrecking ball would still be used at some point and the building time between then and now would be wasted. Very open to switching to keep should some genuinely solid sources turn up, but the nature of the game itself, the sources presented here and the ones coming up in a search makes it extremely unlikely. Someoneanother 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can use the ubuntu popularity contest to compare the number of people who have installed the program on ubuntu linux machines http://popcon.ubuntu.com/. These numbers do not include people who play the game on windows or other linux distributions, the who compile their own client, nor the ubuntu linux users who have disabled the popularity contest, but I think they do allow you to compare one game from the List_of_open_source_games against others. Several games on the list appear to have less users than The Mana World. (DISCLAIMER: I sometimes play The Mana World) nielsle 14 July 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 17:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, please actually read the two links posted by Someoneanother. It doesn't matter whether the game has millions of users or six or none at all. The existence of articles on Wikipedia is determined by the policies and guidelines explained in these two links, it's not just "notability" as in the common word "notability" found in dictionaries. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless reliable sources are found by the conclusion of this AFD. The expectation of deletion criteria is not that articles will be completed on creation, but that they must be in at least a vaguely ok condition so as to fulfil the most basic criteria for inclusion. These include assertions of notability that may be backed up with reliable sources if contested. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are expected to contain only information which may be justified, therefore any one of us may reasonably question any facet of information that is not explicitly justified with a reference to a reliable source. Articles which fail to do this may be deleted. If sources exist, then they may be added and the great majority of the delete comments (note I say comment not vote), if not all of them, will become keeps - including mine. As a number of contributors to this AFD are intimately associated with the project, they are surely well placed to identify third party references to the article subject, such as references in the mainstream gaming press. I would also like to point out that the reason for the objection on grounds of involvement with the project is that Wikipedia has a very clear guideline on conflicts of interest that affected editors may wish to read up on. See, when you have an imtimate association with an article then your objectivity in relation to that article's fulfilment of Wikipedia policy and guidelines may be compromised. A third party view and critque of an article's notability does not necessarily violate WP:IDONTKNOWIT and indeed is essential for objectivity. I have never heard of the article's subject, and I am questioning it's notability - I put it to those who know about it to prove to me that it has notability because I just don't see it. Please take advantage of this opportunity. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's just run through this, the poeople here who haven't heard of this are the people that spend their time patrolling wikipedia for edits, correct? So the only way you can gauge the "notability" (I use that loosely, see a comment near the end) is by using search engines. Thus the people that have heard of the game spend their time doing other activites and may have intertests in the fields in which the game is in (RPGs, Open source software etc), which would mean they have far more experience with regards to the "notability" of it. '...it's not just "notability" as in the common word "notability" found in dictionaries.' Awesome so people on wikipedia make their own meanings of words up, how nice. I would be stating Keep rather than Comment but since I am now a developer of this project (I was a loyal player for over a year before this, this also being the first and only RPG I have and do play.) you would obvious discredit my views, since this is not a democracy or any thing near it in fact. Regards Quiche on a leash (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC) — Quiche on a leash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete The guidelines state: “The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"”. I fail to understand how software which, according to the developers’ own admission, is ‘pre-alpha’ can be described as ‘worthy of notice’.(User:Sher-righan 20:40 JUL 14 2008 (UTC)) — Sher-righan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- It's worthy of notice because, its unique in it's kind AND its a SourceForge Community Choice Awards 2008 in prominent "Best Project for Gamers" category finalist. not to mention that the project is included in mainstream Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian Arch Linux and Fedora. That the project is still in "pre-alpha" has nothing to do with it. "pre-alpha" means that it doesn't look right now as the end product, it says nothing about worthy of notice or not. EJlol (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding "Notability" We are using the word Notability as defined by Wikipedia:Notability - and that is FINAL. End of discussion, if you disagree with that policy then this AFD is not the place to discuss that. Quiche on a Leash by the way I resent the accusation that I have no life because I happened to watch the AFD page, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Caissa, which policy are you referring to? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, Wikipedia: Notability as I linked to? I know it's only a guideline but the people who signed up purely for this AFD seem to be confused as to the definition of notability that is being applied here. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Megata. Let's not forget Wikipedia's 5th pillar: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Aside from official policy, nothing is final.
