- Knights of Glory and Beer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)
Article was speedied under A7 (no assertions of notability). On the talk page, the article's creators are vehemently asserting notability. Well, they are vehemently claiming that many people are members and care deeply about their organization. There is no evidence of references in reliable sources as of yet. However, it appears that whoever acted on the speedy acted too rashly, as this probably needs more discussion; the speedy delete is obviously being contested. I currently hold No Opinion pending evidence of notability per WP:N and WP:WEB. Jayron32 20:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, right. A Guild Wars clan with 55 unique Googles, and the contents of the article was complete bollocks form beginning to end. Not a hope. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion Claiming something is notable is not the same thing as offering a valid assertion of notability. If I start an article with "This is really, really, really, really notable," that does not mean it can't be speedied. A valid assertion of notability requires a significant reason for the assertion. The only clan articles I have seen that actually contain such a valid assertion are some recent articles on Halo groups who have gotten a million-dollar contract to publicly compete and help promote the game. As that contract has been widely reported in the press, it's a valid assertion of notability. Fan-1967 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Dominic Janes – Speedily closed, better article moved into article space, AFD optional – 21:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Article was speedy-deleted because of vandalism and protected until a suitable article or stub could be put in place. I have created a stub at User:PHDrillSergeant/Dominic Janes which I think will fill this space quite nicely. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
- Church of Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)
Article described reoccuring phenomenon, documented both in 2004 and 2006, and exhibited by separate sources (links to relevant articles will be provided on request). Furthermore, article passes notability "search engine test", both on Google and Yahoo search engines. Alice Shade 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh? The page never existed. Maybe you have the wrong title? -Amarkov blahedits 16:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Beg pardon. Mistaken capitalisation. Alice Shade- Okay, now that we have the article, Overturn and list. Doesn't look like an A7. -Amarkov blahedits 16:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion; I still don't see any claim of notability in the article. That the Church of Google passes the Google test is not surprising, but not a claim of notability. Tizio 17:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thus, test was performed on both Google and Yahoo. While Google results alone about Church of Google would definitely not look persuasive enough, close corellation of Yahoo and Google results gives the ground to state, that claim to "search engine" notability is probably veracious. Alice Shade 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Notability is not the same as "number of [search engine name] hits". See Wikipedia:Notability for the commonly used standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. Tizio 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- This claim to notability references not the number of hits, which is mostly secondary measurement, at best. Rather, the top searches contain a lot of subject-relevant information, which suggests, that those pages were ones visited most, when performing such search queries. Alice Shade 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Notability is not the same as "number of [search engine name] hits". See Wikipedia:Notability for the commonly used standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. Tizio 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thus, test was performed on both Google and Yahoo. While Google results alone about Church of Google would definitely not look persuasive enough, close corellation of Yahoo and Google results gives the ground to state, that claim to "search engine" notability is probably veracious. Alice Shade 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, "Started off as a parody religion in August of 2006 by Matt MacPherson", added by WP:SPA whose only other edits are to add the same claim in Googlism, absolutely no evidence of notability presented. Guy (Help!) 17:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, no claims of notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re: Notability. Article was designed as a joint effort, and construction was stretched over the time to allow for different timezones. There are links, which feature subject being referenced by both internet media and press. Moreso, there are two different sources referenced, and two different Churches of Google. Cited passage about church created by Matt MakPherson regards following of 2006. 2004 had another following, based on Orkut society, but with same premises - which suggests, that subject at hand is not a joke/hoax religion, but rather, reoccuring issue. Alice Shade 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Fails WP:NFT, even if 2 separate people invent the same joke religion independently. Geoffrey Spear 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
- The point of wiki article, among others, to refute common misconception, that it`s a joke religion. Maybe it was intended as such, but over the last couple of months, there`s little left of joke, if any. It`s as serious, as spin-off from agnisticism can get. Alice Shade 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don`t explicitly insist on restoring the article as a separate item, by the way. According to rules, undernotable topic could be merged into a more general one as subsection, which would be quite enough for this subject for the foreseeable future. Alice Shade 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse: The thing is that the disagreement between various "originators" is exactly what's wrong with the concept as the target of an encyclopedia article: it's so fluid, so much a protologism, so unsettled in every respect as to be unable to make a legitimate claim to notability. A phrase like "family disunity" will pass the Google test, but that doesn't mean that there is a chapter in the Psychology textbook referring to it. We have competitors claiming to have achieved notability, but these are fragmented shots at the same name, and we can't count them cumulatively. Geogre 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Bishop McDevitt High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)
