Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 16: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Saikokira (talk | contribs)
1,148 edits
FJArnett (talk | contribs)
10 edits
Line 33: Line 33:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocket Manipulator}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocket Manipulator}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Hall (presenter and filmmaker)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Hall (presenter and filmmaker)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starslip Crisis}}

Revision as of 03:28, 16 February 2007

< February 15 February 17 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of ECW Originals in ECW (WWE)

List Of ECW Originals in ECW (WWE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

OR, listcruft, redundant info that will become dated. In general, a non-notable page that only has meaning to hardcore wrestling fans. Prod was removed. Booshakla 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify something, I specifically didn't say the info wasn't "notable". I said it was unreferenced and has original research, and has no additional analysis or encyclopedic content. I'm not claiming that the overall general topic is or isn't potentially "notable". Dugwiki 22:13, 16 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, A7/G7. Kusma (討論) 09:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Www.listz.com

Www.listz.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website, it seems. The article does assert notability, but there are no references and it's not even clear what the website is exactly. I'm not even sure if it's listz.com or liszt.com - confusing. I'll leave it up to the faithful AfD voters. DLandTALK 00:18, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Management Skills

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

Appears to be the management philosophy of a "Robert L. Katz" who is described as a management expert. However there is no explanation as to why this person or his philosophy is notable. Doesn't appear to need to be covered by Wikipedia. WjBscribe 00:24, 16 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. Proto ► 12:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State of World Liberty Index

State of World Liberty Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list of countries and their "liberty." Has no reliable sources or references to the "index". Appears to have been made up by one person and it fails WP:NFT. Earlier prod deleted. Selket Talk 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. The first problem I have with this here is that it's been covered (at least, so says the article), but there's nothing to back it up. The second part I have is that it's also rather opinionated - as it comes from a Libertarian POV, it is going to be easy to violate WP:NPOV here. I think, though, that if the first problem is taken care of, eventually the second problem will take care of itself. Solve the first one and I'll change my mind. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, let me say that the index itself (and not the article) is quite POV (see here for methodology). That being said, here are two sources that have cited it: [3] and [4]. -- Black Falcon 00:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I think I can work with this. Changing the vote. Let's put these links on there.
  • Delete It seems to have a strong POV to capitalist based western living, in that its point bases is based on people being able to do capitalist things such as personally buying land, that simply don't apply in other ecenomic based counteries. It seems to be a private (and poor) attempt at measuring living standards by captialist freedom. Reguardless of that, the web site itself does not pass WP:WEB and the index itself is not notable (mainly due to no one using it as per the above POV issues it has).--155.144.251.120 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks quite interesting to me. But include a table, with flags, wiklinks, etc., to make the whole thing more visual, and easier to follow. Turgidson 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this article in order to allow Wikipedia readers to access information which I feel is valuable and interesting. Furthermore, the information presented is verifiable (by looking at the project webpage and looking at secondary sources, which can be found with a Google search). Regarding the POV comments, please note Black Falcon's statement above that the Index is POV, not the article (just like an article about the Klu Klux Klan, for example). Also, the objections explicitly raised in the nomination are invalid:
  1. The Index webpage is linked to multiple times in the article text and as an E.L... a pretty valid source when the question at hand is the content of the Index. (contra: "Has no reliable sources or references to the 'index'.")
  2. The article certainly does not fail WP:NFT -- it is mentioned and cited by numerous sources.
However, an implicit objection was made which might be valid: non-notability. ("Appears to have been made up by one person". Note, however, that the theory of relativity and Ulysses were made up by one person.) I don't know on what criteria "notability" ought to be evaluated in this case, but I invite those editors who have not yet done so to read Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability before voting against the article on that basis (and also to perform a Google search and note the numerous references to the Index). Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note also that Notability is not a specified requirement for Wikipedia articles. Articles are only required to be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view, and this article meets all of those qualifications. The "Notability" criterion which is often brought up in deletion discussions is done so (legitimately) usually because of concerns relating to the Verifiability requirement, but since the article only attempts to report on the contents of the Index (and these can be easily verified at the project webpage, which is linked from the article), such a non-notability criticism is not legitimate in this context. Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comments and have changed my "comment" to a "keep". -- Black Falcon 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per User:Turgidson. --Zelse81 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article badly fails WP:NPOV currently due to the "Libretarian Philosophy" section. Also, Dave_Runger, please be aware that your arguments on the inclusion criteria are somewhat suspect. First of all, while WP:NOTABILITY is not in itself an ABSOLUTE requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is an ABSOLUTELY valid reason for deletion as well as a guideline accepted by the majority of Wikipedia editors for both purposes. Further, google hits are not an accurate gauge of notability, they should only be used as anecdotal evidence in concert with other sources of information. Also note that WP:ILIKEIT explains that "valuable and interesting" (as you and another have described the article in this discussion) are not themselves valid reasons for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even if we momentarily accept the premise of your argument, this article still fails WP:V. Sources must be from reliable, third-party published sources, especially in a case like this in which the subject matter concerns a global review and is based on other, similar lists (which do, by the way, satisfy WP:V). If sources are included, such as printed newspaper, magazine, and/or journal articles, and the WP:NPOV issue is addressed, I see no reason why this article needs to be deleted. However as it stands right now, I have to say delete. I can very easily create an index of similar sorts, that measures some arbitrary concept, find real research to back up my rankings, and calculate the index based on that evidence. Then I could just as easily plant this information online, maybe spread it around a bit, have it cited by some blogs, create a wikipedia entry for it, and maybe submit it to Digg or Fark. Even if I do all of these things, it would still not fit into an encyclopedia.--IRelayer 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the "Libertarian Philosophy" section POV? The index website itself says that it is libertarian-oriented. The index was created by "Nick Wilson, an activist and co-founder of the Libertarian Reform Caucus, an organization working to turn the United States Libertarian Party into a viable political party". That section is not stating anything that the website itself does not admit to. -- Black Falcon 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section has a point of view. It is not saying that the founder is Libretarian, or that the index is Libretarian, it is saying a combination of those things intended to put forth a point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if this were not the case, I believe the article has further problems, thank you for only addressing one of them and ignoring the rest. --IRelayer 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need for sarcasm. I still don't see how the section is POV. "Pro-individual freedom, pro-economic freedom and pro-limited government stance" are, in fact, the very tenets of libertarianism. If it quacks, walks, and looks like a duck, it's not POV to call it a duck. However, to satisfy the concerns you've raised, I will replace it with a more neutral and better-sourced section tomorrow. Also, I did not "ignore the rest", but rather focused on what I perceived to be the most important. So, to reply to the other points you've raised:
  1. WP:Notability is a guideline which I belive should be followed (my agreement with User:Dave Runger above was about the frequent conflation of notability and verifiability. However, this index is noted in a number of sources, which I will add to the article (again, tomorrow). However, as a Google search will show, the index and its rankings are discussed by a number of sources (in my opinion unforunately as I believe the index to be a terrible cross-national indicator of "liberty").
  2. WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not sure to whom you were referring, but I personally don't like the index. In any case, this is a a criticism of "keep" votes rather than a reason to delete (and I think you have appropriately used it as the former).
  3. WP:V is about "verifiability" rather than being "verified". Most of the information in the article is in fact already verified, and that which is not is certainly verifiable.
In all fairness, you did state that "If sources are included, such as printed newspaper, magazine, and/or journal articles, and the WP:NPOV issue is addressed, I see no reason why this article needs to be deleted." My comment was not intended to dismiss your arguments, but rather to try to understand why you perceived that section to be POV. I hope you will take a look at the revised version of the article and re-evaluate your position in light of its new state. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Yes, and in all fairness, I'm like to see these sort of things handled with tagging rather than AfD...but this isn't a perfect world. Black Falcon, thank you for your timely efforts to correct the article. I believe this article now meets WP:V and WP:NPOV. Notability is a different issue.--IRelayer 08:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is espousing that it is valid (or invalid). The index itself is POV, I agree, but it is notable and the article is not POV. Please do not confuse the quality of the article with that of the index itself. -- Black Falcon 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cannot comment on the real notability or relevance of the index, but I find it an interesting ranking and it's hardly on an obscure topic so I think it's safe to say others would be interested as well. I strongly disagree with the POV issues: as has been pointed out already, the index may be biased but its article is neutral. Mushroom Pi 04:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point was, that if I make up Selket's world technology index and rank all of the countries by their deployment of technology, Selket's world technology index doesn't deserve a wikipedia page because nobody reputable recognizes it. This has nothing to do with POV or validity of the index, my complaint is that this whole thing is published by some guy in his garage. --Selket Talk 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selket, even if your analogy is a good one (and I'm not saying it is, as you might be hard-pressed to find as many sources citing Selket's world technology index as the number that cite the State of World Liberty Index), I fail to understand what would be so bad about having a Wikipedia article about something some guy published in his garage. This article only represents the subjective evaluation of the State of World Liberty Project's founder. Therefore, his published views on the internet and citations of the Index by other sources is quite enough to establish verifiably that the Wikipedia article is, in fact, accurate in the claims it makes. The Wikipedia article is written in a NPOV, even if the index is not. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article is not a piece of original research. (The article merely reports on research/analysis done by the State of World Liberty Project, which in turn is based on the work of reputable organizations such as The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal, Freedom HouseReporters Without Borders, etc.). I believe that I have demonstrated that the article meets the three qualifications demanded of Wikipedia article. Deletion votes seem to be based either on the erroneous belief that notability is a necessary quality of Wikipedia articles (though the Index might be "notable" anyhow) and a misunderstanding that a NPOV policy means that the subjects described in articles must have a NPOV. This is utterly false; the articles themselves are, however, required to be written with no POV. Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 09:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selket, if your Selket's world technology index was noted in multiple published sources (like this index), then yes, it should have a Wikipedia page. -- Black Falcon 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard is not "published sources", it's "reliable published sources." The two "news organizations" linked from the article are Aruzza (a self titled consulting company) and the Turkmenistan project. --Selket Talk 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My further 2 cents: The page is looking better and better! Just keep on truckin'! Turgidson 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have added 10 more sources (government and news reports) about the index to the article. However, I am hesitant to continue working on the article until this AfD is finished. There have been several comments about the article being POV, but no one has noted exactly where the POV is. -- Black Falcon 02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please clarify, I'm very confused. I'm working on trying to improve the article and just can't see where the hell the POV in the article is. The first paragraph is this:

The State of World Liberty Index is a ranking of countries according to the degree of economic and personal freedoms which their citizens enjoy; each country is given a score between 0 and 100. The Index defines freedom as "the ability for the individual to live their lives as they choose, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same." Only one report (the 2006 State of World Liberty Index, released 12 August 2006) has yet been produced by the State of World Liberty Project, but the organization has stated that it will continue to release updated reports annually.[1] 159 countries were ranked in the 2006 report.

