Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 10

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. Dakota 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TransformersG1toylist

TransformersG1toylist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant.

• Delete Yes, as the original author of the article, I too, believe it should be deleted. I did not know there was other pages dedicated to this. BUT, as a compromise, someone needs to edit the Autobot page to include the year released. The Decepticon page already includes this. Please update the references to this article too, when it is deleted. Also, this was my first page created, but I learned a lot from doing it. Sharwood - Psy1123eu 2:16, 14 February 2007 (CST)
• Delete Each Autobot & Decepticon list breaks the series down from G1 to G2, so it is quite redundant. Tarc 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant, and poorly formed title. Mishatx *разговор* 18:26, 12 February 2007 (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 keep. -

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• Keep. Coverage by multiple reliable sources; could use cleanup. Mfko 00:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Weak keep I guess I am now convinced this was enough of a national thing... I'm not convinced that yet another murder victim, even a high-profile one, deserves an entry. Certain cases become national in scope or raise deeper issues, but this one doesn't look to me like it really falls into that category. --Brianyoumans 02:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Brian, it looks to me that you are looking for a threshold of "importance", where WP calls for "notable" and the guidelines clearly state that the two are not the same. Notable is defined as being noticed, and media coverage to this degree is being noticed, whether the legal issues are important or not. Dito for Otto below. It's not for WP to judge the quality of mainstream journalism (e.g., Nancy Grace) but to offer factual information as a balance to the potential sensationalism. Again what is the harm of inclusion of this and other articles? --Kevin Murray 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, my arguments are based in notability, not importance. I have argued here and elsewhere that there is a qualitative difference between something being "newsworthy" and something being "notable."
  WP:NOTE
  specifically states that the two are not the same. Even assuming that this particular murder is notable, which I'm not convinced of, that does not automatically confer sufficient notability to the victim. See my Brinks and Capitol shooting article examples below.
• As for judging the quality of journalism,
  WP:RS
  do require that we evaluate the reputability of the sources used for articles.
• "What is the harm," with all due respect, is perhaps the worst argument for including an article. No article (other than false or libelous ones) actually "harm" Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that every article warrants inclusion. Otto4711 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, the murder was newsworthy but the topic is not notable. I think we need to visit the issue on when a crime victim becomes notable enough for inclusion, since most murders generate at least a couple of stories especially from the likes of Nancy Grace. Otto4711 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets
  criteria for notability, i.e. "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Rosemary Amey 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There is a distinction between the person being notable and the criminal act that caused their death being notable. See for example
  U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1998) which is notable while the separate articles for John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut were merged into the incident article. Otto4711 07:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete just another murder victim. Nearly every such person will recieve multiple articles written about their deaths, thus notability is not established. Resolute 05:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SpeedyStrong Keep Although most murder victims don't pass
  WP:BIO, this one clearly passes by a landslide. What possible reading of WP:BIO does this fail? Further, as clearly outlined in the opening of this article, this nationally-publicized murder is also notable as part of the Missing white woman syndrome and an Internet cause célèbre.--JayHenry 06:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment How? There are no sources attesting to this. --
    desat 07:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • About two minutes on Google:

1. 1. 1. Dateline NBC story on Taylor
      2. America's Most Wanted profile
      3. CBS News 48 Hours long segment
      4. Fox News Greta Van Susteren on Taylor
      5. CNN's Nancy Grace on Taylor
      6. Story specifically about MySpace and the crime
      7. WashPost 1 of however many
      8. WashPost 2 of however many
      9. WashPost 3 of however many

Etc., etc., etc. Seriously, take your pick. I'm not vouching for every individual story, but the overwhelming volume (A Nexis search confirms over 500 stories nationwide) and the fact that this was covered in huge news outlets all over the country. Maybe you could argue The Washington Post is local coverage, but honestly 20 times (says Nexis) in WashPost? That's not "anybody who gets murdered" coverage, that's something exceptional by itself. And as for "no sources attesting to this" the article itself already sites sources that mention this stuff. I really think this is a speedy obvious keep.--JayHenry 08:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just reread

WP:CSK and in light of the fact that others agree it should be deleted I agree it doesn't apply at all. Replacing "speedy" with "obvious"...--JayHenry 08:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep though I'm not going to say "speedy" because I understand the delete voters arguements. However she does pass
  WP:BIO. James086^Talk 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:CSK does not apply anyway. Otto4711 07:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. I understand both sides of this argument, however after a little investigation I discovered that Wikipedia has articles on murderers whose only notability is that they have been executed. The facts of their cases have been obscured through the years. Take for instance John W. Peoples, Jr.. In addition, this is one of the few instances where the victim gained more notoriety than the murderer, and that alone bears importance. Sectryan 14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with one of the Richmond papers cited that this is just another case of a missing white girl getting disproportionate newspaper coverage that the other 99 missing people in Richmond that year did not. Her tragic death is no more encyclopedic than theirs. Her mother worked hard to publicize the case. That does not make it encyclopedic either. This is not a newspaper archive, and news is not always history. Inkpaduta 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I agree that this article conforms to the letter of
  WP:BIO. However, the hype about this event has died down, and I don't think that this will be notable for long. Furthermore, the article seems to be linked to by only various user pages and lists, so I think that if the article is not being used by another real article soon it should be removed. Samael775 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep I don't understand the rationale behind the AfD nomination. This article is not about the woman; it is about the homicide which is clearly notable as demonstrated by multiple verifiable sources. In a perfect world you might clarify the issue by calling it "Homocide of Taylor Behl", with a redirect from "Taylor Behl". But I don't think that is required. I'm concerned that an admin would nominate this. --Kevin Murray 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Newspapers seem to think she's notable. --Calibas 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are several articles on murder victims including this one:
  Anna Svidersky --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - she has been the subject of multiple (several dozen at least), non-trivial, reliable news (national) publications, which alone qualifies her for
  encyclopedic notability", but being the subject of so much attention and published coverage (news, books, TV, etc.) certainly does. -- Black Falcon 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• She's the subject of a book written by her mother, which is not an independent source for purposes of notability. Otto4711 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've heard of her and read a review of her mother's book, so she must be notable to some extent! Nick 80.225.131.144 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I am aware of this person and there are good sources.SlideAndSlip 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: only because she passes the letter of
  WP:BIO again? Ohconfucius 02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Additional remark. Are we ourselves perpetuating the Missing white woman syndrome by not deleting this? Ohconfucius 04:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes by BIO and V.
  Sarah 08:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Enough information on it and enough media attention to be an article. 14:33, 14 Feb 2007 (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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReMix

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

A neologism (or perhaps a neocapitalisation, as a remix (note caps) is notable), as described by OverClocked ReMix#Purpose, it's apparrently been created by the creator of a (notable) website to justify a percieved discord between the website's name and it's purpose. It's basically a non-notable apart perhaps from a single sentence explanation that already exists in the main OC Remix article. FredOrAlive 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a
  desat 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment is a redirect actually needed? A random test seems to show that the other random capitalisations of Remix (bar the all caps REMIX, which goes to an Indian drama series) are automatically redirected to Remix, although someone who knows more about MediaWiki can proably say for certain if a redirect is needed or better for server load. FredOrAlive 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a neologism, and seems to be just self-promotion for the website. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's pretty much admitted to be a neologism in the article. --Haemo 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and redirect to OverClocked ReMix or remix. Preferably to OverClocked ReMix, but it doesn't really matter. --- RockMFR 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Neologlism. Realkyhick 03:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 03:20, 11 February 2007 (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 redirect to John Troutman and merge, the edit-history remains intact. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Again

Flint Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is yet another non-notable web comic. Its Alexa ranking is over 600k (very poor), and the only places mentioning it seem to be blogs, forums, chat rooms, social sites, and other pages of little to no value or notability. Wikipedia is

• weak delete your argument is not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not paper. That said, this article borders on fancruft. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said "should", as it relates to my personal belief that this article is basically useless........we seek consensus here, right? If policy allowed, I would quote it and speedy delete this article, but it doesn't, therefore we use AfD. NetOracle 02:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as my comment related to my own personal belief that Wikipedia is not paper and that there is nothing inherently non-notable about webcomics entirely ignored outside of the internet community. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is technologically and economically possible to list every named thing in the world, there is no practical reason to do so. Most of these webcomics have had no influence on the world, short of giving a bit of amusement to a very small and homogenous readership. The articles on them only appeal to strong fans of webcomics, who are seeking to discover new strips - other than that, nobody is going to read them or take interest in what they have to say. Such a page is basically the textbook definition of "fan site". Wikipedia is not a search engine or directory, and thus, should not be used to compile a list of every actively published strip currently in possession of a web address. Please tell me how these dime-a-dozen strips or the J. Random Cartoonists who pen them are notable. NetOracle 02:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; I agree with you to an extent. For example, I believe this particular webcomic (Flint Again) is more fancruft than anything and doesn't really need to be featured here. However, not every webcomic is fancruft, and it would appear that you and I have very different interpretations of what sort of publicity or cultural influence characterizes a webcomic as notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with one of the other two Flint comic articles. Or both. Balancer 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge into
  · 10:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Agreed: merge to the other Basil Flint article. DS 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nominated as an attack and in bad faith. Notable comic. Ccfr88 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Confirmed sockpuppet. That said, the editor is not (yet) past warnings and hasn't posted in this debate with any other account. --Kizor 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should be merged, but the current content is not worth merging. --Krator 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into John Troutman.

