Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 21
- 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. 1ne 23:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sydney bus routes 100-199[edit]
The following articles have been relisted for nomination following a deletion review:
- Sydney bus routes 200-299
- Sydney bus routes 300-399
- Sydney bus routes 400-499
- Sydney bus routes 500-599
- Sydney bus routes 600-699
- Sydney bus routes 700-799
- Sydney bus routes 800-899
- Sydney bus routes 900-999
- Sydney bus routes N00-N99
The original nomination can be found here (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydney_bus_routes_100-199).
The original information that was said to be duplicated in the old List of bus routes in Sydney has now been deleted from the original page and there is no route information existing on Wikipedia for bus routes in Sydney. I vote to Merge this information all into one new page called List of Sydney bus routes. This can be fixed up and historical information added where appropriate. I suggest a Queensland-bus-route style template so the routes can easily be appended to railway station and other attraction pages. (JROBBO 06:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
- Delete all. Wikipedia is not a compilation of all information that exists anywhere. --Metropolitan90 06:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Super Strong Keep - I like the detailed information on each route, and it is easy to read in a clearly set out table. -- Whats new? 07:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge: per nominator, seems to make the most sense. --Hetar 07:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Put them in a pile and set them on fire. In other words, delete. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for, frankly, trivial detail about one city's bus routes. Let people go to the local agency websites for official info if they need it. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Living in Tokyo, you probably don't understand that some of Sydney's bus routes have historical information that could be added (being former well-patronised tram routes etc). There are also many other articles from Australia and other countries that have lists of bus routes. Sure, individual bus routes or stops would probably not be notable enough to have an individual page, but a list of them should be fine. (JROBBO 07:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
- Living in Sydney, you probably don't understand that there is a larger world outside of city boundaries which doesn't have the slightest interest or use for information of purely local -- and a narrowly defined "local", at that -- and trivial detail best served up by the people in charge of it directly to their particular consumers and customers. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand my point - there is a place for having transport information about each city on Wikipedia. For some reason, a lot of Americans on WP seem to think that it is their domain. Australian articles and cities are underrepresented. Sydney is one of the world's biggest cities with a complex network of buses, not a country town with a few buses every couple of hours. Why can't we list some of our bus information on WP to demonstrate its coverage? WP is not running out of space - there is plenty of room for lots of articles. There is no need for deletion. (JROBBO 07:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- Living in Sydney, you probably don't understand that there is a larger world outside of city boundaries which doesn't have the slightest interest or use for information of purely local -- and a narrowly defined "local", at that -- and trivial detail best served up by the people in charge of it directly to their particular consumers and customers. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do we have notability criteria for transit routes and stops? I've noticed that every BART station in the SF bay area, and some of the muni lines all have articles. Jun-Dai 07:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- A silly request. This page will obviously be deleted. Those pages have as much right to be here as any others do. I will just play along until this silly request is thrown in the garbage. Ericsaindon2 07:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The short answer is per Metropolitan90, but I'll make some points:
- The content of these articles is indiscriminate - the only criteria for inclusion seems to be that they once existed. It should be obvious that creating lists of all scheduled mass transit routes that have ever existed anywhere in the world is impractical, and of questionable value, so some sort of notability criteria needs to apply.
- If the intention is that the criteria is "routes that currently exist" then there is an issue with these lists simply being a mirror (and WP is not a mirror) of information that is already available at http://www.131500.info
- While not usually grounds for (immediate) deletion, not one of the nominated articles contains a single reference. As the articles have presumably been assembled from a primary source (ie bus timetables or 131500) and not simply from the editor's remembered knowledge it is somewhat dissapointing that no effort was made to provide any references.
I'm not against information on bus services per se, but think that the information needs to have some sort of context. They should be something that someone can read and learn something from, and not just dry facts that are about as interesting to read as a bus timetable. -- Mako 08:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nuke them all!. This is a perfect example of why WP:NOT is important. Anyone looking for the information in these articles should be looking at the primary sources instead of the Wikipedia because there the data is much more likely to be up-to-date and free from errors. BlankVerse 11:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The bus routes don't change that much and there are editors who are happy to change them when they do. This is not an argument - it was already refuted in the first AfD nomination. You have not addressed the fact that there is valid historical information for some of these routes. And then there is the precedent that every other Australian capital city with buses has an article in the same manner, as does Hong Kong, London and other places as well, many of which have survived deletion attempts lately. I know there is no "precedent" policy on WP but it does give support to merging or keeping the information. (JROBBO 13:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
- Merge all per nom. --Arnzy (whats up?) 11:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all - Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. Fire optional. Wickethewok 13:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The articles are NOT bus schedules, nor looking like schedules as such. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. These are basically lists of where the buses go- something that can easily be obtained from any bus station or its website. --Wafulz 16:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you read my nomination, you would see that there is potential for these articles to be more than that. You have ignored the comment that historical information is available. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- Delete all. bus routes not encyclopedic, WP not a free web host. Gazpacho 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, please. How is this encyclopedic? Fram 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- It shows the extent to which bus transport exists in Sydney, and what suburbs are covered by that. As I have also said, some of the routes have historical information. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- I don't mind individual articles on routes that have some historical importance (having historical information isn't enough though, I have historical information on my family but it isn't worth including either). As for the rest of your response: again, what is so encyclopedic about that? Replace 'bus transport' by 'bakeries', 'post offices', 'amateur soccer teams', ... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is a very good example of a series of articles that therefor shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Fram 07:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all WP:NOT a directory, also possible copyvio. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- How is a list of bus routes a copyright violation? (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- If this list was created by someone else, presumably the bus operator, it is a copyvio. Copyright doesn't distinguish between lists, prose or poetry. Only whether it was copied in full or summarized. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- The bus information in the form listed here is not available from any one web site. 131500.com.au is a transport info site for Sydney - you have to look up each bus individually, and it does not give "via" information that is located on WP. These pages were formed by looking up the bus lines on the web site, looking at the street directory and ascertaining the suburbs in which the bus runs through. There are at least 15 bus operators in Sydney too, so it is not as if it was taken from a single website (as might be the case for an intermodal transport system, which does not exist in Sydney.) (JROBBO 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- That probably makes it both WP:OR and a copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. This is a list of bus routes, used to demonstrate the extent to which bus transport occurs in Sydney. Nothing more than that. It is not a copyright violation. (JROBBO 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
- That probably makes it both WP:OR and a copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- The bus information in the form listed here is not available from any one web site. 131500.com.au is a transport info site for Sydney - you have to look up each bus individually, and it does not give "via" information that is located on WP. These pages were formed by looking up the bus lines on the web site, looking at the street directory and ascertaining the suburbs in which the bus runs through. There are at least 15 bus operators in Sydney too, so it is not as if it was taken from a single website (as might be the case for an intermodal transport system, which does not exist in Sydney.) (JROBBO 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- If this list was created by someone else, presumably the bus operator, it is a copyvio. Copyright doesn't distinguish between lists, prose or poetry. Only whether it was copied in full or summarized. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems quite evident, from the subcategories of bus transport, that corresponding lists for other areas have existed without objection, and some of them have evolved beyond a similar table format. I don't see a valid reason to delete this. —freak(talk) 19:37, Aug. 21, 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom, as Wikipedia is not a list; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Bigtop 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is no "Wikipedia is not a list". Which one are you referring to? ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete all, per nom and WP:NOT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- But I didn't vote to delete it. WP:NOT does not say anything about this article - what are you talking about? (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- Delete Clearly not of encyclopedic interest to have a copy of what is up-to-date onthe website of the bus company here, and rely on someone to update it every time there is a schedule change. Perhaps in some article about that city there could be a mention of what mas transit exists, with a link to the website of the company. Or a link to the city's website would be appropriate, and find transit info there. I would never trust route and schedule info copied to Wikipedia. Edison 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The schedule information will be deleted. It's just a list of bus routes. There's nothing wrong with that. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- So there's nothing here that needs to be kept. Thank you for agreeing that this article should be deleted.