Where is the POV? It is a ranking of countries according to freedom. Maybe it's not a good ranking, but it's a ranking nonetheless. The definition of "freedom" is a quote. And only one report has been produced--that's a fact as well. I'm not sure where you see it as presented "as if it were objective and factual". I do not think this is a good index, but I can't see what problem people are having with the article. -- Black Falcon 02:44, 18 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa_Portelli

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

Non Notable Person. A virtual unknown presenter, on a minor channel The Dinkle 00:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have "practically the same meaning" at all. But considering you can't even spell simple words like "werth" or "defination", it's not surprising you don't understand the difference. 172.141.87.72 01:24, 17 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Clarke

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

Some assertions of notability provided, preventing speedy, but I can find nothing to indicate that they're true. "Julian Clarke" turns up many hits on Google, but none appearing to relate to this guy, and certainly no reliable sources corroborating anything. "Music label" has an article here (likely soon to be speedied), indicating that it's the subject's own "secret project", and similarly turns up very little. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 00:53, 16 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. Observing Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion's "Conveying meaning" will show that this is probably not suitable for there, either. - brenneman 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of palindromic phrases in English

This article is nothing more than listcruft. It does nothing for the understanding of the subject that the article Palindrome does not already adequately do. As discussed on the article talk page, this list is becoming unwieldly. This does not belong in wikipedia, per WP:NOT, as it is an indiscriminate list with no encyclopedic value to the reader. The page caters only to those who already know well what palindromes are, and who want to make a game out of listing them. It needs to be deleted and salted. No need to merge content, as the concept is well covered elsewhere. Jerry lavoie 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Top Spot]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same arguments and observations apply.

Palindromic words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Palindromic phrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

note the first 5 responses to this AfD were prior to my adding these 2 other articles. Jerry lavoie 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Rise to vote, sir.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[tut-tut] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[사전 사! 영한사전 사! 영영사전 사! 한영사전 사!] Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. We've got too many lists already. What is possibly encyclopedic about "Flee to me, remote elf"? The lists are impressive and extensive, but Wikipedia is not the repository of all human knowledge. This isn't the appropriate place for them. eaolson 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[So many dynamos!]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Sides reversed is]Noroton 12:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a great list. Can it be saved somewhere on some related Wiki site? If this isn't somewhere else on the Web, it would be a sad waste to lose it. Noroton 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Addition: My comments also apply to the two other oceans of palindromes the nominator has lined up at the guillotine (how's that for mixed metaphors). [kook] Noroton 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Spit on no tips.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Oo! Doodoo!]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with this is it will always grow to its current state or worse if it stays. Would you !vote in favor of keep and full-protect? I doubt it. Let's make it go away, according to our already well-established policy.Jerry lavoie 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Oozy rat in a sanitary zoo.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion until transwikied, and if it can't be transwikied, I'd want to keep it. This puppy's too cute to be put to sleep in the pound. Looking over this vast sea of human ingenuity and not liking it is like stepping to the edge of Grand Canyon and saying, "Eh." C'mon guys, have a heart! Noroton 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Flee to me, remote elf.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Mirth, sir, a gay asset? No, don’t essay a garish trim.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Yeah, guilty as charged and shameless about it. Maybe I should start WP:WHERESYOURSOULPEOPLE?. I'm trying to find out how Wiktionary appendixes would work and if this list would be OK over there. Noroton 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [Ode protocol: loco torpedo.][reply]
[redivider]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
at this point only one of the comments left before the other articles were added has not been recommented by the user. I have asked this user to come back and state whether their opinion counts for all or not. If they do not come back, we can just discount their !vote for the other two articles, no need to start over.... it would be a pointless waste of time. And not similar enough???? they are identical articles except one has single-word palindromes, and one includes other languages. The exact same arguments apply to all of them. If you disagree, you can !vote on each one separately.... there is no policy for an all-or-nothing close by the closing admin, they often disposition articles differently per the concensus reached... why waste our time? Jerry lavoie 03:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a joke, in reference to all those variations that begin "A man, a plan ..." I thought it was quite good. Matt 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
[Σοφός – wise man]Noroton 06:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palindromatic comments: O, stone, be not so. I say to you deleters. And Bibliomaniac, there are some real good ones here: No, son, onanism's a gross orgasm sin: a no-no, son. Oh, no! Don Ho! Campus motto: Bottoms up, Mac! Lived as a devil. Naomi, sex at noon taxes, I moan. Tulsa night life: filth, gin, a slut. Evil; all its sin is still alive. E-file: no evil to laff a lot, live one life.
I hope nobody minds, but I found palindromic comments that seemed to fit almost all of the comments here. I don't think they should get in anyone's way. After all: ''No evil to laff a lot, live on! Noroton 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion? Noi tele da! .............. can't blame me for trying! ;) --Candy-Panda 06:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[retrosorter] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Interesting. The pages are a start. Definitions could be added and the list of examples kept. I think that all the pages are good actually, but I think that he foreign language examples should go on the appropriate language wikis, with links on each page to the other language pages. Snowman 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[ailihphilia] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that examples of palindromes are needed for illustration, in a similar way that an article has a photo (which is likely to take up a lot space on the wiki servers than a list). I know that "interesting" is not a reason for inclusion in the wiki; howerver, none of the wiki rules are concrete. Snowman 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Especially the English single-word palindrome examples. Matt 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Additional comment: I see that the single-word page (Palindromic_words) has been "has been transwikied to Wiktionary". The talk page provides a link to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words where the material has been copied. Obviously we don't want the list maintained separately in two places, but I have two questions. First, why would anyone think to look for a list of palindromes (or anthing else for that matter) in a dictionary? Second, even if they did, how would they find the page at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words? Typing "palindrome" or even "palindromic words" in the Wiktionary search box does not lead you to that page in any obvious way that I can see. Matt 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
[reviver] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why user:Matt (who started this paragraph) has not used a signature that is in a standard linked format. Snowman 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked the help desk at Wictionary whether these lists could go there, and I was told they could. I see no problem in what is essentially an unencyclopedic list moving over to Wictionary if it's OK over there. (I suppose nothing is a sure bet and it might be up for deletion for whatever rules they have, but the administrator over there thinks they'd fit in.) As Wictionary articles, they could easily be linked with the Palindrome article here, just about as easily as a Wikipedia article could be. I think this is the best solution. I'm a bit skeptical about foreign-language palindromes in the English Wictionary, but they could be farmed out with links to other-language Wictionaries, it seems to me. As to whether people would find the list: I think most people who fall upon those lists of palindromes now go there from the Palindrome article, and that won't change. If they find it through a search engine, that won't change either. Here's my discussion at the Wiktionary help desk:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Information_desk
Noroton 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just slapped the Wictionary-suggestion notice on the two articles that hadn't been moved there. As for the one that's been copied already, it looks like one article is available in the first link but not the second, more direct link to Wictionary. Maybe it's a matter of time or of decisionmaking over in Wictionary. [tattarrattat] Noroton 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe that's it. Maybe the intention was to put the content at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Palindromic_words, but for some reason it never happened and it got put at the apparently unfindable http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words instead. If the links from the Wikipedia palindrome article can be made to point to the lists at Wiktionary then that's better than losing the content altogether I suppose, But I still maintain that a dictionary is not the place for this sort of content. It makes no sense to me... Wikipedia is where it should be. Matt 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
[Anna, Enok, sytytyskone, anna! "Give me the detonator, Enok, will you!"] Noroton 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Arbitrary" well, I dunno. They're all palindromes, after all.Noroton 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hesitate to call "Butt raft fart tub" even a phrase. There's no meaning whatsoever attached to that string of words. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, but I don't think it's typical. Noroton 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are certainly more suitable for the wiktionary than for here, much like the lists of idioms that were recently transwikied. I don't think this is meant to be the place for a depository of any given type of interesting word usements. Agent 86 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Ora trovo: vortaro!: "Golden find: dictionary!"] Noroton 05:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[가련하시다 사장집 아들 딸들아 집장사 다시 하련가] Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[표 세 명값 자책한 과부가 부과한 책자값 명세표] (I don't know what it means either, but if we delete it without it being transwikied, you will never, ever know, Nuttah68, and who will be miserable then ...?) Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having a wiki list of palindromes is useful for reference. It might not belong in an encyclopedia (especially some silly entries), but it should be in a wiki somewhere. So please don't delete this page until a suitable replacement wiki is found. Powerslide 03:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[ سر فلا كبا بك الفرس :: May your horse not stumble whilst you ride it.] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This rationale is unreasonable. Whether it is encyclopedic or not is the only question at stake here, not whether it exists somewhere else. However, it has been copied to Wiktionary already. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As with other Brahmi-originated scripts, palindromes are rare in Telugu. However, one prominent example stands out for our discussion:-
  • వికట కవి (vi-ka-Ta-ka-vi/ 'A cunning poet')
"Popular folklore has it that the above term was reputedly coined by the Hindu Goddess of Wisdom, Saraswati to describe the 15th century Telugu poet, Tenali Ramakrishna, after he had tricked her into bestowing him both wealth and wisdom, when she specifically asked him to choose either of the two and not, as it were, both."[Comment by way of example to make the point that there is at least some encyclopedic content here, rather than palindrome meant to describe the argument or compliment the editor, as with the others] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Al kasada sakla. Take this and put it in the safe.] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[مودته تدوم لكل هول و هل كل مودته تدوم :: His style lasts through all horrors, and does every style last?]Noroton 05:25, 19 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent 2 Targa

Silent 2 Targa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sailplane product. Many sentences are copyright violations from http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2_targa1.htm and http://www.alisport.com/pdf/silent2_silent2targa_eng.pdf. The article is written like an advertisement and not much is worth salvaging. BuddingJournalist 01:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi BuddingJournalist, Please explain what is a Non-notable sailplane product. If notable means worthy of note : remarkable b: distinguished, prominent I strongly disagree with you.... The Silent 2 Targa is remarkable and distinguished compared to other sailplane and if you are not able to understand why, please let me have the possibility to explain this concept. You say: The article is written like an advertisement, I disagree: this is a technical description of a sailplane, it simply states how the sailplane is made. Dansco2903
    • See WP:NOTE for Wikipedia's definition of notability. Is the Silent 2 Targa the subject of multiple, third-party, reliable sources? I think phrases such as "innovative", "unique", "very easy and fun to fly", "very good", "nice", etc. constitute the advertising tone, and are certainly not just "a technical description of a sailplane". There's still the copyright violation issue, too; numerous sentences are copied straight from http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2_targa1.htm. BuddingJournalist 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability, appears to be using Wikipedia as a host for a press release or catalog entry. ShaleZero 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N and copyright problems. /Blaxthos 02:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP != product catalog. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to copyvios and general spam but leave open for creation of an encyclopedia article. Nuttah68 11:28, 17 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 speedily deleted. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Pissedness Factor (GPF)

General Pissedness Factor (GPF) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Apparently made up term, with zero Google hits. Saligron 01:02, 16 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. Bucketsofg 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumbarded

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

Obvious neologism. Maybe WP:NFT. Possibly even vandalism. De-proded by anon editor with no explanation. eaolson 01:06, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Twisted Outlook

A Twisted Outlook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that it meets WP:WEB criteria; self-reported stats are relatively modest ("up and coming"); doesn't crack Alexa top 100,000; only one minor media mention. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. I hope it looks less like an advert now, and I apologise for how it looked in the first place. I won't add any more links.

Hello again, thanks again for keeping this up while changes are made. ZimmerBarnes, I was just wondering what you meant by a "neutral resource"? Thanks for the save vote.

I must go to sleep now (3.30am), I'll get right on this in the morning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tfmmushroom (talk • contribs).