Comment if anything is non-notable it is Alexa. As a professional webdesigner, I know very well that it is far from perfect. It can be used to tag something notable, not non-notable. JackSparrow Ninja 21:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the original Basil Flint article, as this comic is nothing but a relaunch with the same character.
  Skybright Daye 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and merge per above merge comments. Also troubled by the edit summary which saw this nominated. [1] Hiding Talk 21:06, 14 February 2007 (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 redirect and merge with Keenspot. Edit-history remains intact. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look What I Brought Home!

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we avoid pretending that the piece of spyware known as Alexa is a useful source of information? Any person with even moderate technical knowledge would not use it.

Tens of millions of people use Alexa, and it is a noteworthy estimator of traffic, regardless of what your personal opinions of their business model or privacy policy might be. Ask any serious webmaster whether a high-traffic site is likely to have a significant Alexa rating or not. NetOracle 03:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Founding member of Keenspot, long-running, notable. 66.35.99.183 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Alexa traffic rank is particular irrelevant to determining the notability of a webcomic strip that ended over two years ago. According to the link within the article, archives are only accessible to paid subscribers, and again according to the article, it has a primarily historical claim to fame, i.e., being a founding member of Keenspot. Balancer 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; as I recall, LWIBH's adult content led to some major policy changes at Keenspot. Keep. DS 14:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as others have indicated, this webcomic seems potentially of note. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To quote BradBeattie, there is an established precedent amongst the
  WP:COMIC crowd that being hosted Keenspot is sufficient notability. Alexa rankings left webcomic inclusion criteria long ago, and Balancer has a valid point. --Kizor 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Keenspot presence is sufficient notability in itself. This is a very well received comic series, too. Wizardbrad 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nominated as an attack and in bad faith. Notable comic.
  blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • ↑ Sockpuppet of User:Wizardbrad. —xyzzy_n 00:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and especially Balancer. -- Black Falcon 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Keenspot. --Krator 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per
  WP:NOT an internet directory. -- Dragonfiend 03:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above and especially Balancer. Mathmo ^Talk 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Keenspot. It is an archived webcomic, and the article has little information which can easily be merged.

• Comment if anything is non-notable it is Alexa. As a professional webdesigner, I know very well that it is far from perfect. It can be used to tag something notable, not non-notable. JackSparrow Ninja 21:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short of published server logs, Alexa is basically the only way of assessing how much traffic a site is receiving. It isn't perfect, but the only sites whose Alexa rankings are of no value are sites whose primary userbase detests the very idea of software analyzing their browsing habits, or whose users tend to use systems on which Alexa will not run. Even though I would never let it near my computers, I am not going to deny that tens of millions of clueless users run Alexa and follow links based on the exposure of those links. The site in question can't seem to muster up even a numbered ranking, which tells us that either it isn't very popular at all, or it is very popular but visited almost exclusively by powerusers and Linux users. Linux.com is currently at 5629, yet its primary audience isn't typically thought of as installing invasive toolbars on Windows systems. NetOracle 08:28, 14 February 2007 (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 Speedy Delete as nonsense. -- Gogo Dodo 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polydimensional industrial bio-cosmic psychology of microscopic bacterium

Polydimensional industrial bio-cosmic psychology of microscopic bacterium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Legitimate sounding, but most likely total nonsense. Psychology of bacteria? Delete

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. NetOracle 01:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. as patent nonsene. Already, one legitimate editor has wasted precious time on this article. --N Shar 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete as nonsense. The title doesn't even adhere to the rules of English grammar. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - patent nonsense. --Onorem 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - I too have a random word parser in my version of EMacs --Haemo 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - psychology of bacteria? What's next, emotions of minerals? I don't know if this technically meets CSD.G1, but so that no additional time is wasted on this: perhaps a speedy close per
  WP:SNOW? Black Falcon 03:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete - pure B.S., plus
  WP:SNOW. Realkyhick 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete nonsence. —dima/s-ko/ 04:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:N I did a google search that combination of words gets no hits. Jeepday 04:22, 10 February 2007 (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 Speedy Delete as G3 pure vandalism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crack Protected Excel

Crack Protected Excel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unverified, seems to be some kind of school project. Fails

• delete as completely unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: How-to guide,
  something made up in school one day. Heimstern Läufer 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy. Wikipedia is not free web hosting; let's make this very clear. --N Shar 01:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Unverified, fails more WP principles than I can count. Realkyhick 03:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. —dima/s-ko/ 04:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Not only is this a cracking guide, it's non-notable, so it fails both G12 and A7. So tagged.--GCFreak2 06:22, 10 February 2007 (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. Dakota 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Ragnogov

The Chronicles of Ragnogov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

• Delete Or how about "Something we thought of in school one day?" Out!!!! --Brianyoumans 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Okay, first of all, this clearly doesn't meet notability requirements or verifiability. Moreover, it even appears to fall under the above. However, a book called "The War upon Conflict" is a brilliant idea. --Haemo 03:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely made up in one day at school. Proof here: http://www.freewebs.com/thechroniclesofragnogov/ragnogovsnapshots.htm --Haemo 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, fails
  WP:NFT, a slow day at school for them. Realkyhick 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Chronicles of Nonsense Glendoremus 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overactive imaginations. John Reaves (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOR (based on the absence of reliable sources). -- Black Falcon 23:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - You guys are big jerks. Why would you want to ruin someones childhood dream of being able to post something that hasn't happened yet? I would be famous for being the most knowledgable person about TCOR. You guys are jerks.— 71.13.237.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Please be
    civil. You already have a website for TCoR. If you need another before it becomes notable, try MySpace. After the book has been published and reviewed by multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, come back and recreate the page. --Onorem 13:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Speedy delete: violates
  WP:NFT. "The books are in development, and are expected to arrive to stores sometime this year." Funny article!! Causesobad → (Talk) 16:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: As noted, this is not yet ready for Wikipedia based on our standards of notability. However, I commend the editors of the article for their creativity, wish them well, and hope they can contribute to some other articles, perhaps on SF/fantasy topics. I also did some light spelling/punctuation cleanup of the article which you might note for your other site. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have to delete this article because although the books may have been written, they are not yet published and in the public domain, and documented by independent references ( that is, people and sources that aren't in some way directly connected to the authors ). One of our basic rules is that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball": we can't have articles about things that haven't yet happened ( like the publication of books ). If the authors happen to read this, I'd like to say: keep working at your projects, and do the best you can, and the success ( and encyclopedia entries ) will come along when you're not looking for it ( and when you've completely forgotten about this debate, probably ). Best wishes for the future. WMMartin 19:23, 11 February 2007 (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, the list is still unverifiable by non-trivial and independent coverage on the subject. The article reads like fan-cruft and is not substantiated with

The noob

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 majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page 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 votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

View AfD

)

This is yet another non-notable web comic, whose appeal seems very limited. The only places mentioning it seem to be blogs, forums, chat rooms, social sites, and other pages of little to no value or notability. Wikipedia is