Reason: Lack of process—As far as I can tell, there was zero discussion anywhere about this page, which is months, if not years old. Within hours, someone had started a new stub, so the only effect of the deletion appears to have been to lose lots of content. Unless I misunderstand the process, it did not qualify for speedy delete, so please re-instate it. User:Centrx is welcome to tag it or start a conversation about notability, sourcing, etc., on the Talk page, or even list it on AfD—isn't that the proper process? Thanks. —johndburger 13:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I think that we need the page history to make any proper evaluation of this. -Amarkov blahedits 16:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- History restored. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. It looks good now, but it didn't back then. -Amarkov blahedits 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- do you mean endorse and overturn? -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- No. It was bad then, but it was recreated, and it's good now. There's a reason you can't G4 speedies. -Amarkov blahedits 21:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- do you mean endorse and overturn? -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong overturn - Once again, if there's any question, it should be afd, not speedy. A7 speedies are explicitly said at WP:CSD to only be for non-controversial pages dealing with "people, groups, companies and web content" (I'm not sure a school fits into any of these anyway). -Patstuarttalk|edits 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history) —(AfD 1|AfD 2)
- It was again a non-concensus (keep if you ignore meritless OR rationale for deletion). No valid reason to delete was given. OR argument is without merit. It was also nominated for deletion one week before the other nomination. The person deleting the article was involved in AfD #1 as well as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock, Husnock being a co-author of this article along side with me and others. --Cat out 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Rationale explained in some detail on the AfD closure. The fact that some people don't like the deletion doesn't undermine its validity, IMO. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- You have voted delete on first nomination which has happened this month. The rationale is without merit. It is a drumhead. --Cat out 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- So you say, although your characterisation of the closure as a drumhead indicates that you probably take the subject far more seriously than you should. Now see if others agree with my summary of the deletion debate. Thanks for pointing out Drumhead court-martial, though, as it needed fixing, and that gave me something more productive to do than arguing about Star Trek articles :-) Guy (Help!) 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was actually pointing to the TNG episode as well as that article. Oh yes, I am taking this as seriously as it is necessary. Frankly, I find your attitude disturbing. --Cat out 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Constructively move forward. This whole process has been ugly on all sides. The fundamental premise of the article is very hard to extricate from claims of novel synthesis from published sources, no matter what else is discussed. That, combined with a lack of grievous process violations in AFD2, means the task of DRV is settled, and closure can be endorsed. But, the article's editors make a valid claim that some of this material is not OR. The problem has been a reticence to enforce that bright-line distinction by parties on all sides. Ranks that actually -- by name, not by implication -- appeared in an official but non-canon source should be added to the main Starfleet ranks article (> 32k or not) with a note so indicating that they are in official, but non-canon works (and provide detailed reference for said appearance). Ranks that exist because of questionable costuming or because of wording that strongly implies their existence without expressly and unequivocably affirming that existence stay out of any article. I would humbly suggest that each such rank be addressed in turn at the appropriate talk page to afford sufficient opportunity for review of the sources and inclusion, and to prevent a(nother) repeat of this entire long debacle. Serpent's Choice 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I do not believe Afd #2 was properly closed. --Cat out 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, SC, that was precisely the point I was trying to make in the closing summary. We have an article for starfleet ranks, we can add the verifiable ones there those that are rejected there as unverifiable are - well, unverifiable. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure while also liking the recommendation of Serpent's Choice. Some of the keep opinions misunderstood WP:OR. The most flagrant example was the claim that publication in any source was sufficient to not be original research. That is wrong; it must be a reliable source. To the extent that reliability of the sources was discussed, I think the consensus was that at the very least significant portions of the sourcing was not reliable. Some of the delete opinions were that the entire topic is original research. These concerns were not adequately addressed. [The very topic is "alternate ranks" - where is the reliable source saying that there are "alternate ranks" in Starfleet? (No real military organization would have alternate ranks - either something is a rank or it isn't (plus changes over time).] Without adequate response to that concern, and I can't find a response to that concern which doesn't misunderstand WP:OR, the correct read of the discussion is that the article topic inherently has an original research problem. GRBerry 15:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Starfleet is NOT military (picard states this).