- Delete wikipedia is certainly not a bus timetable or a list of routes. If this article is kept, a bunch of other articles like Bus routes of Timbuktu will come up. Delete this. the content has no relevance for non sydney residents.--Ageo020 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not just an American thing. There is notability to having locally-important things on here. That is not an argument. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- Delete all If they aren't worthy of individual articles, they aren't worthy of lists. The contents are for travel guides, which Wikipedia is not. GRBerry 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where does it say in the guidelines that lists are not worth including if they are not of individual articles? (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- Merge per JRobbo providing it doesn't list the routes as a timetable would but discusses the areas covered by buses, any historic routes previously covered by trams. We don't want a timetable but an article may not be that. Capitalistroadster 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per my entry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in London. Garrie 04:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT - PLEASE READ - can people please address the issues at hand? I have clearly said that there is historical information available for some of these routes, which would make them notable. I don't have time to add them or research it at the moment, but they exist. There are historical remnants of the old tram routes along some of these bus routes, like old bus shelters and bus-only lanes which were used as tram lines before the trams were torn up. Secondly, this is NOT a timetable or bus schedule. I have said elsewhere that the timetable-like information would be deleted leaving just the bus routes and where they go, which has been established elsewhere as being worth keeping. Sydney is the biggest city in Australia. Why are its bus routes not worth keeping, whereas everywhere else is? Please answer that question and don't just quote WP:NOT all the time. There has been no non-notability established for lists of bus routes. Individual bus stops are not notable, but that is not being debated. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- 1. I don't see how the existence of historical information of some lines translates into a meaningful argument for keeping those lists. 2. WP:NOT doesn't exclude bus timetable or schedules. It excludes directories. And according to the definition of directory (database) it links to, this list falls squarely under that category. ~ trialsanderrors 07:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- 1. The historical information has been the way that other such articles have been kept. 2. It's not a directory - it's a list of the bus routes, used to demonstrate coverage of the bus network in Sydney. I have already said this. (JROBBO 07:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
- So write an article with the historical information. The list, timetables, etc. should be deleted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - If the notability of these routes is based solely on them following old tram routes, then that should be included in Trams in Sydney (as it already is for some routes eg 308 and 309). If the intention is to discuss the areas serviced by buses, then wouldn't that be better as prose within Buses in Sydney? For example something like "Sydney Buses serves the North Shore as far north as Chatswood and East Lindfield, Frenchs Forest and the Northern Beaches. Main routes travel along Military Road and Pittwater Road, and main terminuses are Wynyard and Manly Wharf". To me that seems a lot more elegant, and a lot easier to read and understand than a long list. -- Mako 11:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's not just the tram list. The bus routes have a notable history. (JROBBO 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
- Speedy Delete All per above. The JPStalk to me 10:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
delete all per above. I voted to delete last time. Correct me if I am wrong, but the last vote was carried, and I fail to see why we're having this pointless discussion all over again about a bunch of pointless lists which ought to ∞%*@# well have disappeared by now. I certainly take issue with those who refuse to delete anything at all because by doing so would spoil the completeness and accuracy of the information, or those who want to keep something which they thing someone, somewhere, however remote might have a use for at some stage. Feel free to clutter up your own home, where no-one but yourself will suffer. Don't do it to wiki. Wiki is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. These lists subject to deletion are just completionists' nonsense for completionisms' sake. More up to date and reliable information can be obtained from the transport authority, although it may not be in the exact form "useful" to JROBBO or Ohconfucius. The fact that [Edit:an opponent toEr, I meant supporter of] deletion lives outside Sydney is a red herring. In fact, it tends to impart some objectivity and stop self-centredness. If this merger proposal succeeds, imagine the nightmare to navigate the merged page of over a thousand lines. If anyone cares to produce encyclopaedic pages for certain historical Sydney bus-routes on the par with those which exist for some of the better London pages, I could be convinced to keep as legitimate entries. You could start with a page Historical Sydney bus routes and see how foar you get before multiplying it by several hundred. Stop this last minute appeal before the prisoners go to the gallows. Best pull the trap door, and light up a bonfire right now and add a few gallons of petrol. Ohconfucius 13:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)- Comment First of all, Wikipedia is not paper, and perhaps while unnotable bus routes may not be deserving of their own articles, some of that information is of relative use. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply Being of use is no argument to include something in Wikipedia. Look at WP:NOT: many things mentioned there are of use (travel info, genealogical entries, ...) and specifically excluded from Wikipedia. Buslines that have a notable history deserve an article, other ones don't. It's basically the same rule that applies to people, hotels, bands, ... Fram 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just because wiki is not paper is not grounds for "all inclusiveness", which these lists clearly are. We've been here before. The fact that the vote was carried last time should be sufficient to close this rapidly. Added that there seems to be only 2 or 3 opposing deletion on grounds which have been well trodden.Ohconfucius 01:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why does this one fail then, when so many others pass? What makes Sydney buses less notable than any other city? (JROBBO 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
- I thinkWP:NBD applies to that. Just because an article is regarded to meet (or not meet) WP's policies and guidelines one day doesn't mean that it will be regarded to meet (or not) the guidelines and policies some other day, when both the article and guidelines may have changed, and when different people are interpreting the situation. It's also worth noting that not all similar articles have survived afd, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight Numbers. That's why we need an unambiguous policy regarding these type of articles (I know I should get it started myself). --Mako 05:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why does this one fail then, when so many others pass? What makes Sydney buses less notable than any other city? (JROBBO 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