Comment Tfmmushroom, read WP:WEB (notability guidelines for web sites) and WP:RS (for what constitutes a reliable source). Also, if this Twisted Outlook web site happens to be yours, please read WP:COI before anything else. SubSeven 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Webaliser" meaning self-reported site stats? Those stats still do nothing towards the subject meeting WP:WEB requirements. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Webaliser being a top application for displaying a website's statistics. How else can someone convey a site's stats other than by typing it? A screenshot of the stats page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.21.132 (talk • contribs)
I know what Webaliser is. The point is that self-reported web stats do nothing to satisfy WP:WEB criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WEB and WP:Notability. Note that the former states The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:44, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shield of Achilles

Shield of Achilles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An object in a book is generally not notable, on top of which the article is an unencyclopedic mess. Lesnail 01:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save. I deleted the rambling "mess" of the article, though the information could be added back if it was better organized. The Iliad is a famous work of fiction, while I'm not familiar with the specifics, the shield might be of particular importance in the overall story. ZimmerBarnes 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is the content that is left enough to warrant an article? It's already mentioned in passing in Achilles, but this article doesn't add any knowledge of the Shield. Further, without the description of "great detail" as written by the poet, what else can be written about the Shield? Cedlaod 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article is slightly inaccurate--the shield is an object in the poem, but "Shield of Achilles" usually refers to the section of the poem where the shield's creation by the god Hephaestus is described. And it's the description that's important--it's one of the first and most famous instances of ecphrasis in western literature, and therefore very important in the history of aesthetics. Books have been written about it--for instance, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Laokoon; A.S. Becker, The Shield of Achilles and the Poetics of Ekphrasis. On the other hand, I'm not going to be able to expand this article any time soon, and I doubt that other editors will get to it soon, so I wouldn't be that upset if the article disappeared. By the way, there are a few other articles on episodes of the Iliad and Odyssey--Deception of Zeus and Nekuia spring to mind; if Shield of Achilles is deleted, editors may wish to look at those articles as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Definitely a legitimate topic. From just my cursory education in classics, I know this is signficant. There's supposed to be some kind of artwork on his shield with some important symbolism. It's also a motiff in real art. Sofixit. Savidan 07:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shields are lame. Swords are much cooler.--Perceive 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Akhilleus and Savidan. Very famous passage from one of the most influential works in Western literature. Imitated by later poets such as Virgil (the shield of Aeneas in the Aeneid) and Auden. At the moment it's just a stub but plenty of room for expansion. --Folantin 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the object itself is not terribly notable within the story but the descritpion of it really is a key passage that is very influential. Eluchil404 10:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I think it's now a passable short article with room for expansion. --Folantin 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and suggest speedy keep. Note that the version of the article edited by ZimmerBarnes and Folantin is not the article that was nominated, which appeared to duplicate a long swatch of a prose translation of Homer directly. The description of Achilles' (replacement) shield is a passage from the Iliad that is easily worthy of a separate article, much as the Catalogue of Ships is. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, I nominated it for deletion, but now that it is about the section of the poem rather than about the object, I am happy with keeping it. Lesnail 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into The Iliad Is there such a thing as mythcruft? This would define it. Kyaa the Catlord 21:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Folantin.
  • Keep. - Kittybrewster 00:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While generally against such articles, this one supercedes any claim of non-notability. /Blaxthos 02:37, 17 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kai kit wan

Kai kit wan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The pills are supposed to help with "urogenital inflammation." What?? That disease is not described anywhere else in Wikipedia, so the medicine for it, though it does exist, is not notable. YechielMan 01:32, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaou

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

This article seems to be a translation from a Japanese original source, and it's not a good translation. Actually, it's almost incomprehensible. I tried to piece together some references from the Internet to consider a rewrite, but I couldn't find anything in English. Please list this article under Japan-related deletions, if there is such a thing. YechielMan 01:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum If the article is properly referenced to pass WP:N and WP:V at the end of this debate then consider my vote changed, if the article remains unreferenced then the article clearly fails policy and needs to go, until it can be recreated encyclopedicly (is that a word?). Jeepday 15:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The section you cite tells us that "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming equal quality" (emphasis mine), and no one has claimed that the references on this topic in English are of equal quality to the ones in Japanese on this very Japanese topic. Do you have any reason to dispute that the references are reliable sources showing notability? Dekimasuが... 09:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic is encyclopedic; at least two Japanese encyclopedias, Japanese Encarta and Heibonsha World Encyclopedia, have an entry about it. --Kusunose 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per UncleG, and rename to Kaō (with Kao redirect) per WP:MOS-JA. The sentences appear to be direct (machine?) translation from the Japanese, but that in and of itself is not a deletion reason. Perusing google ("kao" + "signature"), it seems to be a common enough word in antiquities circles (swords, and other Japanese handmade goods) [6] [7] etc. Neier 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a machine translation of the top part of ja:花押. It obviously needs to be re-written or translated, but that doesn't require deletion. Rename per Kusunose. skip (t / c) 09:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per User:Neier. However, oppose translation from jawiki version due to the lack of reliable sources and inline citations there (and the fact that it conflates the concept of Tughra with that of Kaou, when they're two different things with separate roots). Better for us to roll our own from scratch, adding facts to it as we find sources (though we can certainly use that one as a guide). cab 12:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Per the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is or likely may be challenged, or it may be removed. Two editors have attempted to validate the article and failed. The question is not should we keep a poor translation, the question is does this article pass the three core content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jeepday 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that this is not verifiable is pretty ridiculous. User:Kusunose has already pointed to reliable sources (two Japanese encyclopedias), proving that this subject actually exists (i.e. not a hoax) and is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And have you tried a google search for 花押 and looked around among the fifty-eight thousand hits you get? There have been whole books written on the topic ([8] in the first page of results, for example). cab 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response No offense intended but the Article Kaou as it is fails WP:V and per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article.. The topic may be notable but the article is challenged and remains unverified. Per the first sentence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. We are not talking about concepts of poor translations, or if a given subject is notable. The question is about the article and as it says in the AfD template Please improve the article if possible, so improve it so any argument about the notability or verifiability becomes moot. Jeepday 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: Problem with page: Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations). Solution: Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article! Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates. If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted. There's quite a few steps that could be (and should have been) taken to get attention for this article before AfD'ing; asking for verification on relevant wikiprojects or regional noticeboards, for example. It's a complete and utter waste of everyone's time and effort to delete this just in case the people with the ability and interest to verify and clean it don't happen to have free time in the next 4 days. cab 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been improved. It is in good English and has sources. It's no longer an orphan. As a stub, it covers the most important points of the topic. Fg2 10:12, 17 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. Please do add the sources soon, though. - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Bianchini

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

I actually think that this article is a probably a CSD as it is right on the edge of gibberish. It's a Google translation of the Italian Wikipedia entry for this individual. I'm skeptical of the notability of this individual and, because of the language, can't realistically discern any assertion of notability. Either way, it can't be saved without a complete rewrite from scratch.

As I was uncertain about CSD nomination, I attempted a proposed deletion. This was removed on the grounds that a Google search turned up a few hundred hits about this individual. Even if we agree that this subject is notable (and I'm not on that team at this point), I can't see how a non-sensical article asserts that notability. I also note that the original author of this article shares a last name with the subject, for what it's worth. Planetneutral 01:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I removed the deletion proposal, not for being opposed to deletion, but to give the deletion wider visibility and discussion. If there are translators and editors with specialized knowledge of Italian and the fine arts, they might be able to help with the wording and comment on whether the individual deserves an article. The article's barely over a week old, and hasn't had any cleanup tags to call attention to the need for work. Fg2 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can find the translation department at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which is across the road. Uncle G 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close AfD is not the place to make a translation request. --DavidHOzAu 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I did not phrase well, but I was not making a translation request. I'm arguing that the article fails WP:BIO because the low quality of the translation makes it impossible to identify an acceptable assertion of notability.
    • It's possible that someone with dual fluency can help clarify that, but I think notability is clearly in question at this point and I don't think that said ambiguity points to a speedy close of the discussion. If anything, it should be prolonged to allow for someone with the appropriate language skills to weigh in on the notability of the individual (and thus determine whether that translation work is even worthwhile). Planetneutral 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The italian wiki itself is unsourced and tagged in that sense and a similarly translated text has been inserted into the spanish one. --Tikiwont 11:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC), expanded Tikiwont 11:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, leaving the translation issue apart, I went trough the Google pages but many of them are about persons with the same name. Essentially I found only this [9], which so far does not seem to be a basis for meeting WP:V and WP:BIO, but I am open for new aspects. Tikiwont 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC), corrected and expanded.Tikiwont 12:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, our main problem here is with WP:V, which ion itself is a reason for deletion. On the other hand I am not so sure about the notability issue Alf photoman 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Cleanup I don't see how we can evaluate notability at this point. I think that we need to see sources and a better translation. --Kevin Murray 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed on the better translation, but do we have meaningful sources? I'm not seeing any from which to do a purposeful cleanup of this article. Maybe Xanthoxyl will have success from print sources. Planetneutral 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Cleanup Another copy has been left at fr:Vincenzo Bianchini; given that the article is short and simple I could translate from that. He is mentioned here. I will try some reference books. Xanthoxyl 00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have given the article a quick wipe down, retranslating from the French version. Basically he was a minor Italian sculptor who lived and worked in Iran and who had some degree of fame in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Xanthoxyl 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A comprehension improvement to be sure, but I'm holding out for whatever verifiable sources that you find. That Iranica article doesn't make much of a case for notability. Planetneutral 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, he does exist (eight of his books are in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma online catalogue, the last one dated 1970) but he is not conspicuous on Iranian websites and he doesn't even have an entry in the Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, which makes him about as non-notable as you can get. Their entry for V.B. refers to a 16th century Venetian mosaicist. His resistance leader brother-in-law Mariano Buratti is much more famous. Probably this article is best left at it:Vincenzo Bianchini. Xanthoxyl 07:00, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanniya

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

After a quick google search, I've become convinced this is a hoax article, and even if not, it violates NPOV. Can anyone find a criterion to speedy it? YechielMan 01:54, 16 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 07:36Z

Marc M. Cogman

Marc M. Cogman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable person. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. I nominated for speedy, but it was contested. Real96 01:55, 16 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 to delete, default to keep for both. Sandstein 06:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bisexual people and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

List of bisexual people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an indiscriminate list, contrary to WP:NOT#INFO. The list invites continuous addition of entries that violate WP:LIVING. The fact that these people are bisexual is not why they are notable. The list itself adds up to a major POV conflict. Some of this information is includable, as it is cited, but the place to do that is the persons entry, not such a list. Delete and salt.

I am also nominating the following related page because the same arguments and reasoning applies.