WP:OR means I can't make things up. Alternate in the context of the article's coverage is rank insignia published by sources not considered canon such as Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek: The Animated Series and etc. The books are reliable, the TV show (animated series) is reliable enough for us to have articles about them. --Cat out 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Starfleet is NOT military (picard states this).
- Endorse deletion, nothing can trump WP:V and WP:OR, and this article failed both. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- How is Star Trek Encyclopedia (ISBN 0-671-53609-5) not a verifiable source. How is it original research? --Cat out 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Reluctant overturn. The doubt that this was OR or not should have defaulted to a no-consensus. As discussed at this first DRV, if you have two legitimate arguments, we shouldn't be defaulting to delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - valid closure based on number crunching, unverifiability and lack of reliable sources. Moreschi Deletion! 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- How is Star Trek Encyclopedia (ISBN 0-671-53609-5) not a verifiable source. How is it original research? --Cat out 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's dead, Jim. Valid close based on <wince> numbers and, more importantly, reasoning. After what seems like a five-year mission through AfD, we get back to where we should have been in the first place. Once the remaining OR has been taken out, we don't have enough for a stand-alone article and anything that can be found in reliable sources can be added to the main article on Star Trek ranks, with the note that it is non-canon, per SC. JChap2007 18:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- How is Star Trek Encyclopedia (ISBN 0-671-53609-5) not a verifiable source. How is it original research? --Cat out 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is not AfD MkII (we already had that). In closing, I reasoned as follows: some of this is definitely OR, some is not, some is arguably OR, the title and underlying premise encourage OR, and even if it were not it represents a level of detail in excess of what would normally be considered appropriate. Star Trek: notable. Episodes of Star Trek: fairly notable. Concepts within the universe you see in episodes of Star Trek: a bit notable. Concepts which are discussed by fans as being implied by what goes on in episodes of Star Trek? Not notable, pretty unambiguously so. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Woo, weasel words! That doesn't answer my question. How is Star Trek Encyclopedia (ISBN 0-671-53609-5) not a verifiable source. How is it original research? --Cat out 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody's saying it is. Any ranks with an entry there can go in the main article on Star Trek ranks. Problem solved, eh? JChap2007 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Precisely. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Urgh: I have avoided any previous discussion on this topic so that I might avoid sounding like I was chiding anyone, but such mass scope deletion decisions handcuff us somewhat. Parts are probably valid, and there should be alternatives to "all in" and "all out." Everyone seems to be motivated by good concerns, and I don't detect anyone being malicious, so I hope no one thinks there are vendettas or anything going on. This may be most properly considered at an RFC than the binary of delete/keep. Geogre 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Quranic reasons for terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history|AfD)
I had no objection to Islamic scholars presenting their Quranic reasons against terrorism to make the article balanced as opposed to its outright deletion. This is just a food for thought, and I won't insist more or get angry for the deletion of the article.--Patchouli 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - afd process seems fine; no new substantive evidence presented. Do you have a complaint about the way the afd was closed, or do you have new supporting evidence of some kind? Otherwise, there's not much here at DRV for you. Bwithh 06:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - closer's reasoning is sound. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn - the closer, unfortunately, did not present any reasons for deletion - Most of the other arguments seem to be an obfuscated version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's a bad article name (which is not a reason for deletion - it can be renamed), or that the article content exists elsewhere on Wikipedia (but that's not valid, because it's hard to piece together: I'll bet all information in the George W. Bush or monotheism article is somewhere else too). Among the many arguments for delete, there was only one who presented a valid reason: WP:OR (though I can't verify even that without seeing the article, and this too may have been an obfuscation). Finally, there is a reason to keep: this article is extremely notable, as worldwide there is a very large Islamic movement that advocates violence, and most of it quotes the Quran. -Patstuarttalk|edits 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We already have substantial content on Islam, the Koran and political violence in in e.g. Jihad, Criticisms of the Quaran, and Islamic military jurisprudence. The major problem with the deleted article (which was the crux of the afd nominator's