- Comment First of all, Wikipedia is not paper, and perhaps while unnotable bus routes may not be deserving of their own articles, some of that information is of relative use. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge all, as recommended by nom. Such tables of bus routes on Wikipedia, while not the most exciting of articles, do serve several important purposes. Such tables provide a place for the history of such routes to be placed, such hisotries which can be quite intriguing and usually not readily found on the bus company's web site. Furthermore, placing the bus routes in a centralized article deters the creation of stubs about individual routes. Finally, unlike these articles, I doubt the website of the transport authority is unlikely to be able to provide hyperlinks to articles on the neighborhoods in which the routes terminate or any comprehensive history, both of which Wikipedia can provide.-- danntm T C 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Wikipedia should not become a collection of information on bus routes. Cedars 10:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into one article List of Sydney bus routes: I recommended to keep List of Melbourne tram routes, which is slightly, and I mean just slightly, more useful than these lists because it does include some history of these tram routes. Granted, I recommended to delete the Sydney bus routes, and given my subsequent decision on the Melbourne routes, I'm certainly willing to reconsider. There's much talk in this AfD about potential for improvement and historical info - but there's no action! I've seen AfDs completely change direction after article improvement rather than just saying "someone could add some history or notable info, but I don't have time". Even a tag or mention on the talk page of improvement promise may help save these articles (although the odds are fairly stacked against them). --Canley 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Failing that, merge them all into one article. --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete plain and simple after reading the above and look at a few articles. This could very well exist in a travel wiki without any objections. Problem here is that this is an encylopedia. Vegaswikian 22:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (see similar London bus routes AfD voting). WP is not bus company website and has no resources or mission to keep this kind of information uptodate. Pavel Vozenilek 19:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. (1) Counting the nominator, and discounting puppets, the raw count is 4-2 Delete. (2) The strength of argument clearly favors Delete, in my opinion. The guy is certainly not notable as an academic, at least going by the article, and his activisim doesn't appear to reach the threshold of notability. Herostratus 03:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Walter Keim[edit]
Vanity page of junior academic (Assistant Prof is usually the bottom rung). No indication whatsoever of notability as an academic, as his research (if any) is not even mentioned. Thinks Wikipedia is his soapbox for some beef he has with the courts, along with Richard Albrecht, whom I have also nominated. Watch out for crude attempts at voting vandalism by anon sockpuppets---just happened on Albrecht. Leibniz 10:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Beware of pickpockets, tricksters, and academic swindlers, whether they may have got a Ph.D. or not, name themselves today Leibniz or Keks [[27]]], tomorrow Nietzsche or Bahlsen. Moreover, please, look at [[28]], [[29]], and tell me whether this man should be a representative of the en-wikipedia-community any longer, or not; su, ma.beauty1atgmx.net 80.136.127.41 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Commentary There´s a very deletion-specialist self-naming “Leibniz” like that Good Old German Philosopher;-): please, do stop this chap: he´s a potential runners amok. -M. Falke, 060823
- Keep. He should be evaluated as a freedom of information activist and patient rights activist, rather than as an academic. See the http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/12/12456/1.html Telepolis interview, which seems to establish notability in that regard. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- * That establishes he is some random guy who likes to sue a lot. Not notable. Leibniz 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Vain minor academic on the hunt for kostenlos self-promotion. Pathlessdesert 11:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Can be evaluated and completed, taking esp. into account his civil right activities: freedom of information, patient right, fighting against any remake of German “Berufsverbot(e)”. - Nominator´s again speedy Leibniz - monkey business noising round for sock- and meatpuppets: three cheers for this chap – true believer ? prevented censor ? demiurgue of hazardous waste ? -, and lot of cigars, dollars, dreams, and dollies … M. Eser, Aug. 22, 2006— Possible single purpose account: 80.136.121.85 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep Keim, Delete Leibnítz - the only way to cut the Gordian knot. M.Falke — Possible single purpose account: 80.136.78.206 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Delete No evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Article is more expansive than the German one [30], it ought to be the otherway around, but that would make this a sub-stub. I'd need to see two independent reliable sources that I can read to establish notability in my eyes. Instead we see one source in a foreign language that I am not competent to judge whether it is either independent or reliable. GRBerry 02:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per TruthbringerToronto's comment. Aye-Aye 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: freedominfo.org[31] "one-stop portal for critical resources about freedom of information laws and movements around the world" mentions Keim as "expert on Freedom of Information in Germany" and has 4 links to his work. I have no account and sign with 4 tildes. 85.167.175.70 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, according to the article his most notable achievements are being an internet activist (which doesn't take much effort) and starting a geocities website along with 3 other people. I don't think that quite cuts it per WP:BIO. - Bobet 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Petros471 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
ATAv[edit]
| 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 whole article appears to be an advertisement for a virtual airline that isn't particularly notable - Canwolf 05:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — per nom Chris Griswold 07:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It- this site is completly free to anyone so it is not an advertisment. Atavpilot 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it- 212.56.128.20 13:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - (Nick Comber) the article originally did not at all follow Wikipedia's entry rules. I've cleaned it up to make it a lot more neutral rather than opinionated and advertising, and also emphasised that this is not the real world ATA, including links to the real world ATA. This site operates with full permission from the real world ATA and should be allowed on Wikipedia, article just needs to be from a neutral point of view and not at all opinionated, this is what I have hopefully achieved in my edits. 13:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- it now displays a neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.128.20 (talk • contribs)
- Keep It-(Eklapper) not an advertisment, just a legitimate organization's place on Wikipedia. --Eklapper 16:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It-212.56.128.20 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It-(IsaacN) Very legit. This article is about a notable, well known group.