MuZemike (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR only applies when you can actually justify your stance - I posit that the subject of this article is not notable, I'm asking to be proven wrong. I don't believe there is good cause to ignore the notability guideline in this instance, and nobody saying keep here has demonstrated that there is. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, I did post Delete above and I agree with Caissa. However, the debate is kind of heated so I think there's no need to exaggerate or magnify one's view by claiming that a guideline is a policy (for instance). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notability asserted through coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. An AfD of a recently created article is a pretty bad decision, but this game is clearly not notable. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentt. I would like to raise a few points concerning this AfD:
- Some discussion above draws on numbers of people who know about or use the subject; but it doesn't matter if people "know" about something. Just because we all know something exists doesn't make it notable, what makes it notable is if it receives adequate verifiable sources that assert that notability. Where that cannot be easily found, we can turn to numbers as a rough yard-stick for whether or not verifable sources asserting notability 'could' be found. Note that rough yard-stick really is just that.
- I entirely disagree with the concept that Wikipedia:Notability is final. This is a wikipedia, it is NEVER final by definition and that applies as much to policy and guidelines as it does to the very articles they try to protect. If such rules or policy prevent us from an improving an article we are to ignore those rules and policies and possibly seek their change.
- The subject of the article was a finalist in a specialist community awards programme, that could be said to be one of the highest forms of recognition for an open-source project. Why someone would suggest that we should ignore sourceforge links does not make sense at all too me. We are applying commercial gaming standards to an open-source project, which does not help us make a quality, comprehenive record of video gaming in an encyclopedic format.
Icemotoboy (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that Point 2 there misinterprets what I meant when I said that the notability guideline is final. I was responding to the various alternative definitions of notability that are being thrown about in this AFD, with references being made to dictionary definitions, Wikipedia making up its own terms, etc. All I was trying to say is that the definition of Notability that is the subject of this AFD, and that which some believe this article fails, is that described in Wikipedia:Notability and not anywhere else like a dictionary. I hope that clarifies the matter. Thanks. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You said it is the WP:Notability is final, exactly your words, so stop retreating now when you were proven to be authoritative person lacking the Wikipedia's mode-of-operation knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 17:51, July 15, 2008
Since the discussion is lenghty I would like to write below some resume:
Fact 1: TMW project is very unique, there is just one (known to me) OSS MMORPG - Daimonin.
Comment: Two projects like that among thousands of other OSS projects is definately notable fact making this project also notable (I have excluded all OSS game engines since they are, as the name says, engines not games).
Fact 2: TMW project gained prominent result in one of most important OSS contests - it is a finalist in the Community Choice Awards by SF.
Comment: As a person very concerned about OSS phenomena, I am appalled, when I am told to ignore this prominent and notable fact, surely such people (who are telling me that) have no idea about OSS at all, therefore they shouldn't even take part in this discussion, since they are unable to judge notability of this project.
Fact 3: Among hundreds of packages that are in the directory games of mainsteam Linux distributions repositories, this game is recomended on the official websites in their prominent and one of most visited category "games", links are posted above.
Comment: This fact does not require one.
Fact 4: The article is about project that complies with policy described in WP:GOOGLEHITS.
Comment: This fact does not require one.
Note 1: A short one to people yelling about "deranging" this page: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/debate Wiktionary happens to be also useful and notable project, worth to be checked once a while.
Note 2: I joined EN Wikipedia a long time before most of you, barnstar and template people, did. You are screaming out loud and trying to challenge credibility of other persons by attaching to their names edit counters and SPA templates to suggest they are sockpuppets, made by who? By me? It is indeed very low.