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jerry lavoie 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with fire. Impossible to maintain; nearly impossible to verify; sure to become either impossibly large or remain completely arbitrary; serves no useful nor informative purpose. In short, Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivial listcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both Unmaintainable and is pushing WP:LIVING. Has no real point from a research perspective.--Dacium 03:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed, impossible to maintain. I tried to remove some really bad sources from List of bisexual people but it's just too big and badly sourced. Also per WP:BLP Garion96 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep, I am convinced, this list List of bisexual people does need some serious cleanup and reliable sourcing though. The {{verify}} tag has been on the article already for over 6 months. Garion96 (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You succeded in removing those entries, which were indeed terribly badly sourced. The other entries seem to be based on fairly sound references (usually a report of the person in question "coming out"). WjBscribe 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though I have added Ted Haggard and others to this. The fact that these people are bisexual is not why they are notable. Either that, or rename as canonical gay list DavidYork71
  • Keep. The lists are works in progress but please check out List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E to see what these lists should look like once reasonably complete and properly sourced and formatted. There have been recent attempts to force compliance with WP:BLP and most of the entries are sourced. I have removed unsourced entries for some time and was about to turn to removing NNDB sourced entries along with others backed by sources that fail RS. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people who are notable in various fields are important in terms of social studies. These lists also allow brief information about their nationality and occupation that Category:LGBT people cannot provide. The list is maintained and the inclusion category is clearly expressed as: "This is a partial list of confirmed famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Famous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed." WjBscribe 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is not the problem I have with the articles, per se. Although the articles invite unsourced material, and would require continuous policing. My real problem is the fact that as a collection of names, the list itself is non-notable. whether certain notable people are LGBT or not may be notable for certain people, aI agree... but this article creates a pro (or con) POV slant... and does not by itself provide encyclopedia context.... what next? List of right-handed people? List of people who like turnips? People who...... the list could go on. But not appropriate for wikipedia. Jerry lavoie 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't tell whether its a pro or con slant, there probably isn't a POV slant at all. The fact that people are gay, lesbian or bisexual is far more significant than that they like turnips. It would be great if we can say sexuality is no big deal. But actually it is. The fact that people come out as gay etc. is a clearly notable fact about them and worthy of being catalogued in an encyclopedia. The examples you cite in comparisson are clearly trivia, this list is not. WjBscribe 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not disagree with you more. Every time an interviewer asks a celebrity if they are gay, I cringe.... because I actually do not want to know such a personal detail about somebody. If I can live my whole life without needing to catalog all the gay people in the world, why can't everyone? If the Rosie O'Donnell article and the Ellen Degeneres article say that they are lesbians, based on obvious tons of citable reliable sources, I have no problem with it... but what encyclopedic need does a person have who says "I wonder who all the gays are in the world?" Jerry lavoie 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the vast majority of people are straight"[citation needed] Hint: see kinsey scale Jerry lavoie 04:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then make that "the vast majority of people are assumed to be straight - making this list even more necessary. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aside from inciting an emotional response and inflaming this discussion, what possible purpose could the African American statement above serve? This discussion is not about race, national heritage, or turnip-liking. It is about an indicscriminate list. IF (capitalized on purpose) LGBT people need to know other LGBT people, they do not necessarily need to get that information from wikipedia. Wikipedia inclusion policies are about the encyclopedic content of the articles, not about fulfilling needs of selected groups of readers. If the vast majority of people are to be presumed to be straight as you said, then we can presume that the vast majority of readers will not have the need you described to find this list here.Jerry lavoie 04:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - this issue is emotionally laden for me - I admit. But the purpose of "throwing the race card" is valid. If having a list of African Americans is encyclopedic, then so is a list of LGBT folks. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken. Bbagot 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with SatyrTN, you can't have List of African-Americans but not List of LGBT people. These attributes might be viewed as irrelevant to some people, but historically sexuality and race have been very important attributes. If it's important enough for history, why not for wikipedia? Cedlaod 04:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is an inappropriate inflammatory argument (See Race card). Jerry lavoie 05:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Large ≠ indiscriminate. You might want to take a closer look at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --N Shar 04:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WJBscribe. And for the example (A-E) you've given, can I just say ... WOW!!! Now that is a good list! As for the criticisms raised, Zeus almighty! Lists belong on WP (see WP:LIST). In fact, WP allows for a distinct category "Lists of people by ...". Grouping people by sexual orientation is not the same as grouping them by their attitudes on turnips. Whether we like it or not, being a member of a sexual minority has impacted (and still continues to impact) the lives of such individuals--it is not a "non-defining or trivial characteristic". As for the charge of being indiscriminate, please have a look once more at WP:NOT#IINFO. -- Black Falcon 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh, why LBG but not T on these lists? Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 05:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See List of transgendered people (though it seems to be in a shocking state). There doesn't seem much point including those in lists that are already very long. WjBscribe 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But where's John Amaechi? Seriously, the maintainability concern raised by several people above is valid, as more people are willing to openly identify as L, G, or B. It may be impossible to include everyone who fits the criteria. Also, the sourcing for these lists has to be as stringent as possible. But I think the list serves a useful research purpose, and its format allows it to include information that a category can't. (And hopefully no one disputes that the various categories about sexual orientation are useful...) I'm not sure, however, that there's value in maintaining a List of bisexual people separate from the other lists; it might be better to merge that one. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no question that these lists need work. The list of bisexual people has been very bad for a long time, and even the much-improved List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E still cites self-published websites. However, to those arguing that this is trivial: if universities start offering degrees in the study of people who like turnips, then yes, we certainly should have a list of brassicarapaphiles. Personal lack of interest in the subject is no more relevant than any other IDONTLIKEIT argument. —Celithemis 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. While I think most lists on Wikipedia are silly, these lists are no sillier than most, and less silly than others. Until Wikipedia policy determines that all lists should be scrapped, these should stay. Great Keep arguments, by the way, and not much of a case made for deletion, besides, "I just really don't like it". Jeffpw 05:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is going to be unwieldy as hell, but there are certainly people to maintain it. Though, I'm not sure about the list of LGB people - isn't that covered in the separate lists, or...? --Dennisthe2 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it is everyone who is gay, bisexual or lesbian. What exactly is too general about List of lesbian, gay or bisexual people? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean adding a word like "important" or "notable" before people, concensus is against this e.g. List of tall people. The criteria for inclusion is within the article and only those who are notable should be listed, but adding this element to the title is usually disapproved of... WjBscribe 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. --Dennisthe2 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list is quite discriminate and just because it might result in vandalism and edit warring is not a reason to delete the article. Ever article is a target for vandalism - hell one of the most vandalized articles I've seen is Antartica, which isn't exactly a controversial subject. The claims are quite easy to verify, especially if the person is openly homo/bi-sexual.
As for being "unencylopedic" I'll just repeat what I said on a previous comment:
The thing is, this isn't really an article, it's an list. As such it serves more as an index to articles, so it doesn't have to be encyclopedic in the same sense as pages about specific people linked to on this list do. See WP:LISTS for specifics on what type of lists are appropriate. This list fits under all three purposes - information (people searching for a list of famous bisexuals for whatever reason), navigation (as I said before, it's an index/table of contents to these articles), development (the LGBT project is quite active and this is certainly helpful for them).
Koweja 07:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What exactly is "indiscriminate" about these lists? They have very clear criteria of entry. Obviously anyone's inclusion on the lists needs to be cited. But as long as that is done (and this is not difficult to enforce), I fail to see how this is any more indiscriminate than any of the lists of Jews, for example. — coelacan talk — 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A persons sexuality is almost never the reason they are notable. I can't imagine List of Heterosexual People would last five minutes on Wikipedia, this almost seems like Wiki:Point to me, if I'm honest. Jcuk 08:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am fed up with these lists. The set of people eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedic list should be defined by some notable trait. The set of people eligible for inclusion here is potentially undefined and also based on a non-notable trait. I could see that a list of Popes or platinum-selling musicians might be encyclopedic because the set of people listed would be manageable. This list is completely unmanageable. And I like many others am personally uncomfortable with classifying people according to their sexuality, because I think people should be allowed to keep their sexuality a private matter if they want to. Allon Fambrizzi 08:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • This is not a list of every bisexual person in the world nor is it intended to be. It is list of people who are bisexual and notable. According to WP:LIST, lists should include notable persons. So, notability is already a criterion. Moreoever, being a member of a sexual minority is a defining trait. Lastly, regarding the privacy issue, this list only includes people who are openly bisexual. -- Black Falcon 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP People want to know about homo/bisexual famous people, and they aren't necessarily gay either. That's why the GLBTQ encyclopedia exists. Per Koweja, this meets every requirement on WP:LIST, is not frivolous, and as mentioned previously, minority groups have lists, that's why there are lists of people by religion, occupation, and yes, sexuality, people are interested in reading these and it is our duty as an encyclopedia to produce this information that they seek. OK, so the bisexual list contains unsourced entries - is it our fault that NerriTunn (talk · contribs) wants everyone in the world to be bisexual? We keep removing them, she keeps putting them back. WP:LGBT has been working on making these lists fully comprehensive and sourced - delete these articles and you delete weeks (cumulatively) of our work to make these lists presentable. They are certainly not indiscriminate, we have developed guidelines within the project to define the criteria by which a person may be placed on the list. I have been tardy on the conversion to tables - if these lists are kept, I will ensure they all reach the same standard as A-E within this month.
To address Allon's point above, if public figures wish to keep their sexuality a secret, then they can and they aren't on the list. But if we have non-trivial, reliable sources about it, then they go on. Sexuality is no diffferent from any other part of them - if it is notable, it goes into Wikipedia, and that's policy.
To sum up, I ask that these lists be kept because they are notable, within policy, and with a body of people willing to maintain them. We just haven't got them looking at their best yet because we've been busy. This AfD tells me that I need to shove this to the top of my priority list and I will do so if these lists are kept. And to all thos epeople who say that such a list is unverifiable and impossible to maintain, see List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, why actually is there a seperate list for bisexual people? Since they are also included in the other list. If keep, would it make sense to merge both lists or to remove bisexual people from the other list? Garion96 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because bisexuality is a separate sexuality from homosexuality, so it deserves its own list for people who want to look up bisexual people: however, when people look up the list of GLB people they're more looking for "not straight" people rather than just gay people. So the distinction's there if people want it, but the GLB list is the main one people look for. That's how I see it anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of makes sense. But I still prefer either 2 lists, one bisexual, the other gay&lesbian. Or all in one list. Makes it also much easier to mantain. The way it is now List of bisexual people is basically double info. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but if you see it like that then List of LGB people is simply double info of List of people by name. Why have any list of people in it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it more as...for instance if list of politicians would als include all the people from the list of American politicians. Which is double. I also don't think strongly about it, it would just be easier to maintain, considering the vandal magnet (I assume both lists) are. Garion96 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - as one of the people who has worked on this list recently, please keep this. This is hardly an unworthy list, while yes, sometimes sexuality doesn't matter in the lives of people, for many it does (see Paul Cadmus, Tom of Finland and Natalie Clifford Barney.). There is a movement with this list towards making sure that every entry is cited with reliable references and this is on many watchlists to make sure that extraneous and uncited entries are removed. To tell you a little story, when I was just coming out of the closet myself, seeing a similar list (Wikipedia didn't yet exist), helped me adjust to being gay. To be able to see this list gave me something to feel good about: to know that I was in the company of many great men and women. As a gay man, yes this list is important to me, but it's also important information; hardly indescriminate. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sexuality of a person considered otherwise famous is, for the most part, trivial information. It's not really something which should be handled via a list like this due to the sheer size of the list which could require massive change at any time. For example, Anne Heche was for a while Gay, then she decided she was Bi, now (IIRC) she's decided she's Straight. So will the list contain people who are LGBT at the moment (which would require DAILY changes of many different entries on the list), or will it include everyone who was once LGBT (which could lead to WP:LIVING violations if the person now objects to the term)?
While the comparison to left handed people may be correct in terms of the scale of the list, the scope of what is required to maintain the list is entirely different. Someone cannot one day reveal that while they have been pretending to be right handed for years, they actually favor their left. Likewise, switching from right or left handed to ambidexterity requires months of training. Statistically, someone who is left-handed today is going to be left-handed in ten years. The same is not true of a person's sexuality. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, we do have a List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified list, so she could go there. Not a problem. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some editors here think that being gay is not a notable trait. I think it is. That's all I mean. I feel that individuals are fundamentally different from each other, but I guess that doesn't really matter here. (Forgive me for being pithy in my original post...) Watchsmart 02:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to work. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list needs a lot of work, but given how it should look when it's cleaned up, I think it's necssary and encyclopedic. Dev920 has been working like a dog, with myself and a few others chipping in, and the state of the list is gradually improving. Openly LGBT people are a minority, and bisexual people a minority within a minority. To suggest that non-heterosexual orientation is of no consequence amounts to ignoring the contents of every article in Category:LGBT, first and foremost the concept of coming out. This needs to be a list more than a category because sourcing is such an important aspect of this (per WP:LIVING) and because elaboration is needed. While there have been arguments about who should be included in the list (see talk page) I still think this list can and should be on par with Wikipedia's list standards. Don't give up on it yet. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 11:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom As a deal has been struck by prominent parties on each side of this debate to correct the major concers with these articles and still keep them, I request for an admin to close this debate as Keep per agreement. To make this easier for a closing admin, I request that nobody else add a comment below this line, unless you do not agree with that outcome. If this remains the final comment, an admin could close this under WP:SNOW, with reasoning that both parties have agreed to keep it, so delete outcome does not have snowballs chance. Let's allow a peaceful closure of this debate and celebrate collaboration. Jerry lavoie 16:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry, a number of users have expressed delete opinions in this AfD. Much as I might want it to be, the mere fact of your nom being withdrawn does not mean this AfD can be closed early. You cannot speak for everyone of those users (who might not be agreeable to the lists surviving in any form). Nor are those who have expressed keep opinions bound by what Dev920 has said. I think this AfD must now run its course. WjBscribe 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enoigh <shrug> I tried. Jerry lavoie 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also preferable to let the AFD run its full course because speedy keep does not establish as much evidence of consensus as does a five day AFD closed as keep. — coelacan talk — 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it does appear to be a page that may require sprotection now and again. Kukini 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, The list is just as deserving of a place on Wikipedia as any of the other relevants lists such as the lists of African-Americans, Irish-Americans, Left-handed individuals, etc. The requirement was that these individuals are already notable. I believe the list does merit inclusion. Face it, anyone notable identifying as GLBT (like it ot not) makes news. It is obviously of interest to someone if it is till newsworthy. ExRat 11:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Once again some people want to censor all information related to the glb community -- who's next, the Jews? African Americans? Catholics? Latinos? Democrats? WP should seriously consider implementing an anti-bigotry policy and ban violators. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right, have you actually read the comments of the people who prefer deletion? Garion96 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, and let's quote from a few: "Delete and salt", how should we interpret "delete and salt" repeatedly used above? is this an allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps -- words not chosen at random -- or is it an allusion to Rome's treatment of Carthage after years of bitter warfare? In either instance, it's abusive. Then there's the "Delete with fire", when burning of homosexuals was common. Would anyone seriously entertain analogous phraseology like "lynch this article" if used in relation to an African American subject or "gas and burn this article" when used in relation to a Jewish subject. Then there's a few who write from their hearts: "I like many others am personally uncomfortable with classifying people according to their sexuality, because I think people should be allowed to keep their sexuality a private matter if they want to" Gosh, notable people should be able to keep everything else private too, right? Let's delete all private things, even if they've can be found in a verifiably public source, like all that watergate stuff from Nixon's biography, after all I'm sure he would have prefered to keep that a private matter too. Hoowey. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your point, but I also think you see too much in comments used all the time on AFD. Garion96 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, right. How about this one from the person who proposed the deletion: "Every time an interviewer asks a celebrity if they are gay, I cringe.... because I actually do not want to know such a personal detail about somebody." That doesn't sound just slightly as though User:Jerry lavoie wants the list gone for . . . personal reasons? ExRat 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't sound like that at all to me. Besides, Jerry lavoie (the nominator) already changed his mind. Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpret my words, ExRat, try a small dose of WP:AGF, it actually tastes good. My point was that when interviewers ask Clay Aiken over and over again if je is gay, after he has definitively stated he is not... I feel bad for him. The same thing happened to Ricky Martin. Not that being gay is bad... being constantly asked about it in public after clearly stating you don't want to be, is humiliating. My worry about these lists is that wikipedia could perpetuate such humiliation by providing such a visible and clearly abused vandal target. As I stated above, since the LGBT wikiproject pledges to patrol these articles, my concern is abated. Jerry lavoie 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know there are people who say that lists and categories can exist side-by-side, but I really feel that this is better handled with a category rather than trying to list potentially thousands of people, inviting the addition of NN names as well as the inevitable "let's play a joke on my friend and list him as gay" nonsense. 23skidoo 22:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page is useful to all people who are interested in the personal life of celebrities, as there were many gay and lesbian actors who were forced to keep their sexuality a secret and lead double lives. Onefortyone 15:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is an unpleasant undertone of homophobia in the way this list is treated - as if bisexuality were something odd or 'tabloidy' or wrong. Many younger people can feel less alone knowing that bisexuality in many different degrees is something so many successful people share. Soane 16:53, 20 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 per consensus. PeaceNT 09:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards

Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
2001 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)
2002 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)
2003 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)
2004 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)
2005 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)
2006 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)

This article was previously subject to an articles for deletion nomination, was deleted, and is now being relisted following a deletion review debate. The key issue raised in the deletion review was that sources were introduced late in the original debate and not all the participants may have had a proper chance to evaluate them. bainer (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sources assert some notability, even in the mainstream press. As far as I can see, the awards are well-recognized within the web comic community. Regardless of the current quality of the article, a well-written article can be written about this subject that is verifiable with reliable sources. --- RockMFR 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Multiple independently published sources have noted these awards in a non-trivial fashion (NYT, TV, etc); these are the singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art (webcomics). The case is crystal clear. Balancer 02:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the awards are so notable that /they themselves are a source of notability/ for the comics they are presented to. Nardman1 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - This sounds almost circular at first, but consider this: The fact that these comics won awards is why these comics were covered in this NYT article. --Random832(tc) 03:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There new york times is a trivial piece. Here's the whole content from that article that is about the award:
It utterly transparent that the author isn't actually talking about the awards, noting that this was several months after them should provide some clue. This source fails utterly to establish that this is "singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art." the attack of the show's re-broadcasting is great and all, but we don't have articles based upon everythingthat ever was on one show. Well, perhaps if the show was 60 minutes... but that's hardly the case here. unless we're going to go for wholesale abandonment of freedom from bias based upon passionate defence, this article must be deleted unless multiple non-trivial sources are added. I understand that there is an active "web community" to whom this awards' importance is claimed to be obvious, but the criteria are really straight-forward, that this claim be proven not just asserted.
brenneman 02:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long Comment with no real point. I see where you are coming from. And I might even agree with you to say that the article isn't about the WCCA. But I think the article demonstrates something interesting. The author of the article is using the WCCA as a way to get into different web comics. For him (in the article), the WCCA is a prop... something to get him talking about specific web comics. Maybe that's what the WCCA does... it provides a starting point for people to approach the subject of web comics. It shows people which comics are liked and respected by other artists. As far as I can tell, this is the most notable award for web comics. I think it's a good idea to keep it around. -- Ben 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment It is simply incorrect to say that the quotation above is the total sum of the references to the WCCA in the article. Read the article instead of just using your search function and you will find a number of references further down using pronouns and indirect references. This has been asserted and debunked so many times that I'm having a hard time maintaining the assumption of good faith. The NYT article should be read. It is not trivial except for very unusual values of trivial. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If G4 and NYT think it is the notable enough to use as the best commics and then surely that is notibility established.--Dacium 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep main article, delete year articles I do agree that this needs work, but the sources that are provided are enough (even if not by much) to establish notability. And "everything that ever was on one show" is a bit of a straw man - it was a whole episode. --Random832(t