- Keep It-(JimW23) No harm, no fowl. Good article, with no code violations. — Possible single purpose account: JimW23 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- Keep It- Though there are a few sentences in the article that give the impression the entire article is an advertisement, I see no reason to delete it, merely to edit the offending sentences out. — Possible single purpose account: 70.17.176.190 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep- Article about legitimate organization that is notable within its field. --Ibagli (Talk) 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It-(Benoregan) It displays a neutral POV now, so it should be kept --Benoregan 10:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we please have a few more comments from established editors? Petros471 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This seems to be a ame mod, and as such, not-notable. Wildthing61476 16:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable and more importantly there is not a single reference so fails WP:V Yomanganitalk 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nonnotable virtual airline. NawlinWiki 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:V WilyD 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete based on WP:RS and WP:V. --Wafulz 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, sock or no sock. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Man-Faye[edit]
- Man-Faye was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-17. The result of the prior discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye.
| 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}}. |
Man-Faye has the same relevancy than other otakus from whom there are not articles about because they are not relevant. Crossplaying, being mocked up on tv, and being taken out from a convention are NOT reasons at all to be there (same accomplishments than the Narutard and many others). Goggle has tons of examples of men dressed as a female anime character, and none of them deserve a sole article. This article doesn't have anything to add that is not covered in the Crossplay article. DrJones 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Man Faye is notable, more so by far than any other cosplayer, and despite repeated claims that he is not, he has continued to pop up over and over in various media. Complaints of POV during the last nomination have been addressed, and the article is fairly solid as it is. Elijya 21:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Man-Faye is the more noteable of the cosplayers.crossplayers out there. The fact that he's been seen in national media (as opposed to fan sites a/or imageboards) is more than crediable enough to warrant inclusion.--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Deletion- The reason for the deletion is the subject of the article, not the content. Man-Faye utterly fails at accomplishing anything that makes him unique. The only point at his favor ? appearing on TV as a laughable random guy. Compare him with [Manolo el del bombo], who appears on the spanish News everytime he shows on any stadium, has twice the google hits of Man-Faye, is well beloved, and yet doesn't have its own an article (nor deserves it). Infamous local figures should also do something remarkably and positive inside its small group to deserve an article by itself. Having poor taste is not enough. An example of a remarkable local figure is Mike Long. Compare him with Man-Faye. DrJones 11:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mike Long's only on here because he contributed to Magic: the Gathering. Much as Man-Faye has contributed to Cosplay (famously and infamously). Outside of the respective niche hobbies, how many times can you note Mike Long being on TV?? Or any televised M:TG matches on such formats like ESPN or Spike TV? None. No, MTV doesn't count, those M;TG spots were merely glorified commercial endorsements. Again, you've run outta steam. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is non-sense. Why would anyone care about them outside their "niche hobbies"? When someone looks for Gorbachov, he/she wants info about his job as a politician, not about the pizza spot in which he appeared. Second, having contributed is not the key point, but how much have they contributed. Mike Long piloted the first combo deck in Magic: The Gathering, developing an entire new strategy for the game, and thus creating a more stable environment denoted many times as rock-paper-scissors. He also has won multiple important tournaments and played a major role in the success of the Pro Tour. His contributions to the game redefined it. By contrast, the contribution of Man-Faye to Cosplay is so slim that makes me sad, unless he had done a major contribution that is found nowhere on the article. He isn't even the first crossplayer. DrJones 11:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- You brought it up. I merely pointed out that your trying to validate one "insignificant" person who's fame is limited to one aspect of society, yet you want to delete an article where another guy's fame is limited to an aspect of society. I mean, by your logic, should we continue on deleting people who's fame is limited to one aspect of society? Should we delete all the noteable Magic Players, because only a handful of society knows them? Request a Speedy Close to this nomination page. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- You still don't understand my words. My point is that people whose fame is limited to an aspect of society should have made something worthwhile inside that aspect of society. Man-Faye has done nothing thousands of people haven't done on carvanal every year. Also, you have refused all this time to give/write on the article just one major contribution of Man-Faye to his "area of interest". I hope the administrators read this and Speedy delete this article alongside this nomination page. :) DrJones 10:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- WP:CIV please. Just because I never contributed to the article doesn't disqualify me from supporting it. --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- You keep missing the point (or I write horribly). I'm not saying you cannot support him, just that I have not seen any remarkable contribution from Man-Faye to cosplay neither on this discussion, nor in the article. As you defend he has, you should at least specify them. DrJones 12:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- WP:CIV please. Just because I never contributed to the article doesn't disqualify me from supporting it. --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- You still don't understand my words. My point is that people whose fame is limited to an aspect of society should have made something worthwhile inside that aspect of society. Man-Faye has done nothing thousands of people haven't done on carvanal every year. Also, you have refused all this time to give/write on the article just one major contribution of Man-Faye to his "area of interest". I hope the administrators read this and Speedy delete this article alongside this nomination page. :) DrJones 10:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- You brought it up. I merely pointed out that your trying to validate one "insignificant" person who's fame is limited to one aspect of society, yet you want to delete an article where another guy's fame is limited to an aspect of society. I mean, by your logic, should we continue on deleting people who's fame is limited to one aspect of society? Should we delete all the noteable Magic Players, because only a handful of society knows them? Request a Speedy Close to this nomination page. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is non-sense. Why would anyone care about them outside their "niche hobbies"? When someone looks for Gorbachov, he/she wants info about his job as a politician, not about the pizza spot in which he appeared. Second, having contributed is not the key point, but how much have they contributed. Mike Long piloted the first combo deck in Magic: The Gathering, developing an entire new strategy for the game, and thus creating a more stable environment denoted many times as rock-paper-scissors. He also has won multiple important tournaments and played a major role in the success of the Pro Tour. His contributions to the game redefined it. By contrast, the contribution of Man-Faye to Cosplay is so slim that makes me sad, unless he had done a major contribution that is found nowhere on the article. He isn't even the first crossplayer. DrJones 11:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Elijya. 'Cause Manolo el del bombo now has an article, and deserves it. :) Dezro 01:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Without entering into debates about if Manolo el del bombo deserves the article or not (you have read my opinion about him already), that doesn't mean that Man-Faye also deserves it, because Man-Faye is far less popular both in media coverage and google results than him, which for an internet meme is disastrous. DrJones 12:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as per Elijya. Dionyseus 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Elijya. A notable figure both as a cosplay icon and as an Internet meme. Danny Lilithborne 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Repeating my vote from the previous AfD. I see no reason to change it because someone doesn't like him or thinks that Man-Faye should not be notable despite his infamy. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I'll admit I'm a bit dubious of whether Man-Faye would actually pass WP:BIO, but I think it's quite possible to pass him under WP:MEME. Thoughts? Luna Santin 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think he meets the Wikipedia:Notability (web), plus the article written as-is covered most of his "history" and doesn't seem to be a vanity article in the slightest sense. Likewise, his noteability stems from the fact that he cosplayed a very well known fictional character, and made a parody of it. Of course, the result....--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - At the end of the day, the Mr. Faye isn't a historical figure nor is he a beloved or despised person: Merely a mediocre footnote in passing trends. Half the memes on Wikipedia are passing trends. It might be interesting to note which memes can stand the test of time, but it would simply bloat wikipedia trying to list them all. What Man Faye does is nothing new or noteworthy or particularly shocking. Let's try to trim wikipedia whenever we can; the rest of the Internet can carry on Man Faye. Emil_lang