Platyna (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Platyna that is complete rubbish - my exact words were, if you'll look, "We are using the word notability as defined by Wikipedia:Notability, and that is final. Why do you assume that the second clause is what I'm referring to as final? It might be slightly badly phrased, but I've certainly clarified that what I mean by final is the definition of notability. I'm not saying the guideline is final, and feel free to question it (not here though) but no other definition of notability other than that used in the guideline will be used in this AFD. That much is final. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - let us know if it actually wins an award and I might be convinced it passes WP:N, particularly if combined with pointers to substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Also, I see that both WP:Notability and WP:GOOGLEHITS have been described in the above as "policies", which is incorrect. The former is a guideline and the latter is an essay. Marasmusine (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even worse, GOOGLEHITS is a description of what not to do. Pagrashtak 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Worse than that, in the same edit in which I'm erroneously accused of considering the notability guideline final, WP:GOOGLEHITS - an essay, no less (or is "no more" a more appropriate comment in this instance? :p ) - is referred to as policy. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ‘If someone brought this page to your attention’—I would like to note that User:Platyna has been actively bringing this page to the attention of developers on irc channel [#tmwdev]. I am also interested that no-one has bothered to note this fact above (User:Sher-righan 16:45 Jul 15 2008 (UTC))— Sher-righan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete: Normally I'd advise against nominating something this quickly. But because this is an open source game that has only been out for a few months, it's not surprising that there is no coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Completely non-notable, as it does not meet the general notability guideline. Randomran (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually this project is almost 5 year's old. See also this [18] EJlol (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's that old and there's nothing in the press about it that makes me even more convinced it isn't notable. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Keep in mind that this is an open–source project. There is the potential to run into problems if we judge this article with the same weight/tenacity as commercial, closed-source projects. With that said, I'm not opposing the deletion of the article per se, (We obviously should not give open–source projects special treatment, which is what I'm trying not to imply.) but rather the circumstances in which it was so quickly nominated. MuZemike (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am sorry to say that, but I must admitt, that over all these years Wikipedia has gone crazy. Ruin my work as you see fit. I don't have a time for flames, however I will not contribute to the Wikipedia anymore since it has lost its point.
Platyna (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you won't let this one incident drive you away. The problem isn't that Wikipedia has lost its way—it's just that a lot of people have misunderstandings of what Wikipedia is. I found myself surprised quite a number of times my first few months here. If you decide to stick around, you'll find that we usually have a good reason behind our rules, although it may not always be apparent at first glance. We're not trying to be rude, and we don't want to ruin anyone's work, we're just upholding the policies and guidelines that we have arrived at by consensus. Try contributing to established articles in a related field. Perhaps you could help ensure that other MMO projects are presented with a neutral point of view, or NPOV. Pagrashtak 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Nah, let him go. If the user insists on taking everything personally, then maybe the user doesn't belong here. I'd like to say that we do have a better understanding of how to run things than we did a couple of years ago when there was nothing but disorganization and chaos.- This is what happens when an article gets nominated for AfD so hastily as at has been. MuZemike (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a article about the mana world written in this magazine: [19] because we do not know which issue and/or page number, we are now trying to contact the director of the magazine. EJlol (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability, popularity, number of users, standards of opensource vs. commercial products, all of these are secondary. The article NEEDS references to reliable, third party coverage. I don't see any. I can't find any. Without it, all of the other discussions are pointless. Per WP:V, which is a policy, there should not be an article on a subject without reliable, third party sources. Now, if sources are found, the conversation about notability still needs to be had, but without them, it's a pretty clear cut case. gnfnrf (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely agree. The issue here is sources. I do however believe the number of sources we require for this project (as open source) should be lower than that for a commerical project, in part because commercial projects receive more exposure because of their requirement