• keep. as the article states, the webcomic has received some acclaim. As there is no real policy on what makes a webcomic notable, this article should be preserved. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that. My problem with this webcomic-cruft is that the acclaim and praise comes from a very small segment of the population, as posted on personal sites, blogs, forums, etc, rather than from notable published sources. There seems to be an endless number of aspiring artists and adherents to the "Internet media culture" who can do little more than regurgitate memes and engage in self-promotion. Where are we going to draw the line? NetOracle 02:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why invalidate the feedback of blogs? The very presence of positive feedback, even if only largely present among internet communities, should account for some notability. It might not under Wikipedia policy. but such a distinction is immaterial as there presently is no policy to govern the treatment of this medium. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs in general are not a reliable or noteworthy source. There are exceptions, of course, but the vast majority of blogs are sites for personal ramblings, and devoid of any audience not known to the author personally. We're talking about several orders of magnitude here. Basically, anything can be considered notable if personal sites are allowed to serve as a basis for notability. It is not hard at all to establish a personal site, and participate in enough community-driven forms of media to build several hundred references to that site by means of self-promotion. Thus, how can anything present in the non-notable blogs, but nowhere else, be considered notable? NetOracle 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPG.COM, Worldofwarcraft.com, the Web Comic Cartoonist Chioice Awards are NOT Blogs, ramblings, or personal sites. They are HUGE websites with significant populations of content creators and visitors. Timmccloud 02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 02:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Once again a small minority of wikipedians are trying to delete notable webcomics. It's notability arises from 1) it has been published somewhere OTHER than it's home page (MMORPG.COM), which is NOT a just a "blog, forum, etc", it's a huge portal of content for MMORPG gamers. 2) There are over 7 million people playing World of Warcraft across the world, and the comic has been featured notibly on the WOW home page. 3) It has been nominated for awards - and as much as a large quantity of wikipedia editors don't want to recognize it - the web comic choice awards ARE a big deal in the field of webcomics, and being nominated meets notablity guidelines. All three of these items make this comic notable, notwithstanding the critical reviews included in the article. So to nominate it for deleteion SOLEY for the fact that it's not mentioned in the "buzz" on Web 2.0 sites this makes is absurd. And to nominate it for deletion because the reviews don't meet some personal criteria of "notablity" when there are other obvious reasons for notability is also unwarranted. Finally your editing comment "(Non-notable web comic, and we're going to sack it.)" shows you to be extremely biased on this topic in general, and your neutrality on this issue now brought into question. Timmccloud 02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: for discussion purposes, anyone who is interested in this topic should also review the original discussion by following this link: [2] Timmccloud 02:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I find it a FASCINATING coincidence that the nomination for deletion has occured during the authors annual vaction (She won't be back until Feb 18th) so arguably the best reference for information about recent notabilty events is convienently away during the nomination for deletion. I don't suppose that the AFD might possibly be withdrawn until she returns? Timmccloud 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The sources of supposed notability that you reference suffer from many of the same pitfalls of blogs, forums, and chat rooms.

First, this "ubersite" looks to be fairly open, and thus, the words of any one poster do not carry the weight or the reputation of the site as would the words of a senior staff writer for, as an example, Forbes Magazine.

Next, we will address "MMORPG.COM". The only reference to the article's subject is the presence of one single strip, along with a link to the strip's website. There is no review or assertion of notability, and we don't know who is endorsing the comic, or why. Once again, the existence of a mention on a large or notable site does not necessarily convey any weight when determining notability. If I post an classified ad for used computer parts on Craigslist, is it proper to say that I am a "Active secondhand electronics distributor featured on an Alexa Top 100 website"?

Reply Duh. The CURRENT comic is reposted on MMORPG every time a new one comes out. This has been happening for over a year - that constitues "publication". And it's part of the main site navigation, which means that it is PART OF THE WEBSITE. It's not just "posted" by someone. Unfortunately the press release that stated the publication is no longer available on the web, so all that can be done is post the link to the current page. Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you comment on an upstart technology company, it does not make them notable. If

BusinessWeek

makes the same comment, then it may very well make the company notable. The common theme here is that "what is said" and "where it is said" is less important than "who says it".

As for the "Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards", this "organization" is not notable in itself. It appears to be some loosely-organized group of Internet cartoonists, established for the sake of mutual promotion. Awards are only notable if given by a notable organization, and this organization seems to be little more than a hastily constructed site maintained by a very small number of people who share a hobby. Every E-Mail address on the site is some form of free mail, and the site itself is poorly built. Furthermore, the site is hosted and operated by "Keenspace Entertainment", apparently for the purpose of drawing attention to the webcomics it hosts.

There are a great many notable websites which provide a constant stream of linkage. Most of this linkage is, however, not notable. Should everybody or everything which gets featured on the front page of the abomination known as "Digg" receive an article on Wikipedia?

The problem I have with the criteria being used here is that any single person, or a few devoted fans, given a few sockpuppets at user-driven sites, or just a regularly updated personal blog, can, under the criteria, elevate a personal creation to a level of notability warranting inclusion.

The majority of these webcomics have become entrenched because their main readership - namely, those who are on the Internet for recreation constantly - edits Wikipedia with a frequency far removed from the general population. Some of these webcomics, which are essentially personal hobbies of their creators, have articles which far exceed multi-season national television shows and major motion pictures, in both depth and length. Think what you will about the worth and notability of webcomics, but please do not suggest that encyclopediac integrity is served by such a horribly disproportionate representation.

Please, again, tell me why these webcomics are notable, and how they matter in the overall scheme of things.

Your comment concerning the timing of the discussion, and the

wanted to remedy the situation. NetOracle 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

UM. Where to begin... let's just focus on the things I can handle at 5am. The WCCA has been around since 2001 and also awards comics outside Keenspace (as a quick peek and ANY list of nominations would have told you), so it's hardly hastily assembled or promoting Keenspace comics. It has also been covered on TV, radio and has received half an article in the New York Times. This year's nomination will be at Megacon.

Your "meatpuppet army" will be the people who maintain the article. Sorry to tell you that, but slipping in an AfD while the comic is vacationing (and thus the editors may not feel the need to check the Wiki article since nothing changed) is going to look fairly bad.

May I ask what your "solid case for deletion" was? There have been 50+ (by now possibly 60+) such cases for webcomics alone during the past month, so it's somewhat hard to guess which one you mean. The recent wave (to which you just contributed) also explains the "meatpuppet" syndrome you oppose so much - The webcomic world is pretty much up in arms right now because of the dozens of AfDs that axed a few entries of comics that steadily updated for half a decade or so. Another entry of a published comic got axed and had to be recreated via DRV.

Oh, and somehow, your last paragraph makes it VERY hard to assume good faith. You effectively made the nominations because you saw another AfD being flooded. "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions."

Didn't you stop to think WHY the AfD got flooded? Your effort only contributes to the larger problem - the reputation of Wikipedia in the webcomic world. But considering that you "couldn't have named a single webcomic as of yesterday", I assume that this is not one of your major concerns. --Sid 3050 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WCCA is not notable. Its website is of shoddy quality. It is hosted by an entity with a set of comics to promote, and therefore not impartial. Its awards seem to be distributed based on raw popular vote. Its coordinators have failed to establish their notability. Please provide evidence of "TV coverage". Is everything mentioned in any small capacity now suddenly notable?

reply not every non-profit orginization has the funding to hire the best webmasters, often these notable groups do with voulenteer work. Your assertion that the orginization is not notable based on 1) the quality of their website and 2) keenspot sponsering it has no merit. Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the creator is on vacation, yet you assert that there is a large group of legitimate editors who wrote the article. Why should the creator's vacation have anything to do with this, unless you anticipated him rallying a group of puppets to action?

Have you considered that the trend of AfD'ing webcomics might be the result of a general backlash against fancruft accumulating within a walled garden? Not everything is a vendetta or conspiracy.

I made the AfD because I saw another AfD in which a meatpuppet army tried to save an article about a non-notable subject. The Ugly Hill AfD was flooded with meatpuppets, and possibly sockpuppets. This should not be happening, and reflects poorly on those who engaged in ballot stuffing. This is the result of external fanboyism spilling over into Wikipedia. This sort of passion for a specific and generally non-notable string of subjects and characters is best reserved for a specific Wiki hosted by a Wikia-esque service.

Have you

verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards? I am an outsider to the world of webcomics, and don't see how the hundreds of strips featured by Wikipedia are notable to the rest of us. You are right - webcomics are not my concern. Improving Wikipedia is. NetOracle 05:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

WCCA: NYT, TV, Radio (link is to the announcement, but I have no reason to doubt the validity). The website is easy to navigate, and I don't see how it is "shoddy". Subjectivity, much? And an official Wal-Mart site had been completely broken in Firefox for a good while. Would that mean that Wal-Mart is non-notable? (No, don't answer that, I just used the example to stress the point that "good website" is not a notability criterion).

I did not "anticipate" a rally, but common sense implies that article editing frequency is in some relation to event frequency. When is it more likely for most editors to visit an article? When the primary information source does not update or when it does?

I am in no position to judge why dozens of major comic entries get vaped in large waves, but the nominations I saw hint that there either is bias or that the nominations were made by people with little knowledge about webcomics at all. The fact that the webcomic awards were quietly edged out of the Web Notability rules and then got vaped from Wikipedia (surrounded by quick nominations for comics that based their notability on them) sort of makes it hard to assume good faith for the whole situation.

Yes, I feared that you meant Ugly Hill. It's an award-winning and published webcomic, so of course the webcomic community (already in a "I might be next!" mood) spread the word about this nomination. There is a world outside of Wikipedia, and you can't expect it to stay silent during these deletion waves. Right now, the reputation of Wikipedia has suffered immensely in the eyes of webcomic communities, so you should expect a strong reaction to AfDs, especially for major comics. I'm not saying that I think this is a good thing, but I am realistic enough to see that it is quite inevitable.