- Strong Keep - There are some articles on Wikipedia that simply boggle my mind as to why they exist, yet I don't think they should be deleted simply because someone may come along trying to find information about it that may not be found elsewhere. For example, I bet there are very few people today who would remember a mediocre 80's cartoon like Turbo Teen, yet there is an article here about it. Knowledge is knowledge, even if it's trivial.Djseifer 12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - There are a lot of articles about video game characters, like for example characters from Suikoden, you can get a synopsis on. I wouldn't say that this info is particularly important, but it is nice to have! So why not have an article about Man-Faye. The article is not about adulating man-Faye but to inform for example european cosplay fans about this "event" in american cosplay culture. Wikipedia is a source of information, so why delete information, someone might be interested in? The article on man-Faye is well written and neutral in tone, so I say we keep it. 217.235.178.60 14:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I just noticed that this AfD was never listed on WP:AFD. It has now been listed --TheFarix (Talk) 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject is well known within his niche, the internet at large, and has made several cable network television appearances as well. RFerreira 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- WARNING users on 4chan (/cgl/) are trying to skew this AfD towards delete.... LinaMishima 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Update although some of the strong keeps will be for this reason too, as they want to spite the person who requested that... LinaMishima 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep although they are not marked as references, he's had TV appearances, which hence allow WP:V to be met safely. LinaMishima 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Elijya Aye-Aye 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep he passes WP:BIO- he's a cult figure whio has had specific media coverage. The article has been cleaned up since the previous AFD nomination. -- Whpq 20:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Some of the arguments for deleting the article is that Man-Faye hasn't contributed anything useful to his niche. That's not a reason for deletion. If being an attention-whore were to be grounds for deletion, there wouldn't be a Paris Hilton article. The fact is, Man-Faye has managed to be a successful attention-whore, and has been covered in media. One's opinion on whether the individual has made a significant contribution is irrelevant. -- Whpq 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Paris Hilton has entered the Guiness Book of Records as the most pointless celeb, though. That's quite an accomplishment no other attention-whore has achieved. I think a more proper analogy for Man-Faye would be this: ["I didn't do it!"] . I think that the world has millions of weirdos that haven't done anything noteworthy and allowing Man-Faye to have his own Wikipedia page lowers the bar a bit too much. DrJones 10:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What your argument boils down to is not whether Man-Faye is actually notable, but that you believe Man-Faye should never be notable regardless of how much publicity he may have acquired. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't said so. I have claimed, however, that he shouldn't have a wikipedia entry if he hasn't done anything remarkable (and that just going to conventions or appearing on tv on an irregular basis is not). The only remarkable things I can read on the article (and in forums) is: a) His cosplay is awful. b) He is somewhat popular. I can put here a link right now to a page with more than 300 people with awful cosplays (including sumo wrestlers dressed as Sailor Moons, with tested media coverage). Your only alternative, thus, is defending his popularity, which is a rather vague and POW term. My empyrical experiments with Google shown very low results for him (lower than obscure local figures), and many pages calling him a fad and an old meme (just like Bart Simpson on the above analogy), so I suppose I have the right to question his icon status. DrJones 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia's notability guidelines are to determine if he is notable, not if he has done something remarkable. If he is verifiably notable, then that is enough bases for most editors. You, however, are trying to create an entirely different standard, notable and done something remarkable, which isn't supported by the majority of editor. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't said so. I have claimed, however, that he shouldn't have a wikipedia entry if he hasn't done anything remarkable (and that just going to conventions or appearing on tv on an irregular basis is not). The only remarkable things I can read on the article (and in forums) is: a) His cosplay is awful. b) He is somewhat popular. I can put here a link right now to a page with more than 300 people with awful cosplays (including sumo wrestlers dressed as Sailor Moons, with tested media coverage). Your only alternative, thus, is defending his popularity, which is a rather vague and POW term. My empyrical experiments with Google shown very low results for him (lower than obscure local figures), and many pages calling him a fad and an old meme (just like Bart Simpson on the above analogy), so I suppose I have the right to question his icon status. DrJones 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What your argument boils down to is not whether Man-Faye is actually notable, but that you believe Man-Faye should never be notable regardless of how much publicity he may have acquired. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Paris Hilton has entered the Guiness Book of Records as the most pointless celeb, though. That's quite an accomplishment no other attention-whore has achieved. I think a more proper analogy for Man-Faye would be this: ["I didn't do it!"] . I think that the world has millions of weirdos that haven't done anything noteworthy and allowing Man-Faye to have his own Wikipedia page lowers the bar a bit too much. DrJones 10:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can we bring this to an end? I realize that an AfD vote is not strictly decided by popular vote, but the results here are overwhelming: only two votes for deletion, one by the nominator (who doesn't do much to disguise his bias), and one by a user with less than 50 edits. Most of the supporters have all provided reasons for their suggestions to keep, and countered the reasons for deletion. Forgive me as I usually restrict my activities on wikipedia strictly to article content, but would any kind individuals more familiar with procedure hasten this debate to it's inevitable conclusion to keep the article? Thank you Elijya 21:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It probably won't be closed anytime soon. The nomination wasn't completed until yesterday. The admins are probably waiting 5 days from the completed nomination before closing, just to be on the safe side. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, yeah, that's unfortunate since the AfD's really been up for 10 days now and there was just some sort of error that kept most people from knowing about it. Elijya 22:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, Just because someone deleted the original AfD (whether it be intentional or unintentional), and the requestor didn't keep tabs about it, it shouldn't be grounds for the debate to be extended further. It's been up past the 7 days, follow the rules. Speedy Close with extreme prejudice.--293.xx.xxx.xx 00:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It's not the only AfD discussion to ongoing past 7 days, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of science fiction anime has been going on for just as long and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Action Anime shows no sign of closing despite being open for an astonishing 18 days. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, Just because someone deleted the original AfD (whether it be intentional or unintentional), and the requestor didn't keep tabs about it, it shouldn't be grounds for the debate to be extended further. It's been up past the 7 days, follow the rules. Speedy Close with extreme prejudice.--293.xx.xxx.xx 00:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, yeah, that's unfortunate since the AfD's really been up for 10 days now and there was just some sort of error that kept most people from knowing about it. Elijya 22:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It probably won't be closed anytime soon. The nomination wasn't completed until yesterday. The admins are probably waiting 5 days from the completed nomination before closing, just to be on the safe side. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Most of the claims of notability are unreferenced or referenced only by a single source, which is an interview with the guy himself on a rumour site. That's not reliable, folks. Therefore, this article fails WP:V and WP:NOR, and must be deleted unless proper, reliable sources can be found. Just because he's infamous on some websites, and just because a lot of people seem to think the article should be kept, doesn't mean we can ignore fundamental Wikipedia policies. — Haeleth Talk 10:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Objection I wouldn't dismiss Anime News Network as a rumor website, given it's one of the bigger anime news sites out there. And while Tech TV has it's detractors, it does qualify as a legitimate verifiable source.--72.234.211.221 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seeing there are numerous "pointless" articles on Wikipedia (Ranging from insignificant car models like Keicars to Supercars that may never hit US shores ever to even TV shows that may never get seen on US shores as well), there is no harm in having this article on Wikipedia. It's not a vanity article like some would lead to believe, and i'm not seroiusly convinced that those that oppose it have provided a valid reason. One contributor nominated the article twice for deletion (This AfD and one that ended up as a no consensus) and even Man-Fayes talk page has shown his apparent bias.--72.234.211.221 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - tonnes of single purpose accounts saying 'keep' — FireFox (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2006