to promote themselves in order to survive. Above there was an indication that a magazine article was available, I haven't voted yet and I'm going to wait and see whether this magazine reference pans out. If it does, that combined with the nomination in the sourceforge awards would make me feel this is keep. Icemotoboy (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Gnfnrf. If reliable sources were provided or the game wins the award for which it is nominated, I would have no problem withdrawing the nomination. I think WP:V is the overriding concern here. TN‑X-Man 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONGKeep Let's say I invented the "Hammerschmidt Bolt", which - unknown to you - exists as part of the suspension of 87% of cars in the world. Is it still notable? By it's sheer coverage and distribution you would have to say yes, and you would ask yourself "how come I never knew this before???" This Alpha version of a game, heralded as a great project for Linux geeks to help program (yes, I used the term "Linux Geek") has a similar distribution, but you just don't know about it - yet. Heck, there's a couple of Windows Vista games that most people have no clue about, but they're all over the world! Maybe you want to rename it "The Mana World Project" or something, feel free ... just improve the article as possible BMW(drive) 17:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree to your statements, however the discussion (in particular gnfnrf's comments) has drifted (back... finally) to the key issue: Verified sources of notability. There is a solid claim of notability, that on the face of it may be verifable. A magazine article has been identified but not yet provided. If this claim of notability can be established, then I think the consensus would be in the direction of keep. Should no sources providing notability can be found, one begins to question if they indeed exist in numbers required to hold this article. Icemotoboy (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong/Speedy Keep, clearly it appears it is establishing that it is notable. Plus a general protest vote agains the poor manner in which this poor article was sent off to AfD. Mathmo Talk 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is what Dries Verachtert - one of authorities of Dag Wieers's RPM repository wrote about TMW:
(Info for people such as TN-X-Man, who has litte underestanding of Linux and OSS community: Dag Wieers Is a creator of one of biggest and most important software repositories for Red Hat-like distributions, included in almost all RH-like distributions, which is maintained by group of professionals such as Verachtert.)
Therefore I think despite the desperate attempts of TN-X-Man to degrade the my voice and those who were speaking on behalf my work, the truth is by my side.Platyna (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Platyna (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First of all, I would like to mention that I have no personal grudge against this game or open source projects in general. However, I would be happy to discuss with you the links you have provided. It appears that the content on those two pages are the same paragraph that is provided at several of the other links in the article. Are there any third party reviews of the game? Those would be good additions to the article. As I mentioned earlier, I would have no problem withdrawing this AfD nomination if reliable sources are provided. I see someone mentioned a magazine article, which would be a great source. I hope we can work through this peacefully and best of luck. TN‑X-Man 14:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is third party review, and these pages are sort of mirrors, one is his private page and one is repository page he made.Platyna (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that I did mistake, since Dries has copied the decription out of Freshmeat page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platyna (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As QOAL (aka Quich_on_a_Leash) is a member of the development team of The Mana World, that last reference is irrelevant. Sher-righan (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well he wasn't a member of the development team when he wrote that application. Of course all of these applications are written by fans who'd like to contribute something, and the line between contributors and the "development team" is usually rather vague in open source software. But it's good to know that we should be careful who to call a member of the development team, for their contributions may suddenly be seen as irrelevant. --Bjørn (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Has that article been sourced? The magazine one described above? I think what Tnxman307 is saying, is that we'd all like to see tjhe claim of notability established to the standards we have here at wikipedia. Theres quite a few sources like the one you posted above, but I think what would settle the issue would be at least one reference in a notable source (such as the magazine, or something like that, or winning that award). Icemotoboy (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And what I am saying is that the guideliness are flawed, shady, and majority of their content cannot apply to OSS. And since they are preventing me to improve Wikipedia I am hereby ignoring them.Platyna (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you mean by the guidelines being "shady", but Wikipedia:Notability applies to open-source projects as much as any