Before your comments, I did assume good faith. But now I only see somebody nominating articles of a genre he knows nothing about, for the sole reason of retaliation for an AfD going a way you don't like. Your actions seem noble, but your motivation is not. I simply cannot assume that you act in good faith. This is just you going all "Oh, so you didn't like that, huh? Let's see how you like THIS!". So please spare me the "My only goal is to improve Wikipedia" talk, it sounds mighty hollow. --Sid 3050 12:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that nobody has offered a rebuttal to my analysis of all the sources as unreliable and non-notable, with the specific exception of that awards committee.

Wikipedia has established policies and guidelines as to what sources are acceptable, and how those sources should be interpreted. Please see

WP:WEB

does apply here, but its guidelines for sourcing material and determining notability and verifiability are still shaped by the other policies and guidelines dealing with source integrity.

When you apply policy to the majority of these articles on webcomics, the articles lose the footing on which their supporters built them. Enthusiasm can be good, and is admirable, but we, as editors, need to exercise some professional integrity in our analysis of source material.

One good rule of thumb for determining notability is the test of time. I have a concern that the majority of these webcomic-related articles will, 5-10 years from now, be unpublished and virtually unknown. Now, granted, there are many notable webcomics. Among these are ones which set milestones for revenue and exposure, shaped the evolution of the genre, and influenced humanity in a broad sense. This is why the entry on Columella is valid - does anyone here honestly believe that the majority of these comics will still be remembered in 2 decades, let alone 2 millenia?

The majority of these entries are fancruft, and are beginning to look like a walled garden.

There was meatpuppetry on the Ugly Hill AfD. Recruiting supporters offsite to bolster an AfD argument is not proper, and is against policy.

If these articles were notable on their own, you wouldn't have to rally your supporters to stop the deletion from going forward. A notable subject's article will be written by disinterested third parties, in the spirit of building Wikipedia. A non-notable subject's article will only be written by fans and other strong supporters. Your claim that this deletion was timed to coincide with the author's vacation only furthers my case against this article as fancruft. If this article is notable, then it will stand on its own, and without the evils of meatpuppetry or bloc voting.

During a time when Wikipedia is struggling for acceptance as a solid and reliable reference, the expansion of fancruft and non-notable material only dilutes the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. NetOracle 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. Pay attention who you reply to. I was not the one who brought up the timing, I am not the one who is rallying anybody. Indeed, I think YOU are the one who instantly started pointing fingers about rallying people. Paranoia, much? And if you had paid any attention at all, you would have noticed that I haven't even voiced any Delete/Keep opinion so far, so I'm hardly the one you could accuse of meatpuppetry or fancruft or whatever.

I think it's a given that in TWO THOUSAND YEARS, not even Wikipedia will be remembered. So let's delete everything! Your entire "must influence humanity" and "must stand the test of time" makes me curious. Please point out the exact policy that lists these things as requirements. Cite sources. I'm honestly curious.

The current flood of AfDs is a nasty call for sources, so I think it's a double standard to call for sources, but protest when new people join to argue about whether certain sources count or not.

Additionally, AfDs like the one for Starslip Crisis are based on the simple fact that an admin decided to ignore given sources for an award and declared it to be non-notable. And all of a sudden, a well-sourced article becomes not sourced at all. If an Admin suddenly declared CNN or the NYT to be non-notable, how many articles would fail to stand on their own? You cling to policies, but blindly accept that the wikiality suddenly changes. If/when WCCA gets restored, will you say "Yes, of course it fulfills policy"? I surely hope so.

A webcomic with more than five years of archived material, hundreds or thousands of strips and a dedicated fanbase don't count AT ALL in the current Web Notability rules. Without a dedicated newspaper article or a lengthy TV report, such a comic will be declared as non-notable as the average Geocities page. And thanks to the eager Admins who quickly got rid of the major webcomic awards, Wikipedia has become a "Get published or get out" site. So please tell me this: Is that the greater goal of Wikipedia? Kick out everything that hasn't changed the fate of mankind?

And I honestly ask you: What hurts the reputation of Wikipedia more: A few articles about things that have a large following, or pissing off thousands of people that read about Wikipedia's mass deletions on tons of blogs and webcomic news?

Oh, and people ignoring your "analysis" does not mean that you are right by default, even if you'd like to imply it. --Sid 3050 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every word of that reply was directed toward you. There are a number of parallel discussions occuring in this deletion debate, and I chose to save time by combining my thoughts into a single reply.

I never leveled an accusation of meatpuppetry or solicitation of meatpuppetry against any specific editor. I merely pointed out that a recent AfD had been plagued by an invasion of meatpuppets hell-bent on perpetuated the fancruft within. If an article can only be saved through meatpuppetry, its subject probably isn't notable to begin with. When I stand accused of timing my nomination to coincide with the vacation of a webcomic's author, I have to question why the author's vacation should even enter in to the equation. Is the motion for postponment based strictly on a desire to see one person be able to comment on the AfD, or is it a cover for something more sinister, such as the author making a website, forum, chat, or blog entry soliciting meatpuppet activity?

It is incivil to accuse another editor of being a meatpuppet or soliciting meatpuppets without probable cause, which is why I made no such accusation. I merely used the presence of meatpuppets in a completely seperate AfD as an indicator of problems within that AfD.

I cannot speak for other editors, but I did not put forth this nomination as an underhanded and hostile way of calling for sources. We have templates which are used to request sources when an article which probably meets notability guidelines is lacking the sources which make it whole. I put forth this nomination because I have a genuine belief that this webcomic does not meet notability guidelines, and the sources it is built on fail to establish notability and importance in a manner which maintains professionalism and encyclopedic integrity. Wikipedia has policies on

verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards

for good reason. I feel the letter and spirit of these policies is breached by this article and the sources used to support its alledged notability.

If other people are offended or upset because something they find amusing is deleted according to established policies of

verifiability, reliable sources, and encyclopedic standards

, then that is their problem. I cannot control whether they choose to follow and believe in the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's policies or not. Good-faith AfD nominations are not disparagements of the subjects or authors involved.

In proper debate, failing to make a mention, let alone a rebuttal, is a de facto admission of surrender on a specific point. NetOracle 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you de facto admit that the WCCA is notable? You didn't bring it up anymore when I cited the sources... :P (Cutting off the rest at this point since it has gotten WAYYYYY out of hand, so this will most likely be my last edit here. Well, that, and Wikipedia is seriously eating away my free time - do the established Wiki editors have a life outside the Wiki? If so, please tell me your secret! O_o) --Sid 3050 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This comic is way more notable than most of the rest. I can see where some people not familiar with the scene might delete the other ones, but this one is so notable that anything against it is just hate toward non traditional entertainment.
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

• keep seems notable enough and the article is fairly well written. Variety of articles is what makes wikipedia impressive as a living encyclodpedia. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Justinboden86 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• Keep It is notable enough. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Luckyherb (talk • contribs) 06:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• Keep. I had not heard of this strip prior to perusing the AFDs in examining the contention that webcomics are being targeted. Alexa ranking (32,000) bears out what the various links within the article and the previous VFD indicate, namely, that this is a very heavily trafficked comic with great prominence in the online RPG community. That is has been published independently online as well as in print make it clearly notable by the standards of Wikipedia. I will further note that the assertion of the WCCA as non-notable is disputable. I do not wish to assume bad faith, but I find NetOracle's expressed desire to "sack" this article to be a disturbing indicator of such. Balancer 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am an avid reader of the comic, as well as many people I know both personally and through the internet. We are certainly not meatpuppets and I take offense at this insinuation. Through his claims of ballot stuffing and meatpuppetry, NetOracle could explain away any kind of following or rallying in defense of this comic without any proof. Simply because he does not take interest in this webcomic or others does not mean it is not notable. Sheora 09:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I fail to see the validity in NetOracle's argument on notability. Among webcomic circles, The Noob is regularly very highly ranked on two of the three comic listings, and has a very active and supportive reader community. If this was a "Webcomic Wiki" there should be little doubt that all webcomics that are a) active and b) regularly updated should be represented. So why here is the judgement made that being only a webcomic individual instances that have not been presented in mainstream national media should be considered not notable?

You admit yourself that you hadn't really encountered webcomics - you are most likely a totally inappropriate person to judge the notability of an individual entity in a sphere that does not interest you. Someone may be interested in military modelling and do an article on a specific era of modelling -- totally uninteresting to me, but probably extremely useful for some die hard modelling fanatics, and good for them. Wikipedia is precisely about having in depth and accurate articles broadly across as many topics is possible for the information and reading of the general public. On the whole I only come to Wikipedia to look up things I don't already know about.

You claim that the support comes from a small section of population? So does most support for things that are not worldwide phenomena, so why would that make them less interesting as included articles as a whole? I suspect there is more current interest in The Noob than, for example, the Roman writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columella, yet he manages to escape any need for deletion. Why not have every writer from every culture ever that there is some kind of written record of? Most of those will not be at all notable to vast swathes of the population, yet I suspect there will be little complaint about such historical figures.