Philip H. Farber[edit]
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Interested party removed prod (see article history) claiming author was notable but without adding sources to article. As of now his main claim to notability is that he has been a frequent presenter at the Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium, run by the Association for Consciousness Exploration. You guys decide. Mattisse(talk) 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note - nominator has an active complaint against her from two parties on WP:AN/I for inappropriate tagging, prodding, etc. over two separate vendettas she is conducting, one against pagan authors, so yes, this is relevant. -999 (Talk) 18:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Response: That is a blatant ad hominem argument. This is meant to be an impartial discussion on the article's mertits in accordance with Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines. Your opinion of the nominator's character has no place here. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 17:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- And now you have an "active complaint" against you on AN/I as well... If you want to save the article, do so with an argument on its merits, not a veiled personal attack. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that the subject's notability is probably borderline does not change the fact that the nomination was made in bad faith. Disclosure: I did not write the article, but simply stumbled on the tagging and prodding spree because she hit an older more established article on my watchlist.-999 (Talk) 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply How can you read the nominator's mind to determine her motivation? Even you say that the subject's notability is probably borderline, so how is that a bad faith nomination? That seems exactly the type of article that should go to afd. Further, the article's history indicates that the original author, Rosencomet, made just one intial entry and has not touched it since. Yet 14 of the 16 subsequent content-related entries (I'm including changing the article's name here) have been made by you, 999 (Talk), on a subject of borderline notability at best. So although you are not the creator, you are the major editor of the article. GBYork 14:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that the subject's notability is probably borderline makes me wonder how you could possibly have a basis to question the good faith of the nomination. If you have an issue about the nominator's good faith, start an RFC. And if you don't consider this enough to merit an RFC, then it isn't enough to merit comment here, either. - Jmabel | Talk 03:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - published author whose works are listed in article and are available from Amazon.com -999
- My Aunt's cookbook is available from Amazon also, but that doesn't make her notable. Amazon will sell anything if you slap a bar code on it. wikipediatrix (Talk) 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
KeepKeep and Expand. I'd say being frequently asked to be a presenter at two fairly large neo-pagan gatherings makes him notable enough in his area of expertise. His published works look verifiable to me, too.-Geoffrey Spear 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Per GBYork, changing to "Keep and Expand"; article needs expansion to cite verified sources for every word in the article. Geoffrey Spear 14:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Question - To Geoffrey Spear: How can unverified works "look verifiable"? I guess I'm asking how does an unverifed work have to look to "look verifiable"? GBYork 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mu. The works are not "unverified"; they clearly exist. Geoffrey Spear 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply Geoffrey Spear, you misunderstand. Wikipedia policy is that every article must pass WP:V, the goal of which is verifiabilty not truth. The fact you can see the book with your eyes (or whatever you mean by "looking") is not the same a verifing its existance through citing reliable unbiased third party sources. Seeing the book as a means of verification is OR and is unacceptable per WP:OR. You seem to be using OR when you say it looks verifiable. GBYork 13:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply Actually, for the first book cited in the article, I take the fact that librarians at 10 OCLC-affiliated libraries (Including the Library of Congress and New York Public Library) claim to own a copy of the book as verification. Granted, the second does seem to have been published by a vanity press. I've never personally seen a copy of either book to verify their existence through original research. Geoffrey Spear 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply So you have found a reliable unbiased source for that "fact" and cited it in the article? Read Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)'s statements below on the Library of Congress reason for his Delete vote. GBYork 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply - No, I haven't made any edits whatsoever to the article in question, and I certainly don't feel compelled to make edits to support my position in an AfD. Geoffrey Spear 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply So you have found a reliable unbiased source for that "fact" and cited it in the article? Read Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)'s statements below on the Library of Congress reason for his Delete vote. GBYork 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply Actually, for the first book cited in the article, I take the fact that librarians at 10 OCLC-affiliated libraries (Including the Library of Congress and New York Public Library) claim to own a copy of the book as verification. Granted, the second does seem to have been published by a vanity press. I've never personally seen a copy of either book to verify their existence through original research. Geoffrey Spear 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply Geoffrey Spear, you misunderstand. Wikipedia policy is that every article must pass WP:V, the goal of which is verifiabilty not truth. The fact you can see the book with your eyes (or whatever you mean by "looking") is not the same a verifing its existance through citing reliable unbiased third party sources. Seeing the book as a means of verification is OR and is unacceptable per WP:OR. You seem to be using OR when you say it looks verifiable. GBYork 13:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mu. The works are not "unverified"; they clearly exist. Geoffrey Spear 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Borderline but ultimately non-notable writer. wikipediatrix 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep published author. Presenter at organizations with articles already? What's the issue? Keep this one. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Wikipediatrix. Only generates like 760 hits on Google. --Nishkid64 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Slightly meets a criteria of BIO. Allow for expansion. SynergeticMaggot 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Which criteria? How slightly? wikipediatrix 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per several. Atlant 22:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per 999 and Geoffspear. —Hanuman Das 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per wikipediatrix as lacking proof of author's notability through verifiable reliable sources. Footnotes 1 & 2 in the article go to New York Times best seller lists that do not mention his name or his books. Footnote 3 goes to his personal website. Footnote 4 goes to Maybe Logic academy faculty where he is listed as a faculty member. Footnote 5 goes to Starwood Festival 2005 list of speakers where he is listed as a speaker. The Reference section is a repeat of the last 3 footnotes. GBYork 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Go look at the books themselves. Chronicles of the 20th Century and Chronicles of America had dozens of contributors and only the editors were listed on the cover. The citations were a response to someone who requested citations that the books were on the NYT best-seller list. They were. -999 (Talk) 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO--MONGO 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Being a contributor to the "Chronicle Of The 20th Century" and "Chronicle of America" is not the same as being a New York Times best-selling author. Having flipped through the "Chronicle Of The 20th Century" years ago it is in essence a single-volume encyclopedia (with 30 contributors as stated on Amazon), not something you can become famous for having contributed to. Unique Google hits for (FutureRitual Farber review) = 111 of about 430 [48]. There doesn't seem to be any reviews of FutureRitual in any notable press publications, only DIY reviews like those found on online bookshops. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (people) as an author since his major work doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) -- Netsnipe (Talk) 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete: The author seems to be well known in a fringe group. His higher profile exposure is pretty minimal. More to the point, the article suggests merely that he writes about magic (with a k, of course) and then lists places he goes. This really tells us very little about why he would be known. The author might squeak by the line, but the article doesn't. Geogre 19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Only one of his two books is in the Library of Congress, and they only have one copy; this reflects poorly on the impact of his authorship. Also, I'm not coming up with external media coverage. Seems like he might be an interesting guy if he hangs out with Genesis P-Orridge, but he just isn't sufficiently notable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeesh! I missed the Throbbing Gristle connection. "Interesting" is one way of describing Genesis Porridge, I guess. Geogre 01:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, not notable. TomTheHand 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete who?--I'll bring the food 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He's an innovative author, widely published as a journalist, apart from his books. Very well known in NLP, hypnosis and magick communities - in fact, one of the top presenters on these subjects internationally.