c) 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment I would agree that, for now, it would make sense to keep the year data inside the main article and only break them out once this has become unwieldy. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, a whole show in Attack of the Show!, but look how incredibly minor this show actually is... Can we just step back from the fact that this is about webcomics for a moment, and look at how desperately thin the material availible from reliable sources is? - brenneman 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a niche. Are we going to start deleting places of local interest because their towns' local newspapers have low circulation numbers worldwide? --Random832(tc) 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oi, mate, you really don't want to go there: That guideline is the result of a long seige by editors who thought that "all schools are notable." There's an unsteady equilibrium now between people who like reliable sources and people who like schools, but if the strongest argument you've got is that there are more like this one than I rest my case. - brenneman 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • comment The strongest argument is that it's met the test of inclusion including two articles in independent media. If you'd stop making disparaging remarks about the sourcing, we wouldn't be "going there" at all. Two is the standard, two are given so the article stays unless there's some double secret guideline about webcomics I don't know about. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, we can't — because it's the overly restrictive definition of "reliable sources" that's being applied here that's causing the problem in the first place. Essentially, there's a bias among the anti-web (and, therefore, anti-webcomic) crowd that says that web sources can never be reliable, and that's being used to expurgate anything on the web from Wikipedia. It is about webcomics, because it's about the web. -- Jay Maynard 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep. The original deletion enabled the anti-webcomic jihad. Deleting this entry, then using that to deny that webcomics that win these awards are notable, is noting more than creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and denying that webcomics can be notable at all. These awards are the pinnacle of webcomic achievement, and if this entry is deleted, we might as well delete any article having to do with anything on the web. -- Jay Maynard 03:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral on the list articles; the list of previous winners should be treated the same as the lists of previous winners of the premier awards in any other field. If that means merging or deleting, so be it; if that means keeping, then keep. -- Jay Maynard 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm rapidly giving up on talking sense here, but first:
    1. There is no "jihad."
    2. Please provide a reliable source that these are the "are the pinnacle of webcomic achievement."
    3. Plenty of webcomics get no-web coverage: When I Am King is the first I think of.
    4. "[D]elete any article having to do with anything on the web" that fails the bias and verification policy seems reasonable to me.
    brenneman 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. bibliomaniac15 03:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has not garnered the type of verifiable coverage in reputable independent sources one would expect of a seven-year-old supposedly "notable" award, let alone enough to write from a neutral point of view. What, if we really stretch our standards, we might possibly almost have two reputable sources? We have better sources for last year's revisions to the Chelsea High School Perfect attendance award. [10] [11] [12] [13]. Also, the point of view that this is "the singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art" is ridiculous when you have the awards' committee members blogging things like "The WCCAs are horribly mismanaged, they are not well organized and they don't do what they are supposed to. I know this because I have been part of the administrative process."[14] With a dearth of reputable sources, I don't see how to write this article without giving undue weight to wikipedia editor's personal points of view and original research about this topic. -- Dragonfiend 04:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment you seem to be arguing for raising the standards for sourcing beyond WP:WEB. Shouldn't you be over there instead of doing it on a case by case basis? That would seem a much more fair solution. This doesn't mean that I agree that more than two sources should be the standard but that doing it for an article while leaving the standard at a lower level is even worse than changing the standard badly. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An award given a solitary High School to its students is different from the WCCA that awards to an industry. Arguing that Chelsea High School Perfect attendance award and this article must share the same property even though they are completely different is a false analogy known as comparing apples and oranges. This isn't helpful and weakens your viewpoint. --DavidHOzAu 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that an award given at a solitary high school is different than an award given to an "industry." One difference would be that we would expect better sources for a seven-year-old "industry" award than we would for any single school's perfect attendance award in a single year. But instead we see the opposite difference, that we seem to have far more sources for an award given in a single year at a solitary high school than we do this seven-year-old award given to an entire "industry." Feel free to draw fruit comparisons. Maybe: "If an attendance award were an Apple, and we shouldn't have an article on the Apple Attendance Award, then we shouldn't have an article on any fruit-based awards with less non-trivial coverage than the Apple Award, so if the Orange Juice Choice award has worse sourcing, then we shouldn't have an article on the Orange Awards." Mmmm ... is anyone else getting hungry? I know am. In fact, I'm really hungry for enough reputable sources that we can cover this topic from a neutral point of view. --Dragonfiend 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. With that in mind, there is at least enough information to fully cite a stub... maybe not enough for a full article, but the article should at least be started. Anyway, it should be short work to make a stub out of the existing information, and when more sources come to light, we can of course restore the appropriate statements from the page history easily. Myself, I'd just leave it as is — asserting notability on a verifiable topic is good enough for me when the topic is obscure... there are bound to be at least one unsourced statement in an article anyway. Probably the best thing to do here is to leave it alone and simply wait for the sources to appear in the media. --DavidHOzAu 11:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is irrelevant if a webcomic blogger like Straub on Halfpixel the one you linked (sorry: your quote was very similar to something Kris Straub said, and I didn't think to check that he was actually the one you linked to. My bad) likes the award. The very fact that he posted about them indicates further notability on the subject. Notability does not equal popularity or likability. Whether or not they are any good, the WCCA are still very, very widely recognised in webcomics. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The very fact that [someone on this awards' committee] posted about them indicates further notability on the subject"? It seems you are saying that if the members of this awards committe are aware of the awards, then that shows how well known the awards are. I disagree, as I would fully expect an awards committee to be aware of the awards they give out. Further, he is blogging on how little known the awards are: "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them ... People didn't know when the WCCAs were happening ... we needed to take serious steps to get the word out about them." -- Dragonfiend 18:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That NYT article is effectively about the WCCA, just imagine an article discussing the recent BAFTAs say. It would look at the award itself and then dsicuss the winners (even if you don't think they are worthy winners - actually you can probably get more copy out of them that way). Same here - it is the hook for the article and is the thread winding through it holding the whole thing together. Obviously it needs work but that looks to be a good start. (Emperor 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Merge the years into the main article (possibly a section for the award and then the winners sorted by year). The big comic award entries have the awards in the article so I don't see why this should be different. See Eisner Award, Eagle Awards, etc. (Emperor 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • I've added the six other articles that are hagning off the arse of these two mediocre sources. - brenneman 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found above. I'd like to remind everyone here to remain civil. --DavidHOzAu 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep - sources provide substantial evidence of noteability. In particular, those independent sources consider the awards as something that gives noteability to the comics receiving them. Saying that such coverage is "only about the individual strips" is like saying that coverage on the academy awards is "only about individual movies". --Latebird 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an utterly nonsensical argument: The point is that the only coverage in reliable sources consists of a small listing of the subsets of the winner. Look at the Academy Award page, at the bottom: There are two entire books written about the academy awards. Why is it so utterly difficult to make this very simple point? - brenneman 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because in a different case books are also available, doesn't make an argument about a specificy type of article "nonsensical". You're making it sound like hollywood-type fame was a requirement for noteability. If it's really so hard to understand, my point has been made much more eloquently by MrErku below. --Latebird 10:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established by sources. Yes, the awards may be limited to the niche community of online webcomics fans (although I believe it includes tens of millions of individuals), but it is notable within that community (and even somewhat outside of it). Also, I have no interest in webcomics nor articles related to webcomics (and have never edited such articles). -- Black Falcon 04:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why is this even being nominated? Adam Cuerden talk 05:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as to the main article Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, neutral as to the individual year articles. These awards may not be extremely notable but they have received sufficient mainstream attention to justify an article here. --Metropolitan90 06:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dragonfiend and Brenneman, who have established that there is not sufficiently extensive coverage in reliable sources to form the basis of an article on this topic, be it from the point of view of WP:V or WP:N. Sandstein 06:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment yet extensive coverage is not actually part of the standard, is it. Moving the goal posts continues on the delete side. Two sources needed according to standards, two sources cited, suddenly that's not enough. No doubt there will be more articles popping up as this year's winners are announced. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the NYT article just gives it a passing mention and the podcast isn't sufficiently independent. The website for these awards is pretty simple, and contains exhortations to 'spread the word'. The forums are very quiet for a supposedly notable online award.--Nydas(Talk) 08:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forums are non-notable, so why does the forum activity enter into this debate? And what does the layout of their website have to do with anything? That seems like a total nonsequitor. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For an Internet-based award that has run for six years and is supposedly well-known, it seems remarkable that the site should be so minimal. There's no information on how many webcomic artists actually vote in the awards. A few dozen? Hundreds? This is a website for a small band of hobbyists, no different from websites about homebrew or origami.--Nydas(Talk) 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I don't see how that is at all relevant. The quality of the site design has nothing to do with its notability, nor does forum activity, nor even the number and quality of the voters have anything to do with it. For all Wikipedia is concerned, the WCCAwards could be appointed by a single shadowy figure who fakes all the votes. This is not a discussion of the quality, or professional level of the WCCA, but its notability for inclusion. That is all. Besides being the subject of an article in the New York Times and on a public television show, the WCCA have been regularly referred to by Kristopher Straub, Howard Tayler, and many times by Jeph Jacques, three very well-known comic authors that I pulled out from the very, very tip of the list of webcomics I can name of the top of my head. I am sure a quick google check could yield more. The top names in webcomics are discussing these, which indicates they are not a tiny, unimportant niche in the webcomic world. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been the subject of an article in the NYT, it was a passing mention. I disagree with your assertation that the nigh-impossbility of providing sourced information about this site's voting processes is irrelevant: Attribution is a core policy. How is an encyclopedic treatment of this site's achievements, impact or historical significance possible if the site itself is minimal and, as you suggest, asking for information about it asking too much? As for the webcomic world, I believe that webcomics constitute a fairly small subculture and that webcomic fans have an unrealistic view of their popularity. 'Notable in webcomics' doesn't mean notable, any more than 'notable in origami' or 'notable in homebrewing'. Why can't these awards just be mentioned and linked in webcomic or Keenspot, as is normal?--Nydas(Talk) 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my post below re. validity of the NYT article - namely, what exactly would an awards article have to say to be notable in your books, besides describing an award and listing and describing its winners, a process that takes up about 2/3 of the article?
I do agree that attribution is difficult, and a paring down of this article is probably in order. I don't claim to know much about the WCCA besides that they exist, and pretty much all the webcomic artists I know of get excited when they win one, even the big names. I, for one, don't care to edit articles I don't know a thing about, but I think it would strengthen the Keep argument if someone who did know something were to edit this a bit.
Regarding the importance of the webcomic subculture, it is (ok, getting sick of "irrelevant". New word? um...) unimportant what you "believe" the size of the community is. I would be supporting the inclusion of an article about the Origami Artists' Choice Awards if they had been written up in the New York Times as an example of the internet awards given out to origami artists on the internet, had it been brought to my attention. Especially if a few people who were interested in origami then joined the discussion and listed several origami experts, citing their discussion about said awards and showing that experts in the field were aware of and gave a hoot about the "OACA" one way or the other.
The reasoning behind your argument yields the end result, "I don't see how Okazaki fragments are all that notable. Can't they just be contained in the article on DNA replication?" If Wikipedia is not in fact about creating articles that meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and expanding on those articles to the limit of available noteworthy knowledge, I am a little confused about what we are doing here. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A BBC article about the Webbys from 2001, showing what a genuinely notable award can expect in terms of coverage. Quotes from the creator, their motivation, the quirky speeches, info on the judges and a selection of nominees, context and so on. No such coverage exists for the WCCA. If the NYT did an actual write-up of these awards, rather than three or four paragraphs, then the article should be kept. If there was sustained coverage every year, as one would expect for popular awards, then there would be absolutely no question about it.--Nydas(Talk) 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, you have me in the sense that that shows a lot more information about the Webbys than the NYT article does about the WCCA. Clearly the Webbys are more notable than the WCCA (can't say as I'm surprised), and that is a better article. Regarding annual coverage in a newspaper, comparing the WCCA to the webbys is very misleading: the BBC coverage of the Webbys seems to be mostly "BBC won a webby award last night..." type stuff, in which the resource in question clearly has a vested interest in the awards. In fact, that is also the case in the article you linked, where it appears BBC's intial interest was in their own winning of the award - not that I am calling the article into question, it is definitely valid.
However, I would say the NYT article is still very clearly not trivial, and I am not sure where you can come out saying it is. Even if only pared down to the barest bones of absolute direct reference, as Brenneman has done, one comes out with a solid paragraph of information. The definition of non-triviality according to WP:N is: "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." with the further elabouration: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 6 January 1992.) is plainly trivial. These stress, at least from my perspective, that a "trivial" reference is in fact trivial. It does not spend a paragraph describing the topic in question, in relative detail, nor does it go on to refer back to the topic in nearly every subsequent paragraph of the article. A trivial mention of the WCCA in a New York Times article would be something like, ";There are also awards, like the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (link)", the end, proceed with article as planned.
Be careful not to apply a judgement call to what is trivial and what is not, based on how important you think the WCCA is. Unless triviality is some ephemereal, hard to define concept - which WP:N does not seem to suggest, else notability would be subjective - there is no way to claim this article is trivial. Not to mention anything of a notable television show devoting an entire episode to it, which Brenneman would like to shrug off, but which is certainly a "non-trivial, reliable published work, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 14:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did say the NYT snippets were passing mentions, not trivial. However, the NYT article is about webcomics generally, and there is only one paragraph that provides any hard information about the awards themselves, and not very much at that. The TV show did not 'devote a whole episode' to it, it was one of several segments. Whether this segment truly counts as an independent source is questionable, given that it was the WCCA 'Chief Executive' that was hosting it. With both sources being frankly borderline, the lack of further, ongoing coverage clinches it for me; an encyclopedic article can't be created with what is available.--Nydas(Talk) 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should possibly be mentioned that the BBC was nominated for two awards there (along with other news-related sources). Not even to mention the real-life and high-profile ceremony. Just two sidenotes since there is a slight difference of scale here. --Sid 3050 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was getting at in the first pgph, but you say it better. Also, I am intensely curious why pokemon are so important that wikipedia needs over 400 entries on the statistics of each pokemon in the pokedex (whatever the hell that is), but webcomics are so amazingly unimportant that despite a New York Times article bringing up the major webcomic award and talking about it for anywhere between 1 and 7 paragraphs, said webcomic award is not worthy of wikipedia. /sigh/ done here for the night. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 14:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't know what the naysayers expect a NYT article to SAY about an internet webcomics award. One would hardly expect them to write a dissertation about its history and management/nomination practices. One would expect, in fact, an article exactly like this one, for almost any award. If this NYT article is non-notable, I can't really imagine a notable article being printed. More importantly, this seems like a strong case of wikilawyering to me. Whether or not there is a dearth of printed articles about the WCCA, almost anyone with ANY involvement in the webcomic industry, from casual readers to authors, has heard of and recognises the WCCA. What is the definition of notability? Is it a tallyup of how many newspapers have mentioned a subject, as WP has lately been leaning towards? Or is that just meant to be an arbitrary measurement of something like, I don't know, how notable something is within its field? Because I would say this is pretty bloomin' notable to webcomics. It doesn't really matter in this debate, since this article meets wp:n anyway, but it is definitely food for thought. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as for the individual year articles, neutral. It seems to me one would expect most annual award information to be on the WCCA site itself. However, if the WCCA is notable, I suppose the individual years of it are. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, make that a weak delete for the 6 child articles. At this stage I don't see any purpose to them as there is not enough to build a huge article for the WCCA in the first place. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 12:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main article -- I think it meets WP:RS now -- but I don't think we need to keep lists for the individual years. A link to the WCCA site should be sufficient. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the reasoning that has been given above. Current sources are NYT, AotS, and a radio interview (which I admit I currently can't find proof for on the official site since it took place 19 months ago, but the announcement doesn't strike me as a fake and has not been contested). This year's presentation will be at Megacon. No opinion about the individual years, though. --Sid 3050 12:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notabilty asserted due to the fact the awards represent an entire industry. Notability asserted due to multiuple coverages in known publications (NTY, G4). And a comment - award presentations - even well known ones - can be boring and often don't attract huge coverage in media, but that has nothing to do with the notabilty of the award. The WCCA is highly notable within the webcomic industry, and deserves a place in wikipedia. Timmccloud 13:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the main article, merge the years into a single article or with the main article. To repeat my argument in the undeletion, 'As per the NYT article [15] and most of an episode of "Attack of the Show" [16]'. As I said, independent mentions in a mayor national newspaper and a popular cable/satellite television show (on G4TV) should count for something. The fact that the writer of the NYT article disagreed with many of the judges choices (and apparently disliked the medium as a whole) is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that the writer thought the awards were important enough, or representative enough to devote 7 paragraphs to them and its winners in an 18 paragraph general article about webcomics (actually, rereading it, the WCCA's seem to be used as one of the articles main 'hooks'). And finally Websnark, while possibly not a valid source for notability, being a blog, mentions them several times: [17], [18] and [19] at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aclapton (talk • contribs) 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC). Oops, forgot to sign --15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Grr, messed up signing again --Aclapton 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since I'm satisfied that both are verifiable and notable. I'd be more explicit, but quite frankly, the point's been beaten into the ground by now. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. If any webcomic is notable, then this is also. The year-by-year ones are good suppliments to the main, keeping large lists out of the page. LukeSurl 01:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main article, delete others. The main article has seen significant improvement. While FA status is so remote you’d need Hubble to see it, the article merits inclusion in its current shape—notability is established, major points are cited with more or less adequate sources and NPOV seems to be maintained. The lists aren’t necessary or useful, though; if there is a real need to have webcomic articles organised by WCCA nominations and awards, categories should do the trick. —xyzzyn 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is, there has been a roll on effect. When the WCCA article was deleted, many webcomics were then AFD because of notability concerns, and THAT led to the WCCA catagory being deleted as well. So unless the deletion of the catagory gets overturned (and it was deleted because the WCCA was deleted - starting to see a pattern here?) we can't use catagories as a solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timmccloud (talk • contribs).
      • I hadn’t read that CFD; apparently people there thought a list would be better. However, a single article with a list of award winners ought to be enough. By the way, the article should say how webcomics are nominated and how the winners are chosen. —xyzzyn 04:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main article at least, appears to be well-known. No opinion on the year/list articles; they could probably be either deleted or turned into redirects. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability isn't well established by the means of multiple, non-trivial and independent sources as per WP:V and WP:RS. The lists should go as well. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where exactly in Wikipedia:Verifiability does it ask that somethings notability be established as you suggest? I can't see any reason why this article does not meet the verifiability policy, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. Hiding Talk 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, WP:NOTE? WP:WEB? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try again: Where exactly in Wikipedia:Verifiability does it ask that an article's notability be established as you suggest? I can't see any reason why this article does not meet the verifiability policy, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. You stated "notability isn't well established by the means of multiple, non-trivial and independent sources as per WP:V and WP:RS" I'd like you to clarify where exactly in WP:V, per your statement that it is in there. Thanks. Hiding Talk 20:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My thinking goes something like this: WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." WP:NOT#IINFO: "articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" Is it an "exceptional claim" to say a website has had impact or historical significance? Yes. Do exceptional claims require strong sources? Yes. Do "strong sources" equal multiple non-trivial sources? Yes. Is this how our WP:NOTE content guideline recommends we should act on our WP:V and WP:NOT content policies? Yes. -- Dragonfiend 20:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment WP:V also states that "dubious" and "self-published" sources can be used as verification for articles about the sources themselves given some very minimal conditions. As I've pointed out earlier, it is trivially easy for an article about a webcomic - and I'll point out this applies to any content primarily distributed online - to satisfy WP:V; the only question is whether or not it meets notability standards in the first place to merit an article. The standards for notability are outlined fairly clearly, and resoundingly met in this case. Balancer 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main article; WP:V isn't in question, and I feel the sources given are sufficient to meet WP:N; I don't see them as trivial. The daughter articles don't seem necessary; I'm leaning toward delete for them, but a merge or partial merge and redirect might be an option. No strong opinion. Shimeru 12:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I point out above, the number of reliable sources that discuss the WCCA is less than the number of reliable sources that discuss me (Guardian and WSJ). Would keep voters support an article on a (needless to say) entirely non-notable me? - Francis Tyers · 15:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you had two articles - what in those articles makes you notable? We are talking about a group that publishes industry awards - that has recognition across it's industry, and it's notablitly is supported by a few articles. I see nothing notable about you that matches what the WCCA does, and your argument (and anyone that agrees with you) is on the nature of WP:ILIKEIT since "you have more google hits than WCCA does". Specious argument. Timmccloud 16:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you were a primary focus of those articles, then yes, I'd vote to keep an article on you -- you'd meet WP:V, WP:N, and WP:BIO. Why would you think such an article should be deleted? Shimeru 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Francis. bogdan 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Francis, you want an article so bad I'll write you one, but let's not compare apples and oranges here, eh. They may both be fruits but they taste different, and an article on you may be an article, like the article on the WCCA, but they cover different topics. So let's go right out and delete everything less notable that Francis, God help us if Jimbo shows up and demands the same treatment, or does it only work for Francis? Let's examine the article on its merits. Wikipedia is case by case and has shades of grey. Wikipedia is a broad church. Wikipedia works when we respect each other, listen to each other and work to a solution. Let's try and achieve that here in line with our policies. Show me where this does not meet a policy. Hiding Talk 20:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not notable enough to merit an article, neither is this organisation, the point being that a couple of trivial mentions in mainstream press does not a make something notable. - Francis Tyers · 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the point is that you think these are trivial mentions and that you think they aren't notable enough. The NYT article used the awards as a hook, criticised them but placed a value on them. The NYT article assessed them as relevant to the field of webcomics, discussed them as part of the medium. It was not trivial. Triviality is a throw away "The WCCA were awarded on Tues night". Triviality defined in the guideline as follows:

Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

      • This was not trivial coverage by that definition. It wasn't a brief summary of the website. This wasn't reporting the internet address, it wasn't an internet directory listing and it wasn't telling you update times, in fact it deferred to the awards in picking strips to cover. Not trivial. Hiding Talk 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per RockMFR and per Balancer. Notable within the community of webcomics, has mainstream coverage, and can be expanded into an informative article. I would also suggest keeping the individual entries, but if not, merge them in. --Falcorian (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete this? People are just going to end up recreating an article for the WCCAs without realizing that it's already been deleted, assuming that they are mentioned on a webcomic's entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.168.17 (talk • contribs) 02:16, February 18, 2007.
  • And, since the anti-webcomic jihadists are all admins, this will get slapped on as soon as the deletion is re-confirmed (again, by an admin). -- Jay Maynard 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really disheartening. I'd like to think that wikipedia would encourage edits and contributions by new people to encourage its growth and popularity. That would just send the message that my opinion doesn't matter.--Thaeus 24.82.168.17 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC). (Note: the earlier unsigned comment was also mine.)[reply]
  • Have you read the definition of "trivial"? Hiding posted it about four paragraphs up. If the awards are important enough that a new york times author saw them as a valid entry-hook for the webcomic world, they do not fit Wikipedia's definition of "trivial". Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was written by Sarah Boxer. At a guess I'd say it should be to justify "her" choices. But the assertion that she used the awards to justify her choices is not evidenced by the article, and is not trivial per the guidance offered on triviality. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I applaud the effort, but at this stage the author's opinion is pretty much invalid. Her article has been published already, and clearly makes more than trivial mention of the WCCA. Whether or not she intended the mention to be trivial is not the issue: very clearly, the mention is not trivial. I know you know the definition of trivial, brenneman, so I am in the dark as to why you think this doesn't meet it. At best, one might call this a "casual" mention, but it covers far too much ground to be trivial. Allowing the author to amend their opinions on a published work defeats the entire purpose of using published works, namely that they are in print and unchanging.
Note that I am not disparaging the effort, I do want to hear the author's opinion. Just establishing that it really doesn't affect the debate. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 09:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • brenneman: "Rather than reading tea leaves, I've written to the author of the time's article and asked her to comment as to her intent when writing the article."
  • Bravo, but that's the very definition of original research and thus cannot affect the article in any shape or form. Unless we are going to let everyone edit there article as they want? And I can't wait to see if this develops into another look how silly they are on Wikipedia article. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep another silly example of contorted lawyering about Notability wording. This is clearly notable and verifiable, enough with the crap. All the somewhat esoteric, subcultural stuff on wikipedia is what makes it cool.Rdore 06:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the existing sources seem sufficient. The NYT article doesn't look like a trivial reference. --James 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a paragraph-long "blurb" is indisputably a trivial reference. There are a lot of other sources cited. That list of sources looks formidable, but when one looks through it, one finds that the article's subject is "name-dropped" or barely mentioned (trivial) by many, and that the rest are of questionable or no reliability (Comixpedia, a convention site with no apparent editorial control). As to arguments that "this has been used as an argument that most webcomics aren't notable"? Most webcomics aren't notable! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And people claim there is no anti-webcomics jihad... Go read the Wikipedia definition of "trivial" above: even a single paragraph discussing the subject does not meet that definition. -- Jay Maynard 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are some confusion about the format that Comixpedia uses and as a long time reader, and previous contributor, I can shed some light on this. Comixpeida.org is a comic wiki, not to be confused with comixpedia.com (although they have the same publisher). Comixpedia.com consists of one magazine part, which is under editorial control. The content is contributed by staff writers and freelancers to editors. Back when I contributed, you got payed for what you wrote (a rather symbolic amount though, it was 10 US$ for columns and somewhat more for articles if I remember correctly), but I admit I don't know if they still do this. The current month's magazine content can be found on the right side of the frontpage. The second part of comixpedia.com is the community/news section consisting of forums and blogs. The way the frontpage news work is by community contribution. A person writes in their blog on the site, and the newseditor promotes it to the frontpage if he/she finds it to be of interest. Epameinondas 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a 1-paragraph mention, it's spread throughout the article, the person copying it here compressed it, so it looks smaller. They also arguably left out other references to the awards. I don't know if it was the copier's intent to misrepresent the citation, but they are one of those arguing for deletion. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are misreading the sources. The convention site is being used as primary source, and thus is reliable. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Notability. Several fairly high profile comicblogs report on the WCCAs. Journalista, The Comic Journal's blog, written by former managing editor Dirk Deppey http://tcj.com/journalista/?p=294, The Beat, Publishers' Weekly's blog written by Heidi MacDonald co-editor at PW's comics week http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/01/29/web-cartoonists-choice-awards-noms/, The comics reporter, written by former managing editor and executive editor of The Comics Journal Tom Spurgeon http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/your_2007_wcca_nominees/