You talk about main media resources. I doubt for a second that BBC News, Reuters, Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Gates, ZDNet or anyone else has written about Columella, so lets sack that article too. In fact, lets Google for each Wiki article we find that looks obscure, and if there appears to be no large international media story or commentary about them then sack those articles too! And so we can steadily destroy the fantastic library of genuine interest articles that Wikipedia has managed to set up.

This site builds its reputation for two reasons. Firstly, it is on the whole well researched, works hard to avoid bias and provide a balanced argument in areas of contention, and is well presented and supported both by users and moderators. Secondly, it is extremely broad with a wide reach into the most obscure of subcategories in any given subject. Webcomics are now popular enough that some writers earn their entire living from donations, and I cannot see how your personal interest in them can be used as a judging factor in whether or not they should be allowed on Wikipedia.

So having already had so many comments that it should be kept in this discussion, perhaps it is notable to enough people to keep, especially as so far your reasoning for removing it appears not to have gathered much momentum? And perhaps webcomic entries should be moderated and marked potentially as AfD by administrators and content moderators with some level of interest in webcomics as a whole? Topazg 11:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC) — Topazg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Topazg happens to be an articulate editor who's familiar with the subject and puts thought and effort into his messages, while the nominator started editing yesterday, admits to having no knowledge about the field and has concerned himself with little else than deletion nominations and discussions. --Kizor 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was about a 'few or other edits' tag that appears to be no longer here. --Kizor 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spa tag was removed by Wizardbrad's sockpuppet. I put it back, but note that I did not originally put it there, nor necessarily agree with it.. --Krator 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can we all slow down a bit here before we get carried away? On all sides? The debate has been getting pretty heated. Timmccloud, even if we had any reason to assume that NetOracle knew the comic's author was away, it wouldn't make a difference. Articles are supposed to stand on their own merits. Getting authors involved is in no way policy, required or common, nor has it been beneficial in several cases where one did get involved. --Kizor 11:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of these "I see no sources, so let's AfD it to encourage the editors to find them" AfDs, it's highly counter-productive to nominate comics that are on a brief hiatus. --Sid 3050 12:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Continuing the comment after I was distracted by shiny things and a relative closed the window (this part is written after Krator's message, mind): NetOracle... cool down. Please. Your comments (nominating as a reaction, "We're going to sack it"..) give the impression of acting out of personal indignation. The train wreck at Ugly Hill was far from usual, the worst one I've seen in this field. Your assumptions - the WCCA are for self-promotion, meatpuppetry is to be expected - are broad, severe and, well, wrong.
  Sid has a point, too. It's an odd one, but not long ago I e-mailed an author and he responded with additional data, sources and proofs that turned an AfD from 2-3 to 6-0. --Kizor 21:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sid, Kizor, that was my point, that you for clarifying it - last time the noob was up for AFD, it was my communication with the author that allowed me to enhance the article with proper refrerences and information. This time round, the best reference to the work is unavailable. Timmccloud 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No substantial coverage by
  WP:WEB etc., only by websites of varying levels of ephemerality. The only reliable source cited, the Yahoo News story, mentions the subject only tangentially. Sandstein 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no sign of multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Started by a single purpose account, like most webcomic articles, it's a depository for character bios and trivia which is not even available on the site itself. Sources for some claims in the article, such as the comic being 'well-known' amongst MMORPG players, probably don't exist.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Nydas. Inkpaduta 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Balancer and Topazg. I also agree with Kizor. --Krator 15:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• note re [WP:WEB] notability is asserted - "Notability on Wikipedia for Web-specific content[3] is based on the following criterion"

1 The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. MMPORPG.COM, WorldofWarcraft.com Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. MMORPG.COM Timmccloud 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite instances where staff editors (not people with a forum/commentary account) make a significant mention of the subject. My concern is that these sources do not establish the notability of the subject, and are little more than one of many tangential mentions of sites which may fall under the category of "interesting, and worth a click" (but only to a specific subculture) but not notable. Furthermore, the mentions I saw earlier gave no indication of authorship, and thus, carried no weight associated with the entity responsible for publication. NetOracle 18:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please cite instances where staff editors (not people with a forum/commentary account) make a significant mention of the subject."

Answer:

• On mmorpg.com, the section where The noob is mentioned, is not one where people with forum/commentary accounts can make additions to.
• On WorldofWarcrat.com, The noob was featured in a news item, which is, again, a section of the site that needs more than a forum/commentary account.

--Krator 21:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The noob is mentioned quite a lot in sections of notable and reliable websites (Gamespot, Ign, WoW, etc) where just a forum or commentary account is needed to add content. However, I agree with you that these shouldn't be used to support any claims of notability for The noob. They do, however, support the claims that The noob is reknown throughout the MMO community.

Comment: I might also add that there was a previous AfD for this article, which resulted in a discussion not unlike the one observed here right now. Note that the article has significantly improved since then, and now includes a lot more encyclopaedic content (i.e: about the satire of MMORPG culture in the comic) in relation to the amount of 'descriptive' content. As the article has only improved, and so has the number of references and reviews included therein, I question whether this debate will reach a different conclusion than the last one. That being said, I'd like to propose

• Strong Keep Definitely notable, and liked by many.
  blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Keep - As Timmccloud and others have amply demonstrated, the argument for deleting The noob is incredibly weak. Almost to where it is laughable, really. I'm incredulous that the article is here again. The vendetta against webcomics continues, it would seem. –Xoid 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This article deletion seems complete vendictful and mean. Its just shocking to me why someone would want to step on and destroy the hard works and passions of others. So what if our comics are enjoyed by a select few? We are a community.
  blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep because calling something "fancruft" is just a way of being hateful and disparaging something. Somebody cared enough to put work into it, therefore we should keep it. This page hurts nobody else. I don't see why we have to crush the work of some because of elitists hiding behind a shield of "profesionnalism" or "encyclopedic standards". Webcomics are about fun and entertainment, but they still are notable. Just because they aren't all run for huge corporate profit and aren't stuffy like 18th century British Literature doesn't mean that talking about them is unprofesional.
  blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I think this is worthy of an article even right now. Let it stay and we'll improve it. There is nothing wrong with the subject, it just isn't as complete as it should be. Thats no reason to stomp it out.
  blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for more information. Krator 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Tagged three votes above with Spa because the only edit made by these accounts is on this page. I hate to see meatpuppets here, and I didn't ask for them, even if they support my point(s). It doesn't matter though, because of
  WP:SNOW here into account, in order to get back to editing instead of debating. --Krator 23:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: Confirmed to be sockpuppets, and votes deleted and tagged as such. I noticed Kizor (talk · contribs) and Xoid (talk · contribs) edited this page concerning these sockpuppets while I was doing so too, but I think keeping the text is to be preferred, because I fear that there'll be some more debate on sock and meatpuppets in this AfD. --Krator 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks be to you. --Kizor 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks from me too - sockpuppets pollute the dialog. --Timmccloud 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks from me too. Eliminating sockpuppets which were supporting your side's opinion was a stand up thing to do. I did, however, notice this edit in the history: [3] Can someone with access check to see if Topazg is operating any sockpuppets, considering that a sockpuppet tried to whitewash some facts concerning his history here?