- — Possible single purpose account: Foolio93 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep I don't care whether he's the current incarnation of the Horned One (Pagan) or the Horned One (Judeo-Christian). As long as he has something even partially original to say that doesn't involve unnecessarily insulting anyone and has some merit to someone, the entry deserves to stay. "Notability" is irrelevant. The only yardstick that matters is credibility, which in turn is based on the verifiable results of other people investigating his statements for themselves. Credibility should not rest on his social circle, or taste in clothes, or how much he makes from his "day job".
- — Possible single purpose account: Thausgt (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep He's a great author with some unique ideas. I'd enjoy reading more about him. --Corwin8 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Totally beside the point of human existance....how we think and process and interact in our reality systems? How those belief systems cross over each other and affect evolutionary changes in culture and thought? Ridiculous! And lets go ahead and delete that Joseph Campbell guy too. What the heck is he going on about?71.74.199.30 07:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Thomas
- Comment - Hope no one is losing sight of the fact that Wikipedia is aiming to be an encyclopedia. The last five voters seem to have lost track of the non negotiable requirement for all articles, WP:V and appear to be voicing personal reactions rather than an objective evaluation of the article's success or failure in meeting the required Wikipedia criteria. NLOleson 12:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, 999 (Talk). You totally eliminated my note under the nomination. What's with that? Is that allowed? Mattisse(talk) 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please use people's talk pages to communicate with them, not this AfD. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 19:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I've read his work and googled NLP, his name turned up almost as often as Richard Bandler's. Phil's work is very interesting and important on different levels. He takes into account the esoteric, but also says it can be dismissed for purposes of trying out his work without those particular mental conditionings. He writes for both the lay man and the scientific commnunity. Its not easy to explain NLP to people, but I always recommend looking up Phil's work when people ask me what NLP is about. beatrix216.194.56.15 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Phill has been active in publishing on the subject of NLP and Magick for over 10 years now. He was an Early adopter of the web as a form of online publication with the webzine Paradign Shift in the early 90's. He also has participated as a speeker at several national conferences on Hypnosis and NLP. His books are real and only his early works were published by a small press out of chicago called eschaton books. They still have a web site http://www.eschatonbooks.com/, though I think they may not be doing much these days. His works have been endorsed by the Likes of Robert Anton Willson and Genesis P. Orridge - Brendan Merritt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.246.144.78 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, I've heard of him and the article appears to have been much improved and more verifiable since the nomination. Looks like it can be brought up to WP standards. Ekajati 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC
- Philip Farber deserves his place here. His published books and live workshops constitute a further evolution of Milton Erickson and Robert Anton Wilson. Pretty important and valid work. m2141.149.107.140 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 14:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Notability standards (as I understand them) are fairly subjective, this person seems to meet mine. Paul August ☎ 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Ekajati. —Gurunath 18:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If his notability in NLP even vaguely approaches Bandler's, there is nothing in the article to bear that out. - Jmabel | Talk 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Of course he's notable. Just because it can't be proved is no reason to vote against him. Besides the article doesn't say anything anyway. You say he is not notable just because the references in the article are stupid. That is discriminating against Farber because he didn't write the article. Gjeatman 09:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- — Possible single purpose account: Gjeatman (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep per 999 and Geoffspear and Hanuman Das. AgastNeey 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- — Possible single purpose account: AgastNeey (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Keep. I don't think there's any reason to question it anymore, now that his listing has been beefed up. I'm sure more data will be added as time goes on, too. He has several DVDs out on Magical, Psychological and Entheogenic topics, and has appeared far more widely than has been expressed here so far. I believe he may have more writings than listed here as well. If not, he will in the near future. I think he's a keeper. RosencometRosencomet 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Farber is an interesting figure in the Aquarian movement; the combination of NLP and magickal techniques alone is significant. I note that today's "Featured Article" on the Wikipedia Homepage is about "Illuminatus Triology" - and given Farber's association with Robert Anton Wilson this alone would indicate he's Wikipedia-worthy.