other field. Without the sources required for notability, we have no hope of writing a verifiable article with a neutral point of view. Primary sources alone are not sufficient. Pagrashtak 18:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article complies with NPOV, where it does not? And maybe you would read the article and mark/edit fragments that you think are not NPOV. And about the regulations, user signed as BMW drive explained it nicely here, there is no need for me to repeat it. I am here more than three years and it is first such kind of discussion I am (while being disgusted) involved, but I feel I have to defend here something more than just one article about a game. Platyna (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For this article to be complete, it will need a critical reception section. It is impossible to write such a section without independent reliable sources. If the article is based purely on primary sources, it will reflect that point of view. Pagrashtak 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added two external references about the game to TN-X's discussion page that are reviews of the game. It exists on hundreds of thousands of computers around the world, and is notable. Editors REALLY need to remember that they should never be the same person to both PROD and AfD the same article. BMW(drive) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone separate that section into "Further reading" and "References" so we know what is what? Inline citations would be immensly useful as well. Pagrashtak 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no rule that says the same editor cannot both PROD and AFD the same article. I am in the process of researching the article now; I will give my opinion in a few minutes, but I think the record needs to be set straight here first. J.delanoygabsadds 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no "rule" about being PROD and AfD ... it's called "common sense". It gives someone the impression that you really DO have a hate on for either the article itself OR the author. You always let someone else do the AfD because it's like the Canadian Senate as opposed to the House of Commons .. it's the "house of sober second thought". It's highly possible that you were in too much of a hurry when you did the PROD and weren't objective (as is obvious in this case). If you then turn around and do the AfD when the PROD fails, it makes you, the editor look like a vindictive knob ... you didn't get what you want, so you're going a new direction. Think from the POV of the original editor in this case. Plus, remember one key rule of Wikipedia: if necessary break the rules. If you're a Microsoft weenie, you have no clue about Linux, OSS, or anything. In that case, you really need to stay away from topics you can never understand. Like I said earlier ... this game is on hundreds of thousands of computers across the world - it's therefore notable whether you can find a flipping article or not...the fact that the original text appears on so many sites is more than enough proof. Name for me all of the Microsoft games currently installed with Microsoft Vista Home Premium .. quick, don't look ... just tell me!! Being an editor on Wikipedia isn't rocket science folks BMW(drive) 23:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold up, you used the word "never" when you originally said that - backtracking are we? I recently Prodded an article which then had the tag removed by an IP vandal. Procedure says that in any circumstances whatsoever that a Prod tag is removed it should not be replaced, so I sent the article to AFD where it was duly deleted (the article was Wesley Gibson for the record by the way). Now according to you, I was wrong to do that. But just as you suggested, I applied WP:COMMON and was the submitter of both. How do you rationalise that? And you don't need to use CAPS for emphasis, it's far more polite and less shouty to use italics like everyone else does. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BMW, I have never viewed anyone who PRODs an article and then AfDs it as "hating the article" nor have I ever thought of said people as "vindictive knobs", nor have I ever seen any evidence that anyone else does so. When I have brought articles to AfD after I PROD them, it is almost always when the creator of the article, or an IP user, removes the PROD tag with no improvements whatsoever to the article. In that situation, if I did not bring the article to AfD, I would be saying that either my original PROD tag was completely wrong, or I would be showing that I do not have to courage to follow up on my original opinions.
- In addition, I have several issues with the content of your post above. Your condescending tone ("Being an editor on Wikipedia isn't rocket science folks.") and frequent use of ALL CAPS is very rude. If you have an opinion that differs from mine, cool. But just because you do not agree with an opinion does not mean it is not a valid one. Also, in your entire post, I do not see how any of your examples have a bearing on this discussion. You said, "...the fact that the ORIGINAL TEXT appears on SO MANY SITES is more than enough proof". That statement is flat out wrong. It does not matter how many sites the text is on, it matters which sites the text is on. Nearly 100% of the websites you are talking about are forums, wikis, random collections of information, etc. Also, if the game was being reviewed by a reliable, reputable reviewer, the reviewer would certainly not include the game website's text in their review.