• Deletet: Lacks the multiple non-trivial independent sources necessary for verifiable, NPOV encyclopedia writing. My library searches have turned up no reputable sources. -- Dragonfiend 01:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Timmccloud, User:Kizor, and User:Balancer. Although I am not a fan of comics (print or online), I think the notability of the comic has been demonstrated (recongition by notable websites). Another factor to consider is the possibly inappropriate nature of the nomination, when {{unreferenced}} or {{notability}} may have sufficed. Black Falcon 02:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with a reminder to everyone to have a quick look at
  notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And what pray tell is "relaible" by your definition? A major MMORPG software developent company like Blizzard covers it on the flagship games website home page, and it doesn't meet your "reliable" criteria? The largest webcomic award - WCCA - nominates it for an award and that's not "reliable"? Timmccloud 03:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blizzard? There's a link to mmorpg.com, which is also the source cited for that assertion, but I followed the link. Nothing on that page supports that assertion whatsoever, it's just the site's homepage. As to WCCA, no, Notability is not popularity, nor did the site even win, it just received an honorable mention. I suppose the award site is reliable as to who won an award, but certainly, that's not enough source material for a comprehensive article-the award site only mentions their name once! Coverage must also be non-trivial, certainly a name-drop is as trivial as it gets! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Blizzard, World of Warcraft, worldofwarcraft.com. Your lack of knowledge in the area of MMORPG games dilutes your opinions on notablity - within the gaming communitiy this comic is very notable. And that gaming community is larger than the wikipedia community in size, so notability is herby asserted for "a noticeable effect on culture". Granted that it's not YOUR culture is obvious, but members of the gaming culture who are in this thread assert notabily, and it should be respected.Timmccloud 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens and others. Mathmo ^Talk 05:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep saying this comic is not widely recognized is ignorant. There is a huge fanbase. People like it. It is notable. Period. 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Uh, I just saw a thread about this. I have to say I am really quite shocked. This is one of the biggest comic strips out there. Its everywhere. And on every important forum and weblog directory too. Deleting this would be illegal censorship.—The preceding
  blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep this article. I don't see what purpose it serves to delete it. It isn't like Wikipedia is going to run out of memory.
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Keep per the fact that many other
  comics. BuickCenturyDriver 08:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Timmccloud said basically everything I want to say. FWIW, this seems to be just wasting time and creating tension. The Nazis in the anti-webcomic camp need to learn some tolerance.
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Ohforf'sake. --Kizor 09:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  huh? BuickCenturyDriver 11:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, and I've always wanted to be an illegal censoring anti-webcomic Nazi! One Night In Hackney 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The frustrating thing about notibilty is that people will base it on whether or not the subject familiar to them or their peers as opposed to a whether or not it belongs on wikipedia and the community accepting it. BuickCenturyDriver 11:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm basing my vote on whether The noob meets
  WP:WEB. One Night In Hackney 11:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That teaches you a lesson about consensus. If you want to call them votes, just count the number of users. But these are comments and they are counted based on experiance. New user comments are discounted (because accounts are free on WP) but account with experiance and especially sysops and admins usually have more impact. The legitimacy usually depends on experiance and reputation. BuickCenturyDriver 13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I normally use the term !vote but I neglected to include an exclamation mark on this occasion. I regard your condescending tone as inappropriate, and I suggest you return to debating the matter at hand. One Night In Hackney 13:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is asserted - The january 2007 issue of the Norwegian Print magazine PEGASUS (ISSN 1890-0704) has started publishing the noob - on page 4 of the following link Pegasus January 2007. This meets notablity per "and are cited by established publications". I have included this reference in the article as well. Timmccloud 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is "notable", and stuff. Nothing I see that's wrong with it. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in print is in print, and that makes this "notable". This isn't some comic that some kid drew in art class one day. This is a real publication.
  blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep subject is certainly notable.
  blocked indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wizardbrad for more information. User:Krator (t c) 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep per Timmccloud, Kizor, and Balancer. It is clearly referenced by notable sources. JackSparrow Ninja 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The puppetry here is out of hand, and this has become the Ugly Hill AfD all over again. I'm going to get it cleaned up, and then we can proceed. NetOracle 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This comic is generally well known, it has been referanced on major sites (web comic awards, Blizzard main page, various gaming sites), and as shown above even published. My own initial exposure to it came from ingame references from other players and images from it being used as forum avatars/linked inside posts, on the World of Warcraft forums. Which says something about it having a following in the gaming community. There's probably 5-10 or so other webcomics of similar notability that i can think of, and i don't think cutting off most of the webcomic content on wikipedia helps anyone who actually has any interest in the subject. --Helixdq 02:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contest (and removed) the {{spa}} that was given to this user. As

personal attack

that may lead to action being taken against you."

--User:Krator (t c) 13:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have not seen adequate evidence provided that this webcomic has met any of the guidelines described within
  ⁸⁶ 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notability is established, and this is routinely mentioned on sites related to the MMORPG culture. Also, calling something a subculture with derisive implications (as in that makes them non-notavble) is silly. Millions of users is beyond notable. And this has been on the front page of the "main" mmorp portal, mmorpg.com, and World of warcraft.com - Denny 17:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not all of the references meet my personal standards for reliability, but there is sufficient sourcing of a reliable nature to suggest that this comic is in fact notable.
  (jarbarf) 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Holy crap, this is the longest deletion discussion I've ever seen. As it stands now, the article is not deletable. YechielMan 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though I can see that won't happen. If Wikipedia does not want to be overwhelmed by internet ephemera it must draw a line in the sand. An official policy is definitely needed. Rkevins 08:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others above and because of the massive amount of sockpuppetry in this AFD.
  SakotGrimshine 10:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment The sockpuppetry has been well identified in order to ignore it's contribution to the discussion. Deleting the article out of spite because some people make ill advised attempts to save it is NOT a reason to ignore the validity of the other commentary. It makes it more difficult to mediate, yes, and I personally wish they hadn't done so, but there are serious reasons to keep this article, and serious discussions between the meat puppetry.Timmccloud 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly don't agree with you on the notability of the subject, I do have to agree with your stance on the sockpuppetry. The presence of puppets alone should not sway a person to disagree with the viewpoint held by the puppets out of spite. If this deletion goes forward, it should be on the merits of the discussion held, and not the interference in the discussion by those who don't wish to play by the rules. All that can be said of the puppetry is that a large fan community exists, many of whom have no problems in introducing cruft into articles, or puppets into discussion NetOracle 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The comic (and by extention the article) seems to have quite a bit of support and in any case the articles quite well written--Bisected8 12:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The quality of the writing and existing support are not valid reasons to keep or delete an article. Please cite a policy or guideline to back up your position.
  ⁸⁶ 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Qualiy of comic: irrelevant. Author on vacation: irrelevant. Lots of people
  like it: irrelevant. Lots of noise on blogs: irrelevant. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources: relevant per policy and guideline, not yet rebutted. Please provide sources. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, three published books on it sounds notable enough for me. >Radiant< 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete has not had "...a noticeable effect on culture, society, and media, and are cited by established publications. " -
  · 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. Is it worth noting that NetOracle just made those criteria up himself, and furthermore has shown himself to be operating under his own idea of what Wikipedia should be by saying that we should restrict ourselves to those subjects that will "stand the test of time"? --Kizor 08:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Where you say
  

*** During a time when Wikipedia is struggling for acceptance as a solid and reliable reference, the expansion of fancruft and non-notable material only dilutes the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. NetOracle 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
***

I would like to disagree. What calls the reputation of wikipedia into question is the fact that a small minority keep on calling wikipedia's objectivity into question by deleting what they have subjectively determined to be subjective content. The objectivity of wikipedia is of more value to the site's reputation than anything else. If wikipedia is not objective, then how can it be trusted at all? Just because it contains vast amounts of what could be considered trivial data (please note that the articles regarding Knuckles the Echidna and Hitmonchan are longer than the article on European History), that does not mean that this data is not a valid reference for those who seek it. Furthermore, due to the open nature of a wiki they are going to struggle for a long time to come before they are regarded as "solid and reliable". Right now, objectivity is all that wikipedia has, and it is being fast eroded by the same pomposity displayed in the passage I have quoted. TNUK 00:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you classify the articles as "objective", yet deletion decisions "subjective"? I agree with you that objectivity is essential, and that is why I launched this deletion process to begin with. Writing a long, in-depth article about a subject

like it

.

Conversely, holding a distaste for something is not a valid reason to delete or prune it. At this point, let us make an important semantical distinction: not liking something is not the same as disliking something. Of particular concern are some of the comments that I have received indicating that someone who does not like webcomics has no business in pruning them down or deleting them. This notion is misguided; if only people who like webcomics participate in those articles, then they will fill up with biased fancruft. How can an article be objective if only one viewpoint is considered? The only people who should not participate in webcomic-related discussions are those who have vendettas against webcomics. I don't have a vendetta against webcomics; I simply don't find them humorous, and I don't associate with the typical nerd/gamer stereotypes portrayed in them. If I were to go around nominating things which I dislike for not being entertaining at all, I would have started with

troll the genre, I would have started with a notable webcomic such as Penny Arcade

.

The reason this discussion seems excessively long is because a significant amount of

Idol contestants is ridiculous too, and had I encountered it before I did similarly problematic articles on webcomics, I'd be off trying to apply encyclopedic standards to it, instead of here. NetOracle 04:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Your argument is specious. "There's cruft in there, so we should delete the entire article". That reasoning warrants a {{

afd}}. As we've already established this webcomic is notable, so don't try pulling that one. –Xoid 06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The presence of cruft in an otherwise notable article is a symptom of the same

ILIKEIT editing which has created non-notable articles to begin with. Thus, non-notable webcomics do far more harm than fancruft-filled articles like the Final Fantasy series. An article such as Sinfest would be much more deserving of a cruft cleanup tag than an AfD tag. Completely unencyclopedic articles are a much greater concern than articles with a bit of cruft; i.e., cruft in itself is less misrepresentative to a reader than the existence of an article which probably shouldn't be around in the first place. AfD is not a substitute for cruft cleanup, and we haven't established that this webcomic is notable, given that this AfD is still open. NetOracle 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Any deletion proceeding where a claim of "cruft" is the primary motivation for deletion should not happen. Cruft forever! Rogue 9 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't want to seem like I'm questioning each keep !vote, but if you could cite some policy or guideline for your reasoning, it would be appreciated.
  ⁸⁶ 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment:
  WP:CRUFT itself states that cruft cannot be the primary reason for deletion. However, an article's cruftiness can be a determining factor when other valid reasons for deletion are met. (Justyn 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply
  ]
• Comment Justyn beat me to it. Yelling "cruft" isn't a reason to delete anything, and the reasoning behind the nomination boils down to "I think this is cruft." Given that "cruft" is an entirely subjective measure (one could argue that articles on high schools, for instance, are cruft, just to give one example), one person thinking an article constitutes cruft is not a reason for deletion. Rogue 9 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather weak keep The print references are a bit thin (the magazine listed appears to be a new one, though I have very little clue about Norwegian) an self-published books don't count. That said, they may weakly satisfy the notability. The article needs some old chainsaw love though. Perhaps AfD it again a little bit later? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The the article itself sites sources and asserts its notibility, it has more then two real reliable sources, it meets the relevent criteria for inclusion. (Justyn 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In response to NetOracle: You ask why do I classify the articles as "objective", yet deletion decisions "subjective"? The answer is simple. Wikipedia uses set criteria to assess objectivity in articles - criteria which the article under discussion certainly meet. Deletion (and even the motion to delete the article itself) is therefore subjective, by the standards of wikipedia. This blatant display of double standards is the reason that I felt compeeled to add my two pennorth', and the reason why I am very close to giving up on ever being able to treat wikipedia as being an objective, credible source.
You may or may not be aware of my meaning in my initial response to you. I am unsure, because you say things like "The articles you mentioned are far too long for an objective encyclopedia not associated with a specific form of pop culture, and probably shouldn't exist." as though this adds weight to your query regarding objectivity. In actual fact, you have merely repeated my setiments quite succinctly. You go on to say that you are trying to "apply encyclopedic standards to articles" such as this one. What I think you mean is that you are deleting articles entirely subjectively. Case in point: this article meets the required standards, and therefore in order to apply encyclopedic standards, one merely needs to clean up the style (not the content) of the article so that it may be brought into line. You say that "the community as a whole needs to develop standards for webcomic inclusion", yet instead of this, you are acting in an highly subjective manner by removing content before such standards have even been established.
You refer to "cruft". If "cruft" is the problem, then why not remove "cruft" from the article and ensure that it properly conforms to the required standard, then protect it. Surely a basic article giving objective and encyclopedically delivered facts is far better than a gap in the supposedly omniscient databank that many editors seem to regard wikipedia as?
I can only hope that the madness does not spread, or next any article that mentions God (or references another which mentions God) will be deleted for not having an ojective enough worldview, and being about entirely subjective worldviews (which is of course an entirely subjective opinion as God's existance can not at this point be proved or disproved, and any attempt to do either on the site would be frowned upon as "original thinking". If this happens, then who knows where it will end?
The pomposity and hypocrisy of those who would seek to control and/or limit the flow of information across the internet never ceases to astound me. Just as I think I have seen the worst example possible, another crops up that is ten times as bad (and often this is the case when one bad yet impassioned idea is raised in support of a previous and equally execrable idea).
TNUK 23:13, 14 February 2007 (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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate Mall (Fairview Park)

In the past few months, we have deleted tons of mall articles. This one should not be an exception. Part of the TrackerTV Watchlist Cleanup

• Keep. Malls should be evaluated on their individual characteristics. In this case, references include a newspaper article at http://www.westlifenews.com/2005/06-01/westgate.html , as well as deadmalls.com --Eastmain 02:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't made up my mind yet whether this is actually notable or not, however, intentional or not, the nominator's comment makes it seem like he/she believes all mall articles should be deleted. As Eastmain said, they should only be deleted if there is no claim of notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no reason to delete this article. I would recommend that its content include cited references, however. --DangApricot 02:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable because of its history, almost ancient as malls go. Realkyhick 03:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable history when it mentions that it was among the "first postwar suburban retail centers with department store anchors in the United States" --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable because of its history and references. In addition, most mall articles were/are not this detailed and sourced. Finally, no valid reason for deletion has been presented. It has already been noted, but I think it should be reiterated: each article should be considered on its merits; in the case of bundled nominations, criticism of one article should apply equally to all. Black Falcon 02:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article claims notability and has references. Mathmo ^Talk 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unlike
  (jarbarf) 19:46, 14 February 2007 (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 no consensus, default to keep. However, I recommend finding some

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Delete: Even though it mentiones that this DJ worked with possibly some big artists, there is no mention for it. Also, the biography is not sourceful enough, since it seems to be linked to a webpage of the person. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 02:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you users are trying to anger me so you or another admin can block me for personal attacks, I'm afraid it won't work. You will have to find another person to maintain the El Salvador portal. If it matters to either of you, he has, in fact, placed on Canadian, Jamaican, Puerto Rican, and American music charts, and his song "The Richest Man in Babylon" was the theme song for a while on the American talk show Conan O'Brien. If this is not enough (even though it meets two of the WP:Music standards and it only has to meet one), you may delete my article. BashmentBoy 02:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)BashmentBoy[reply]

• Keep. See http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/t/thieverycorporation-richest.shtml for an explanation of Notch's work as the vocalist (and lyricist, I think) on Thievery Corporation's "The Richest Man in Babylon". --Eastmain 02:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Eastmain. Subject has enough notability (barely), so lets keep it for now. Realkyhick 03:57, 10 February 2007 (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 convert to speedy G7. Non-admin closure due to change of process.

Watara Supervision internals

Watara Supervision internals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Big images, self-references, and unencyclopedicity all make deletion for this article.

• delete per nom. clearly unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Might be usable if it were made more encyclopedic, but that would take a lot of work. Realkyhick 04:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly
  original research. CiaranG 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete OR.-MsHyde 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No contest I originally wrote this page, and a similar page for the Mega Duck as an extension of my article on the
  Mega Duck/Cougar Boy, to show the remarkable similarities between their external appearance and internal electronics of the Watara Supervision and the Cougar Boy/Mega Duck, and to learn interested parties the inner workings of such devices. But these articles ended up more like an article for a "How things work" book than an encyclopedic article. I understand that Wikipedia is not a "how things work" book, so I have salvaged a bit from both articles, and put them on my home page. Mahjongg 00:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• G7 both pages as above. I am changing this to G7 and adding a G7 template on the Mega Duck internals page.
  daaaaah!) 04:16, 11 February 2007 (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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nude Universe

Miss Nude Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I speedy deleted this as the whole content was "Miss Nude Universe is an annual beauty contest where contestants appear in the nude. Two noteworthy contestants are Nina Mercedez and Lauren Powers. [ab:both red links]" This was objected to, so I then userfied it. This was objected to, so I sent it to

NB: Zero Gnews hits, and in the first tne pages of the 481 unique Ghits there were two that were from reliable sources, but both deeply trivial: very brief Sexpo mewntion from

Playboy Magazine (February 1968) appears to have had an article about it. Note that even if this is the same contenst (as opposed to just an ŭber-genericly-named one) that's hardly "multiple non-trivial" mentions. </rant>
brenneman 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak delete The history here does appear to be murky; the web site claims that the pageant has run since the mid 60's, but it is unclear whether the pageant winners in the 60s were in the same pageant, or just one with the same name. It would be nice to have a reliable third-party history, and we don't have one. It has clearly never had much notoriety outside the "adult" community, except briefly in the 60s when Playboy was publicizing it (if that was in fact the same title.) If more sources were found, I might change my vote. --Brianyoumans 03:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced - unless we can get some real sources in here, this article should be deleted. --Haemo 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, No official Miss Nude Universe title. No website for the contest. No real reference. looks like a hoax to me. --Tarawneh 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwanyewest 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)I found the official websiste [4] i have emailed them to confirm the people i have stated have appeared in the competition as claimed thats gotta count for something.[reply]