- — Possible single purpose account: Ricrya (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Comment: I still don't have a vote either way, but I'd be a lot more impressed if the people arguing for a keep would turn this into an informative article that I could easily see reasons for keeping, rather than question the good faith of the nominator, or add search results to the article as "references". - Jmabel | Talk 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, it's going to be kept anyway. No consensus... —Hanuman Das 03:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. --Myles Long 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Leslie Hall[edit]
I speedied this page, but the author protested, so I'm bringing it here as I probably should have done in the first place. This is an apparent "internet celebrity", it's up to you to decide if she meets WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC. Grandmasterka 22:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies to everyone involved... The version I deleted wasn't this well-referenced, but I should have waited longer (I usually do.) I found the page because it was one I had had deleted before (a much worse version) and it was on my watchlist. If the delete votes will withdraw, we can end this. The other two AfDs still stand. Grandmasterka 04:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Granted, not everyone has heard of Leslie Hall, but she is a notable internet celebrity as evidenced by her verifiable coverage provided by TechTV, [60] Bust Magazine, [61] Instinct Magazine, [62] The Boston Globe, [63] and her leading as one of three celebrities of the same ilk selected to represent net neutrality at wearetheweb.org. Seeing as how this figure passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC with flying colors, it would be appreciated if you would kindly provide some sort of rationale for your current nomination beyond someone protesting an invalid speedy deletion made no more than thirty minutes into editing an article. How stifling. RFerreira 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. Is this a vanity page? Clearly doesn't pass WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. One mention in the Boston Globe human interest section doesn't do it. —ptk✰fgs 22:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Boston Globe article was not a mention, it was a full length interview. Have you bothered to review the sources? RFerreira 22:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- It was a "local interest" article. Carrying on for three pages doesn't mitigate the triviality of the interview. —ptk✰fgs 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article currently cites three articles, not one. Unless you're suggesting that coverage in Bust Magazine and Instinct Magazine are of local interest only as well. There are additional citations which can be added in from this page, but this is an incomplete list based on my own Google searches. RFerreira 23:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- It was a "local interest" article. Carrying on for three pages doesn't mitigate the triviality of the interview. —ptk✰fgs 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Boston Globe article was not a mention, it was a full length interview. Have you bothered to review the sources? RFerreira 22:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Oddly, I've actually heard of her before just now, but WP:MUSIC is miles away. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The person passes WP:BIO as a noted internet celebrity, as well as WP:MUSIC for being "featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" and "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city". Unless you know of other notable gem sweater wearing white women from Iowa performing in Boston. RFerreira 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- RFerreira, are you serious? WP:MUSIC says "notable style" for a reason. Gazpacho 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The person passes WP:BIO as a noted internet celebrity, as well as WP:MUSIC for being "featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" and "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city". Unless you know of other notable gem sweater wearing white women from Iowa performing in Boston. RFerreira 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Leslie is as well known on the Internet as I am. While I'll admit that I hadn't heard of her before being asked to participate in the We Are the Web video, it didn't take much research to find coverage of her in the mainstream press. She may not be notable per WP:MUSIC, but she does meet WP:BIO, IMAO. The original speedy deletion does seem a bit like the result of an itchy trigger finger, too; I hope that it does not have any influence on voters here. I'd been pondering writing the article myself, but decided that that might be seen as coming too close to a violation of WP:AUTO. - Jay Maynard 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for meeting WP:BIO. I don't agree that WP should have a higher notability standard than the Boston Globe. hateless 23:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Even if the Globe was a local itnerest thing, the Bust and Instinct thing certainly meet it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if its good enough for the Boston Globe, its good enough for wiki... at least its sourced for petes sake... WP:BIO requirements are more than met. ALKIVAR™
00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC) - Keep Odd but harmless, and sourced, and sort of interesting. Aye-Aye 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - passed WP:BIO with multiple non-trivial publications about her, and it's all soruced too. -- Whpq 19:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep How stupid is it that an internet encyclopedia would delete an entry on an internet celebrity? Passes WP:BIO with flying colors. Crispinus211 21:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep She's the lead in the www.wearetheweb.org net neutrality video as well. robot captain 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep please the person is notable and verifiable too no reason for erasure Yuckfoo 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO. --Myles Long 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm from Denmark and knew nothing about this person until I saw the Net Neutrality song, then I went here to learn more about her, if it wasn't for Wikipedia, how would I have learned these facts? --Opspin 07:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is what makes Wikipedia fun. Saw her on wearetheweb.org, came here to find our more about her, and was amused by her career and the interviews linked into in the entry. Anyway, she's notable. --Pworms 08:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, she's notable. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - not hugely famous, but enough third-party verifiability and interest to have an article about - David Gerard 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This an unusually interesting subject fit for Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Perhaps not with "flying colors", but this article does meet established biography guidelines as well as third party verifiability policies. Yamaguchi先生 00:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. She is notable enough for me to have just come to Wikipedia to find out who she was. The should be enough. --FeldBum 20:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- You know, that's an interesting standard for notability...wonder if it could be codified? Jay Maynard 22:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I came to this page to find out who she was after seeing references to her out there on the 'Net. I'm quite let down the few times that wikipedia can not tell me the details on a reference. That's most of what it's here for. - aa
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 07:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Leslie and the Ly's[edit]
A page I speedied, although I probably should have brought this here first. This article actually has a long history, which is surprising to me because it has no direct evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. If it does, add a citation to the article. Otherwise, this ought to go. Grandmasterka 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete misses WP:MUSIC by about five hundred miles. —ptk✰fgs 22:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Gazpacho 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep based upon the same arguments provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Hall. The are numerous sources within the Leslie Hall article, most of which cross over to this one. RFerreira 23:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep having just voted on Leslie Hall, I cannot understand why this is listed seperately? Both of these obviously related afd listings should be merged. ALKIVAR™ 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Because the question of Leslie Hall's notability with regard to WP:BIO is separate from the question of her notability with regard to WP:MUSIC. Why don't you hop on over to WP:MUSIC and find some place that this band passes the guidelines? There is no entry at AMG, less than 1000 google results, nothing on Amazon — there are millions of bands in this world, and not every one of them should be documented here. This is an example of one that should not. —ptk✰fgs 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- When I search on Google I receive over 10,200 (that's ten thousand, two hundred) relevant matches for "Leslie and the Lys". Why don't you hop on over to Google and try again? RFerreira 01:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- okay, well, whatever. I was using the spelling from the article title. Now, how again does this pass WP:MUSIC? Or does pretty much anyone with a microphone and a web browser qualify these days? —ptk✰fgs 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sarcasm will not take you far. I cannot tell if you are trying to be intentionally dense or not, but this band has received broad mainstream press coverage as has been noted in the Leslie Hall discussion. RFerreira 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please, indulge us with a link to this coverage. I see blogs, a cdbaby page (anyone can sign up for that, you know?), some myspace pages, some stuff on ifilm and flickr. None of these are what we call "non-trivial published references". —ptk✰fgs 01:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you're the only one who cannot see the mentions of VH1, MTV, and TechTV appearances? Sorry. RFerreira 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please, indulge us with a link to this coverage. I see blogs, a cdbaby page (anyone can sign up for that, you know?), some myspace pages, some stuff on ifilm and flickr. None of these are what we call "non-trivial published references". —ptk✰fgs 01:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sarcasm will not take you far. I cannot tell if you are trying to be intentionally dense or not, but this band has received broad mainstream press coverage as has been noted in the Leslie Hall discussion. RFerreira 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- okay, well, whatever. I was using the spelling from the article title. Now, how again does this pass WP:MUSIC? Or does pretty much anyone with a microphone and a web browser qualify these days? —ptk✰fgs 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- When I search on Google I receive over 10,200 (that's ten thousand, two hundred) relevant matches for "Leslie and the Lys". Why don't you hop on over to Google and try again? RFerreira 01:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Because the question of Leslie Hall's notability with regard to WP:BIO is separate from the question of her notability with regard to WP:MUSIC. Why don't you hop on over to WP:MUSIC and find some place that this band passes the guidelines? There is no entry at AMG, less than 1000 google results, nothing on Amazon — there are millions of bands in this world, and not every one of them should be documented here. This is an example of one that should not. —ptk✰fgs 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, the evidence says that the band is notable. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.