Epameinondas 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Is this really the right way to go about an AfD for the "year" articles? It doesn't look like the individual pages have AfD headers. -- Ben 17:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These awards are sufficiently notable to be documented. Deletion arguments are weak. Merge the years in and leave redirects if desired. Brenny, you know better. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main article. Sufficient notability has been demonstrated, and WP is not paper - there's no pressing need to come up with reasons to delete this. However, I'd say weak delete to the year articles, we don't really need to archive information available elsewhere, and they're strewn with red links which are unlikely to become (and stay) pages given the recent attitude for deleting webcomic articles. -- Mithent 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main article, Delete yearly articles. Notability requirements have been filled, and the fact that there are criticisms over the award's organization does not in any way affect whether or not it should have an article. If someone wanted to delete the Oscars on the grounds that it's all politics, they'd be laughed off the site. - Zaron 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Main article is clearly notable, per arguments above; Neutral on year articles, but agree that they should be tagged. Willow 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current procedural argument to establish notability is currently based on minimal foundations but these are solid enough to support the existence of an article. The argument against the NYT article supporting notability requires that the mention of the WCCA be trivial, that is, the NYT article would not be substantially changed or significantly reduced by the removal of references to the WCCA. My understanding is that it would be significantly changed in that one or more introductory paragraphs would be lost and the structure of the NYT article would be lost, reducing it to a series of isolated comments on a random and, to the read inexplicable, sampling of comics without any basis for asserting that they are in any way representative of web comics or to show that they have not been carefully selected by the NYT reporter to support her positions regarding web comics. I believe this argument shows that the WCCA were not a trivial part of the article and since there appears to be a consensus that the article as a whole was non-trivial it therefore follows that the mention of the WCCA was non-trivial.
I would not necessarily support keeping an ever expanding list of past winners and nominations. It is probably sufficient to list the past or current years nominations, the past winners of all awards and, for years beyond that, the winners of two or three 'headline' awards.--BoatThing 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any reason not to list all past winners, but I think giving a separate article for each year's awards is overkill. - Zaron 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. Looking over the vast number of categories given, it would be one hell of a mess to stuff it all into one panel. It might be best to keep the other articles. - Zaron 03:00, 21 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 (G1).--Húsönd 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Sonic riders 2

Characters in Sonic riders 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:NOT Sonic Hog 02:45, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crocket Manipulator

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

Nonsense, Searched for all variants on the web and at Hilti.com Pjbflynn 03:13, 16 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Hall (presenter and filmmaker)

Stuart Hall (presenter and filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. The article makes two claims to fame, but Googling the first: "Stuart Hall" + "Channel 7 Television" gives 1 result. Googling the second: "Stuart Allen" + "Propeller TV" only gives 7 results. (Not to be confused with the highly notable Stuart Hall (television presenter))Saikokira 03:14, 16 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 and redirect to Blank Label Comics. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starslip Crisis

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

Non-notable, fails WP:WEB and other criteria under WikiProject: Webcomics. Alexa ranking search for "www.starslip.com" yields no traffic data whatsoever even though the site has been up for two years. Furthermore many other comics on the internet have been around for more than two years without attaining notability, let alone Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. The article also includes reference to the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, which has been found non-notable by Wikipedia editors. Salby 06:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As noted below, the reason your Alexa search yielded no traffic data is because you searched the WRONG URL. All of the "delete" motions below that yesman this original nomination are therefore flawed. --ItsWalky! 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, has not been covered in any news media or other non-article sources. I say this with some experience in web comics as a fan of Player Arcade. Incredulous 06:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.145.117 (talk • contribs).[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is clearly a notable webcomic as its critical accolades indicate. I could also point out that exact phrase search turns up 101,000 hits on Google - this is a strip that has been much talked about, especially for a strip only a couple years old - and also that this webcomic has published three "real" books to date. Salby has not even searched for the correct url. www.starslipcrisis.com has an Alexa rank of 88,460 if you care about Alexa ranks. Balancer 08:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if Alexa ranking is no longer an official criteria, two related web comics Evil Inc. and Ugly Hill are either up for deletion or have been deleted. The Starslip Crisis article is full of fancruft. Also the three "real" books are print-on-demand and can be produced by anyone instantly. Incredulous 08:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mild keep - and I'll point out that Evil Inc. was restored, and Ugly Hill may wind up being kept. I'll also point out that a Google search for the phrase, even after excluding wikipedia, comixpedia, wikiquote, lulu, nightsidepress, and starslipcrisis, still gets +92000 hits, with +250 of those being distinct (reviews, blog recommendations, awards, interviews with Straub, etc). Article definitely needs work, though. DS 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed. "We're trying to delete all these other webcomics, so it's okay to delete this one too" is a circular argument. If the deletion status of "related webcomics" is at all pertinent to this discussion, then the fact that Evil Inc. was restored and Ugly Hill is likely on its way to vindication should paint this affair in the opposite manner Incredulous suggests. --ItsWalky! 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Ugly Hill discussion is loaded of meatpuppetry after the author linked to the AfD, so I wouldn't look to vindication there. As for Evil Inc., there have been several AfDs put forth in good faith, which indicates an issue. In its defense, its author is a newspaper cartoonist and has been published, so there are non-author-generated secondary sources. LKeith30 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Ugly Hill discussion is doing quite well for the comic, both numbers-wise and argument-wise, even after discarding the meatpuppetry. The Evil Inc. article was brought back on DRV with overwhelming support after new, previously unknown sources surfaced. --Kizor 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That there have been several AfDs put for for Evil Inc. is not an indication of a problem; it's an indication of taking multiple bites at the apple until one comes up without a worm, and the article is deleted. This is in line with the general vendetta against webcomics around here. -- Jay Maynard 12:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take it you didn't read what I wrote about starslipcrisis.com's Alexa rank of ~88,000? Or paid any attention to where the article itself links to a secondary source? Balancer 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Retracted, but 88,000 is not a particularly low rank, nor does the article uphold WP:N. Has Starslip Crisis been the focus of any secondary-source articles? Expewikist 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory search I did early dug up one article in a periodical focusing on Starslip Crisis.[20]Balancer 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: That one's focused on Blank Label, not Starslip Crisis itself, as is most not relating to winning a 2006 WCCA. Balancer 01:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexa rankings, convention appearances, etc. aren't particularly useful for writing encyclopedia articles. What we need are multiple independent reputable sources per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:N, and searching at my library finds nothing worthwhile. Best I can find is a trivial mention in passing on Editor and Publisher's website (not their print edition) and a three-sentence paragraph in a small local newspaper that begins "To round out my list, I have to include the sci-fi humor strip 'Starslip Crisis' by my friend Kris Straub ..." I thought it might be worth merging a paragraph on this comic to Blank Label Comics, but can't find decent sources for that topic either. -- Dragonfiend 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:N's standards for such, the E&P article is not a "trivial" mention of the comic. E&P is also clearly an independent source with non-negligible circulation. I can also find another article, this one in a periodical about webcomics circulated regionally in Canada, in about five minutes of searching.[21]. And if I can find another article not mentioned in the wiki article under question that quickly, there are probably more non-trivial mentions out there, which is one of the reasons why we rely on secondary indications of notability, e.g., "website has won an award," which Starslip Crisis has. Balancer 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Notability, "'Non-triviality' is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." Being mentioned once in a three sentence-long "article" is not a depth of content -- it is trivial. --Dragonfiend 21:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, you do know that [22] is just the beginning of a longer article, the entirety of which is only available to registered users? —xyzzyn 21:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the "full article" at the library and found it is no longer than the non-subscriber brief preview on the E&P website. Or does your library somehow have a longer version? If you don't have access to a library, you may notice that E&P often runs such brief items. One way to tell a brief from a longer article from their web site is that the non-subscriber version of a brief will end with a complete sentence [23] [24] where as the preview to a longer article ends in mid-sentence or mid-word.[25] [26] [27] -- Dragonfiend 22:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googling for the article text yields this full version of the local newspaper article. [28] It's a passing mention, not a review or spotlight. Repromancer 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we're clear, Repromancer's link is to the trivial "three-sentence paragraph in a small local newspaper" on this comic. xyzzy_n and Balancer were talking about the trivial mention inside a three-sentence brief on E&P's website. Local newspaper: trivial 3-sentence paragraph in a larger column. E&P: Trivial mention inside 3-sentence brief. -- Dragonfiend 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research! E&P is available at one library in my town, but I would not have been able to get there before Monday. —xyzzyn 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then the interview with Straub in a [non-local] periodical magazine [29] primarily distributed in print form in Canada. And I'm pretty sure we can find more if we look seriously. Balancer 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a great reference for Blank Label Comics (so go ahead and put it in), but it only mentions Starslip Crisis twice and does not seem to discuss it at all. —xyzzyn 01:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume you're referring to the "Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards" as far as the website winning an award. Those awards were found NN despite even a television appearance and NY Times mention in an article about webcomics. [30] This article falls way below that. LKeith30 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the claim that the WCCA are not an indication of notability. The WCCA are the most prominent webcomic awards in existence, and thus an indication that a webcomic is notable as a webcomic. Balancer 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree, but the WCCA article itself was deleted recently for failing to meet WP:N. That's the definition of non-notable (and another argument entirely!). If the article supporting a lesser article is deleted for being NN, how can the supported article use it as proof of notability? LKeith30 01:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three reasons. First, the reasons offered in the AFD for the WCCA being notable (i.e., mention in a New York Times article) are applicable to saying that winning the award is a notable. Second, WP:WEB suggests not that an award be "notable" by Wikipedia standards, but simply states that the award be "independent and well-known." Even if the Oscars were not notable in and of themselves by WP:N, i.e., if no newspapers or other print sources talked about them, the fact that a film had won an Oscar would be still an indication of a film being a notable film, since the Oscars are well-known and the judges are (I like to think, at least) not too closely tied to film producers. The WCCA seem able to qualify as well-known even if this fame does not translate into more than several secondary sources analyzing the WCCA. Third, the AFD for the WCCA appears likely to be appealed in the near future; it was carried against a 7-4 vote on the basis that non-trival mention in the New York Times was not an indication of notability. If it's not put up for deletion review within the next couple days, I'll stick my neck out and do so myself, because that's a questionable AFD if I've ever seen one, and I've watched some pretty hotly argued AFDs. Balancer 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the comic changed name from StarSHIFT Crisis and that name should also be checked when researching it. Also I thought Alexa had been discredited as a measure of popularity. Nice accusation of 'Poor Faith' that hasn't even been checked on the subject site, something that would be easy to do. Plus 'incitement against AfD' can be entirely in good faith and need not even be deliberate 'The Wikipedia entry for this comic is up for deletion, I don't understand why' is pretty much a precis of the initial reaction of most artists so far. Then they progress to annoyance when they look at how many other entries are being eliminated, together with one of the principle ways quality etc. is judged within the industry (the WCCA). Not that any artist action is needed at the moment as many Webcomic readers are on the lookout for yet another AfD related to a significant comic.--BoatThing 10:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alexa ranking is far below that of PvP, Megatokto, Ctrl-Alt-Del, PA, et centera. So, do you propose that we should delete all articles about webcomics that gather an audience of less than 20,000 readers per day (Starslip crisis gets around 10,000)? This would leave probably some thirty or fewer comics, plus maybe another dozen that would be included because of their historical significance. I do agree with the guidelines stating that every fact should be sourced and referenced correctly. I do agree that the article about Starslip Crisis fails these guidelines. But I don't agree that we should delete articles based on unverifiable claims of non-notability, when there's reasonable argument for the notability. (In fact, if we base our perception of notability on the size of readership, I think the bar should be somewhere around 2,000 to 5,000 daily readers, and less if there are other reasons to believe the comic is culturally significant.) Of course, if sources are requested and the article does not improve in a reasonable timeframe, then it should be deleted. --Tappel 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The number of readers does not determine very much. From where are you getting these numbers, anyway? —xyzzyn 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got the number of readers for SC from [35]. I believe, based on those numbers, that there are real, notable references for this comic, we haven't just looked hard enough. --Tappel 08:35, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_16&oldid=108521373"