That is not even a web site. It is just an adult search engine :) check it out. Press the I agree key. Any one can build such a search website. You just buy a domain name, place it in the hands of adults websites, and earn money. --Tarawneh 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: Apparently pagent changed its name to "Miss Nude World" [5]. -- Infrogmation 04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My 5 years old son can do something better than a two unformatted pages. --Tarawneh 07:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless more sources are found. I've heard news stories about this contest for years (on legit news programs, to boot). I'm really surprised there's no web site for this contest, especially in this age of all sort of "adult content" on the web. (Maybe I should start one, eh??) Does seem a bit odd, so dump it. Realkyhick 04:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep google nets almost 450 distinct hits, which I think is enough to prove that this thing actually exists. I can't find any real press for the contest, which is kind of arbitrary since there are no notability guidelines for beauty pageants. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PNC applies here just as it does elsewhere, as indeed does our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If you cannot find anything at all written about the pageant, how do you expect an article to be written about it? Uncle G 07:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would argue that there are enough reliable sources that make minor mention of the subject so that it passes WP:Verifiability. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would agree if the information can be used to build a meaningful article, but mere mention of its existance 500 times, doesn't build the text. See my note below about a Miss Nude Pageants article. --Kevin Murray 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So where are these reliable sources that tell us about this subject, then? Please cite some. You appear to be conflating a non-zero count of Google search results with the existence of sources. Counting Google hits is not research. It's necessary to actually read the things that Google turns up. Do so, and you'll find that there's scant information that is directly about this pageant. I've yet to find a reliable source that gives the year that the pageant started, for example. If you find one, please cite it. Uncle G 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It exists. It used to make weird news occasionally when I was younger. Doczilla 05:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One would think that given how big porn is on the net, and that this pagent has apparently been running since the 60s, there would be some reliable sources. Damned if I can find them, however. This suggests to me that while we can verify its existence, it simply is not notable. Resolute 05:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, there appear to have been at least two, possibly separate, Miss Nude Universe pageants -- the one that Kitten Natividad is said to have won in the early 1970s, and the one owned by Rio Rivers that folded in 2005 after "15 years" in the business (pace infrogmation). --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Page 124 of ISBN 0595309267 confirms that at least one Miss Nude Universe pageant exists. But that is all that it says about it, including it in a laundry list of "other special pageants". I can also find sources that state that there was a Miss Nude Universe Pageant held in Naked City (Roselawn, Indiana) in the 1960s and 1970s. But Naked City closed in 1986 when Dick Drost left, and, once again, the sources don't actually say anything about the pageant since it is Naked City that they are in fact discussing. Indeed, there are several that say that it was actually Miss Nude America, not Universe. I can also find several biographies of people that state that they were "winner of Miss Nude Universe" in some year or other.

  There's tangential information all over the place about other things that mention this pageant, or some other similarly named one. There are people who are recorded as having won a title of Miss Nude Universe. There is a nudist camp that is recorded as having hosted a contest by that name. But the important 3 words are "about other things". There's scant information that is actually about the pageant directly. I am unable to find out even basic information about the pageant itself, such as a list of year-by-year winners, or even that all of these disparate snippets of information in discussions of other things are actually about the same single contest. Uncle G 07:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete It's not *really* notable.. though it is sourced and does exist.. Whilding87 09:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Brianyoumans' and Uncle G's comments. It appears difficult to get reliable information on the thing. Perhaps if someone later actually gets that information and actually types it in, the article could be revived.Noroton 15:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Uncle G. Actually, with recent controversies the real Miss Univers is in some ways more titillating than this "shocking" faux one. Inkpaduta 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Comment There might be enough here to write an article about Miss Nude Pageants: World, Universe, America, Australia etc with redirects from each and discuss the history of the various pagents. But as Uncle G says it's pretty spotty info. --Kevin Murray 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I started a project page at:
  User:Kevin murray/miss nude. Feel free to drop off your research and ideas. Now it is just the text from this stub and comments by editors above. --Kevin Murray 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak delete Only because there's not much substance to go on other than some notables who've won although I have heard of this pageant before. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, being a stub isn't a good enough reason for deletion. I think it is a clear from this discussion that something of this sort certainly has existed and been mentioned in the media multiple times.Though future editors should also take heed of this discussion and be carefull in building up this page as clearly this subject has a confusing and murky history. Mathmo ^Talk 06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At the Deletion Review I objected to a disputed speedy bypassing AfD, & think it was very reasonably sent here, and now we can very reasonably review it, and of course recognize it as junk. From its external references, it seems to be slightly disguised advertising.DGG 01:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, Delete Eusebeus 20:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per a very convincing nom. YechielMan 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential References The following are potential references for an article renamed "Miss Nude Pageants"

• Miss Nude World Pagenet
• Miss Nude Australia
• Come along chaps, going solo at the Sexpo missus the point
• KCCI Channel 8 Des Moines Miss Nude World, October 17, 2003
• Howard TV (Stern) anouncement of broadcast June 2006
• Law.com "Miss Nude (1997) Contestant Stripped of Court Victory" by Jonathan Ringel, Fulton County Daily Report March 30, 2004
• Rio Rivers Miss Nude Universe 2004, ainews.com
• "Visitors find Miss Nude World pageant very appealing" By Associated Press, 4/16/03 (from Boston.com)
• "Miss Nude pageant heads to final rounds", Des Moines Register, by Chad Graham, Register Staff Writer, 10/23/2003
• "The Odd Truth, April 16, 2003, Grin and Bare It", CBS News (online)
• Atlanta Adult Entertainment Guide From Joy Johnston, About.com
• HBO Coverage of Miss Nude Contest Time Warner website

--Kevin Murray 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since it appears that it can reasonably be expanded. There's certainly no reason to delete it simply because it's a stub. fbb_fan 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, I'm going to give this a chance to add third party sources, but if they don't turn up in a few weeks, I'd say delete. by the way This is not a hoax, the pageant changed its name., see http://www.missnudeworldpageant.com/ Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nomination is convincing and presetn article states nothign that is not entirely obvious from the title. Let us know if multiple non-trivial indepednent coverage is referenced before the end of the debate - it is not now. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 14 February 2007 (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 keep. -

Jhoni Marchinko

Jhoni Marchinko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - the only thing that might save the article under

• Keep Given that the Emmys are one of the highest awards for Television, I believe this would establish notability. Kind of odd that it isn't mentioned in this stub though. Resolute 05:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I found it while looking for other sources. I suppose I should add that, huh. Otto4711 05:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a lot of people who get Emmys don't have wikipedia articles. Usedup 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would a series of ommissions be a reason to extend the error? --Kevin Murray 21:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep winning one of the most prestigious TV awards is notability eough and carries several (hundred?) non trivial mentions with it. Don't see a problem with WP:BIO Alf photoman 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the award which is confirmation of notablility. --Kevin Murray 21:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alf photoman and Kevin Murray--the prestigiousness of the Emmy establishes notability. -- Black Falcon 02:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the suggestions above, I see no problems with this article that would warrant deletion.
  (jarbarf) 17:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, only if the Emmy win can be proven.SlideAndSlip 20:41, 13 February 2007 (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 all. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Clements

Chris Clements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable director who is only credited with two episodes and has done little else of note. It has already been established that merely writing or directing a few Simpsons episodes is not notable enough. The problem is that random editors create these pages and don't add any categories, meaning these pages can exist for months without anyone knowing. Scorpion 02:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for already stated reasons:

Ralph Sosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (directed 2 episodes)

Julie Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (freelance writer, 1 episode)

Robin J. Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (freelance writer, 1 episode)

• Delete all per nom - I don't think that direction one, or even a handful, of minor episodes from a long-running television show should qualify under notability standards. If I'm off base here, please correct me. --Haemo 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One episode of the Simpsons as a writing credit does not a notable person make. Natalie 03:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. It seems to me that the threshold for notability will decline as the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia increases. If it has "already been established" that directing a few Simpsons episodes is insufficiently notable, perhaps we should reexamine this threshold.Cgmusselman 03:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. "A few" episodes is one thing; one or two episodes is quite another. If other credits can be found, it might be enough to reconsider. Realkyhick 04:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that the writers had a couple other writers credits on IMDB, but they were for shows that didn't have wikipedia pages. -- Scorpion 04:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w.
  WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete without prejudice to proper recreation. Unfortunately, being in the credits of one or two episodes just doesn't seem to cut it for
  WP:BIO. If notability is established through additional professional activities, then keep. If not, delete. -- Black Falcon 02:19, 11 February 2007 (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, other such articles exist is not a very good reason for keeping anything. You might want to nominate the others for deletion too. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osten Taylor

Osten Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• I vote him off the island for Ohconfucious' reasons. Also, reality-show characters and other TV characters don't deserve their own articles unless the show is a blockbuster hit. Vast numbers of people know who
  Ralph Cramden and Edith Bunker are, for instance, and years from now that will probably still be the case. Flush the others down the tubes. Noroton 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: Ugh! and Ralph doesn't even get his own home page!Noroton 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another fine product of the television industry. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft. Subject is not of notability in his own right, and should only be mentioned on a cast list of a specific notable television series. NetOracle 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, poor sourcesSlideAndSlip 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I personally would delete these types of articles. However, the discussion of these has already been had and without a change of policy it seems that the consensus is keep. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashlea_Evans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlea Evans (2nd nomination). Not even the most rabid Reality TV fan would remember Ashlea (the utterly unremarkable first bootee of US Big Brother 6) and she has a page, so it seems for now they must stay. SirSam972 13:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please note that each article exists or is deleted on its own merits, simply because
  other crap exists, doesn't mean that this crap should stay. Anyhoo, Osten Taylor is not Ashlea Evans. Ohconfucius 08:24, 15 February 2007 (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 as a subjective list. There would be multiplicity of contradicting sources for this list. List has

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)