- What purpose was served by mentioning WP:IAR? About the only way you could invoke that here would be to do a non-admin closure as Keep. Is that what you are suggesting you or someone else should do? I also do not understand what you are talking about with the Canadian Legislature either. The only thing I can gather that you are saying is that after a member of the House of Commons introduces a bill, he or she should not pursue it in the Senate; they should just completely ignore it and hope that it passes. Besides that, I see no evidence that the game is being played on "hundreds of thousands" of computers around the world. If there were really more than 100,000 people who had the game, don't you think that more than 50 (Which is five one-hundredths of one per cent of 100,000) would be on at the same time? J.delanoygabsadds 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break[edit]
However I still think you should read the whole discussion, since there are important arguments stated there. Platyna (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what I meant. When I wrote the above, the article had references and external links combined in one section, so it was not clear what was used as a source for the article and what was not. Please divide in the links in the article appropriately. Pagrashtak 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No coverage by reliable third-party sources. I looked everywhere I could think of to try to find information about this game. The info I found that was not first-party sources was in blogs, forums, wikis, and similar places. The list of links Platyna gave above are more of the same. J.delanoygabsadds 20:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is definately not they way to participate in such discussion, what does that mean "you looked everywhere" and why you did not stated why you think eg. Ubuntu or Softopedia website link is unreliable? It is not Wiki, not a blog, not a forum etc. Platyna (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I looked everywhere I could think of" means I spent around 30 or 40 minutes looking at Google search results for various combinations of the game's name to try to find a reliable source that covered it. I looked in vain. Softopedia (from what I could see) is a site that simply tries to collect information about every free software project on the internet. Coverage there does not constitute an assertion of notability. If the Ubuntu link you are referring to is http://popcon.ubuntu.com/, I'm afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say. The webpage does not mention the game at all J.delanoygabsadds 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to say that you should read the content of the page, while doing your research, and then look for tmw in the listings since the page is created for sole purpose of checking popularity of particular software packages.
Platyna (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Links such as the Softpedia link above are not reliable third party sources because they contain the same text as many of the other links, which is itself the same text as the subject's own website. This shows that the site is not demonstrating editorial independence from the subject of the article (necessary for a source to be considered third party) or a reputation for fact checking (necessary for a source to be reliable). No matter how many different websites post the same description of the game off of the official website, or offer it for download, they are not reliable sources unless they meet the standards in WP:SOURCES (part of WP:V) and WP:RS. Note that this hurdle isn't particularly high. A feature article or a review in a magazine, or on an editorially controlled website, would probably suffice. gnfnrf (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Out of that list above, I did notice the strategy informer information page on the project. That indicates that it is being picked up by some mainstream gaming websites. This makes me think that the likelihood of finding other sources would be possible. In all honesty, I really think that there is no consensus here, and I haven't found the arguments of either option particularly compelling. In situations like this, I err on the side of caution. The article should be cleaned up, and revisited for notability and sources in a few months. I think sources can probably be found, but it is proving difficult. Wikipedia is not simply a collection of "articles that can easily be sourced as notable on the internet", we need to consider the context of the content. This is not a typical gaming project, thus we should not approach verifying its claim of notability in a typical way. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad primo: I have planned to write several articles this month, since I have more time as it is summer time but then first one got PRODed and then flamed so I have suspended all my planned work, in fear of my contributions being ruined in the way of bully child destroying other child's sand castles. Yes, such a quick PROD and then AfD with: people "who looked everywhere and couldn't find reliable sources" deranging the discussion, the edit counters, and then SPA templates near the names who has made significant work for OSS (well done, you have flamed here Qt programmer, a RHEL developer and a person working for CERN) makes it very hard for me to assume good faith in this case. I am also very sorry I have to participate in the discussion of the type I have always avoided during my four years long interest in the Wikipedia.
- Ad secundo, I have mentioned WP:IAR and it is also flawed regulation, since if it wouldn't I would remove AFD and then go on with the work, but if I would ignore the regulation that I think I should, my work would be deleted long time ago.
Platyna (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Platnya, do not allow this specific incident to stop you. About a month ago I created about 2-dozen stubs in Project Caribbean (all of which have since been expanded by others), and surprisingly got a Barnstar for it. A week later I created a couple of dozen more stubs based on music of Newfoundland and Labrador (all from REDLINKS) and had a few of them PROD'd. All of them have since remained and been expanded upon by others. A BOT actually blanked one of the articles based on WP:COPY which was wrong, and I (as asked) noted that on the bot owners page. An editor failed to notice that, and re-blanked it 2 days later. After a bot-blank and live editor-blank, I was pretty fed up. Sure, I have not created so many stubs lately, but I now follow these simple rules with my stubs: always include at least 2 independent references, and always link it to a project via the discussion page. BMW(drive) 12:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The magazine's online archives' latest edition in May. Does someone have access to this magazine at a news stand or something? J.delanoygabsadds 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