argument) is that the almost the entire article(googlecached version here was based on the letters of one guy, [Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar], who attempted to run over people with a car (but managed to seriously hurt noone) at his university in North Carolina. This one, obscure guy who apparently wasn't even a member of a militant Islamist group, is not a reliable or authoritative source for content for an article generalizing about how extremist Muslims interpret the Koran. Bwithh 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have reverted an insertion of the bulk of the deleted article's content into Isamist terrorism[1] Bwithh 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We already have substantial content on Islam, the Koran and political violence in in e.g. Jihad, Criticisms of the Quaran, and Islamic military jurisprudence. The major problem with the deleted article (which was the crux of the afd nominator's argument) is that the almost the entire article(googlecached version here was based on the letters of one guy, [Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar], who attempted to run over people with a car (but managed to seriously hurt noone) at his university in North Carolina. This one, obscure guy who apparently wasn't even a member of a militant Islamist group, is not a reliable or authoritative source for content for an article generalizing about how extremist Muslims interpret the Koran. Bwithh 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Master Exploder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)
I believe that the debate was closed too soon. The rational that the simple majority of people listed was that it is a song on an album that was not released as a single, and therefore not notable. However, the song was prominently featured in the movie musical Tenacious D in: The Pick of Destiny. The scene where the song is performed has leaked on viral video sites, and has emerged as an unofficial music video for the band, one of the few high points for a film that was a box office failure. Milchama 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It went thirteen days. -Amarkov blahedits 02:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Follow-up Comment. The relisting went seven days, and the article had major edits during that period. Milchama 02:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Valid close, no evidence presented that people were unaware that it was in a movie. -Amarkov blahedits 02:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I set a redirect to The Pick of Destiny and restored the edit history behind it. I have no idea why this stuff gets listed at AfD, why editors !vote delete, and why admins close this as delete. Songs that are not notable by themselves routinely get redirected to the album they're on. ~ trialsanderrors 03:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Restore: This is both a single on an album and a musical piece in a movie. The song's contextual relevance is significant enough that those who merely hear the song or see the video would be interested to hear it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellissound (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
- Endorse redirection per trialsanderrosr. Ellissound's concerns can be met by having that information included in the article for the album. The inability of a particular song to qualify for its own article does not imply that the album article should not include content unique to that song, where referenced, applicable and appropriate. Serpent's Choice 05:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse redirection as per trials Bwithh 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse redirection, utility to the reader appears to be greater that way. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- endorse keep or redirection It Was a notable song on the POD film, though i acept it hasnt been released as a single--Slogankid 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse redirection, per trialsanderrors. --Coredesat 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Fixity of species – Deletion endorsed – 07:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was originally called "linnaean lawn" when it was proposed for deletion. It was then moved to "fixity of the species", a more commonly used name but was still not notable enough for undeletion. Finally it was moved to fixity of species (14,500 ghits. 648 google book hits) and more was added to the article. The previous reasons for deletion are no longer present. See previous deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#fixity_of_the_species. NOTE the change in name, as well as new information on the article. Pbarnes 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#10_December_2006, there is no reason to have two open discussions. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Steve Platt – Deletion endorsed – 07:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
First, I apologize for not knowing how to request this properly. I am not a Wikipedian. The article on the activist/comedian Steve Platt was not completed yet already showed its significance. A peer of Steve Platt tagged it for speedy deletion (which I felt was in itself an act of vandalism, but again, I do not know) and subsequently the article was deleted. I ask the Wikipedia administration to un-delete the article if they so choose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.23.138 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |