User:Omtay38/desk/AfD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Gavino

Extremely minimal notability. Involved with films with minimal distribution, one won an award of minimum profile. No sources that I could find have text about him, except ones that are apparently self-posted. (Also, article is borderline copyvio). The "Golden Bone" award turns out to be an award within a particular small film festival, given out in many categories: it really doesn't carry much weight. Mango juice^talk 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - probably a violation of WP:COI. -- Hot Dog Wolf -- Bark! 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:BIO, and from the way it is written, it appear as if it fails WP:COI. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, seams notable to me.Callelinea 04:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable --omtay 38 19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. There may be at least a small claim to notability. He did go to a good film school and he does have a body of work. I'm not necessarily suggesting that it rises to the level of keep but someone .may want to look at the work more closely. .Commercial success may not be the measurement tool in this instance. --Stormbay 03:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What I did was to look and see if I could find any WP:RS reliable sources that discuss him and I couldn't. There were a couple of self-posted profiles out there, including one on IMDB, but nothing clearly independent and reliable. Mango juice^talk 11:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the sources are not independent but there are many articles that use only IMDB as a source and they are not challenged. Self posted (or produced by a sympathetic party), undoubtedly; fabricated, not likely. It is not as easy to attain a level of recognition that clearly says notability if the direction is not a commercial one but it may still be there. --Stormbay 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but based on my search, there are no sources at all that we can use, so we can't have an article. But maybe there's one you can find that I couldn't? Mango juice^talk 05:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
These same arguments were raised in February and successfully refuted. We must not confuse popularity and money with artistic achievement. The achievement makes the person worthy of inclusion. It may seem foreign to some, but there are some filmmakers out there who are not interested in distribution or web buzz. They create art for art’s sake. They create experimental films, shorts, and multi-media projects that are created for the art of filmmaking or to make some point not to earn money. The highest achievement in art for art’s sake filmmaking is recognition from their peers such as winning a film festival award. The person who accomplishes this is just a worthy for mention as the horror or teen sex comedy filmmaker who achieves distribution, web buzz, and earns significant financial return. Those arguing for exclusion assert that because awards are given out in different categories that this somehow diminishes the accomplishment. This argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of artistic awards, commercial or non-commercial, are given out in different categories. For example, you would not argue that someone who won best supporting actress is not deserving of inclusion because awards were given out in many categories. The achievement is being recognized as the best in that category. Those arguing for exclusion also bring up the canard of copyright infringement and/or plagiarism. This argument is without merit. The article is scrupulously referenced. Every statement is credited to the source. It conforms to the highest level of scholarship. Once again, I point out that the arguments for exclusion were made before and denied. I hope Wikipedia takes this into consideration, and we don’t have to constantly fight this battle between art for art’s sake filmmaking and the monied interest. Temporaryriches 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Temporaryriches|Temporaryriches]] (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Refactored. Note: in February, a prod tag was removed by the author; this vague defense was brought up but there wasn't a debate at the time. Mango juice^talk 05:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree that the argument is vague. It is quite direct and to the point. The highest honor in the art for art's sake is peer recognition (awards). People who achieve a high honor in their field deserve recognition. I believed the award is proved by the webpage of the film festival itself. Whether or not the person has a big web presence or has done commercial projects does not diminish the achievement. The achievment in and of itself deserve recognition. Temporaryriches 05:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said philosophical. Yes, good for him! I'm sure he deserves the award and I don't doubt that he won it (nor that the web page of the festival is good enough proof). However, my interpretation is that this is a minor film festival, and an award there is not enough to confer notability and this seems to be confirmed by the fact that no one seems to have written anything about him in reliable sources. Put another way, I don't intend to say anything negative about him as an artist, just that a Wikipedia article is not an appropriate way to honor him. Mango juice^talk 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I have watched this discussion with interest (and commented above) and done some research. The IMDB entry is often the only source cited in many articles. Most of the articles concerning music and film use nothing but promotional and client friendly sources, and very few in that category. In this case, we can accept that a body of work, spanning a period of time, exists. There appears to be sufficient material to accredit his body of work and allow that recognition in the form of a Wikipedia article. --Stormbay 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casey Jones in popular culture

Very trivial. A note of mentions isn't that notable. This seems to be another case of "it got to be too big for the regular article, so let's move it here so we can just clutter and list as much as we can". Frankly, I'm starting to think a policy on Wikipedia needs to be in place, so these articles stop popping up all the time. Category:In popular culture shows how bad this has gotten. 13 subcats, 129 pages in the category itself. While I'm sure some are decent and well written (not just a crufty list of trivia), I would imagine the majority is horrible. RobJ1981 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - loosely associated collection of items. "Spot the reference" pop culture articles tell us nothing about the subject of the reference, the fiction from which the reference is drawn or the real world. I strongly agree with the notion of developing policy or explicitly stating somewhere in WP:NOT that these sort of trivia-traps need to go. Otto4711 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as per above. I also agree that a new policy needs to be in place for WP:CRUFT. These things have no place in an encyclopedia. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Very crufty. Also per nom. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete there are no WP:RSes that Casey Jones in popular culture is notable. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and these things have to go. Also what has to go is the idea that "popular culture" means "random trivial mentions in TV shows and movies popular with 14-25 year old American males". Andy Warhol is pop culture; a random mention on Family Guy is just a random mention on Family Guy. --Charlene 21:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Same argument as mentionned in the Saskatchewan in popular culture afd.--JForget 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If it were not for the references to Casey Jones in song and story, he would only have been another train engineer who died in an accident. Song and story ("popular culture") is what has made the person notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Move to a subpage of Talk:Casey Jones. Casey Jones is a figure of folklore, and it is characteristic of folklore that it is reproduced with variations. The information collected here should be preserved for the use of future editors. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge to Casey Jones. Google books and Google scholar show folklore journal articles anout the place of Casey Jones in popular culture published back in the 1940's, and there are dozens of scholarly sources which can be used to write an excellent article. Casey Jones is one more non-notable railroad fatality except for his place in popular culture. In the early 20th century railroad workers died at an appalling rate. In the Chicago switchyards alone, there were several deaths a month. Casey Jones was not a notable railroader before his death. After his death, a popular ballad was written and was recorder by many country western and folk musicians. A TV series was made about him. A Disney feature cartoon was made about him. A separate, but similar blues tune called "J.C. Holmes" was recorded by Bessie Smith which retels his story. A different tune about him was recorded by the Grateful Dead. An obscene ballad starting "Casey Jones was a son of a bitch, drove his train into a forty foot ditch" was featured as a marching chant in the movie "An officer and a gentleman" and is on a CD of "Rude Rugby Songs". Casey Jones is extremely notable, with hundreds of published articles, and he is notable solely because of his place in popular culture. Deleting this material outright would leave a brief bio article about him, which does not in any way show why he is notable. Per Smerdis, at least move this to the Casey Jones. There is nothing "loosely associated" or indiscriminate or unreferenced about 100 years of popular ballads, TV shows, US postage stamps, songs, cartoons and movies about the tragic end of John Luther "Casey" Jones. Edison 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge relevant information to Casey Jones --omtay 38 19:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Casey Jones has been a notable figure in American folklore for 107 years. In April 1932, "Erie Railroad Magazine, vol 28, no. 2, p12 said the Casey Jones song was known in translations into French, German, and the language of South African railway workers. It noted several "wierd and often unprintable variations (as mentioned above) composed by doughboys in France in during the world war (WW1)". This was reprinted in "A treasury of American Folklore," by B. A. Botkin, (American Legacy Press, NT, 1944) pp 241-246) with other material about the Jones legend. In pp 178-180 Botkin groups Jones with John Henry (folklore), Paul Bunyan, and Pecos Bill as "American legendary heroes" who were "occupational heroes". John Henry dies in a spike driving contest with a steam hammer, "Casey Jones in a train wreck with one hand on the whistle cord and the other on the airbrake lever." This legendary status is certainly " in popular culture" as opposed to being part of a human being's historic biography. He was a railroad worker, but in popular culture after his death he became much more. The TV show by itself is notable, the song(s) are notable (by virtue of numerous scholarly articles) and do not deserve either deletion or burial in "to a subpage of Talk:Casey Jones" as Smerdis suggested. It is better to concentrate the several notable songs and TV/cartoon depictions in one article. If there is a strong feeling against articles containing the forbidden words "in popular culture" then the best way to do this would be by a merge to the article about his biography. Example of how to do this are Johnny Appleseed , Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett , earlier actual persons who became legends, and none of whom appear to have separate "popular culture" articles. Edison 01:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
No, don't merge it was split out of Casey Jones because the list was too long for the subject, a biography. I have no strong opinion on whether this article stays or goes, but I definitely do not want it put back into the biography. However, this should be kept following the comments in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles to avoid the information going back into the biography, getting split out again and getting nominated here again to repeat the cycle. Slambo (Speak) 13:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Condense and merge per Edison's suggestion above. The main article mentions Casey is the subject of popular ballad but then contains no information about the ballad itself. — WiseKwai 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but... I agree that trimming some of the more obscure, less relevant references is probably a good idea. For example, I can see several entries on the "In Music" part that could probably go without detracting from the overall relevance of the article. The postage stamp reference should be in the main article and the Railroad Tycoon II reference could go. Other than that, the rest of the information is relevant and should stay because it shows that he has remained a notable and memorable figure in the public mind, even 100+ years after his death.--Gabeb83 08:10, 19 July 2007 (PST)

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twist ending in video games

Too specific, original research, whether an ending is a twist or not is opinion-related. Sdornan 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete, original reasearch, unencyclopedic, hard to verify. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete it's mainly just a list, and as per TenPoundHammer, it's hard to verify. Lugnuts 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unless, of course, there's a twist ending here... :-) --omtay 38 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
DeleteOriginal research, and arguableness of various "twists" DurinsBane87 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Rename to "Plot devices in videogames", as a notable development in the evolution of the gaming medium. But remove the list (make it into a category). And require sourcing of statements -- for example, from books commenting on gaming culture (there are many). The article itself is reasonably cogent, but it needs more work. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as original research. Certainly not a category. Look at all the different Plot devices. "Red herrings in video games"? "Mexcian standoffs in video games"? Marašmusïne_Talk 21:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I changed my vote. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - the first part of this ending basically amount to "Videogames with stories can have twist endings"; something we already have an article about. The rest is an unsourced list of games purported to have a twist ending. --Haemo 02:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 05:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this doesn't deserve a whole article, it is badly written, and is original research. I originally said that there should be information about video game twists in twist ending, but there already is. Mrmoocow 06:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep if a verifiable source (you know, WP:V) declares the ending a "twist" it should be included here. Just needs major cleanup. Giggy _U^CP 04:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the problem. The problem is two-fold: a) twist endings in video games are not in any way different from twist endings in any other medium, and b) we don't need an unmaintainable list that doesn't tell really not much anything about the particular games. If you just picked a few particularly good examples and sourced those, it'd be easy to cover in twist ending - we don't need a separate article just for video games. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete POV, original research etc. Fin ©™ 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep per giggy, needing a clean up is not a reason for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 07:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per my comment above. Can be covered elsewhere with nothing remarkable lost along the way. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete but re-create in my userspace please (User:Krator/VG Plot). I'll write an article on video game plots some day - enough reliable sources are available. --User:Krator (t c) 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced article, unverifiable, and quite original research. Who says it's a twist? You say twist, I say 'saw it coming a mile off' DarkSaber2k 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge - Without sources, this article can't really stand on its own. The list is unfortunately original research without sources and should be deleted. The few paragraphs of content should probably be merged into the Video game section of the Twist ending article, and then redirect this article there. (Guyinblack25 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

The result was redirect. Sr 13 08:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stage show

Article is nothing more than a definition and probably could not be expand to anything but. Perhaps redirect to something else, but I'm not quite sure what. --omtay 38 15:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to stage (theatre). I don't think that's too limiting an article. --Dhartung | Talk 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirect is a good solution. It keeps a search friendly link to a good article that covers the content. --Stormbay 02:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Mmm... crufty. No giant press attention (as the article even states!), not anything to the extent of the Hot Coffee Mod, and could certainly be merged into the main article. Really, all it needs is three lines in the main article. David Fuchs 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Mmm...WP:POINTy. Multiple, substantial sources, if you'd care to peruse the reference section. Geuiwogbil 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How am I violating WP:POINT? Someone in the other AfD brought up this article. I am not actively trolling to delete Oblivion articles. David Fuchs 20:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it just seemed like you jumped on that suggestion so quickly. You gave me a mild headache. You might not have been disrupting Wikipedia, but you were certainly disrupting me. Geuiwogbil 22:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And your failure to assume good faith gave me a nosebleed, so lets keep it relevent to the nomination shall we? DarkSaber2k 10:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The detail that someone has gone into documenting what should be little more than a footnote to Oblivion is staggering. I do not make the recommendation to delete such a massive amount of (good) work lightly. I'm likely going to end up in the minority voice here as with the AfD on the game's development history (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion) as there really isn't a specific policy proscribing it but I feel that this level of hyperintimate detail to a relatively minor facet of the overall topic of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is just not appropriate to a general-knowledge encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The best thing I could cite is the first of WP:FIVE. This stuff just is not encyclopedia material. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to comply with WP:NOT#PAPER, though, which is policy, rather than vague rumination with no grounding in Wiki regulations. "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Geuiwogbil 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have no problems with the number of articles or the length thereof, it's more just a philosophical notion of what belongs in an encyclopedia or not. Admittedly my argument isn't well rooted in policy so it's a bit on the weak side, I just felt a need to express it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I, too, have a philosophical notion of what belongs in an encyclopedia: everything. A beautiful compilation of all the works of Man and God, arranged by topic, refined to perfection in endless detail, and elucidated with elegance, humility, and charm. A "syntopicon", if you will, of the universe without and the universe within. I suppose that might make me a little bit of an idealist, but where would the world be without a healthy dose of idealism? WP:UNENCYC is meaningless as an argument. Geuiwogbil 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep It seems this article was created as a branch from The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to clean up the article. My original instinct was to merge, but because it has already been separated, I'll go with keep. --omtay 38 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Branching a big article off to smaller ones is sometimes a good idea, but in this case it isn't. Condense, don't just branch out to many articles. It's crufty, trivial and so on. You can source many things, it doesn't make it notable as a branched off article. RobJ1981 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Careful with your words, traveler. You say many things that sound like typical deletion arguments, but do not, in fact, hold true to this case. The meaning of words in the general sense is not the meaning which they hold in policy discussions. "Notable", for example, does not mean "Worthy of note". It means having "Significant reliable coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject". Now, I believe that the sources from GameSpot, Gamasutra, and The Escapist offer significant coverage, enough to provide a detailed outline of the subject; are independent of the ESRB's rating procedures; and are quite reliable. (Which is another tangled subject altogether but one which, I assure you, if delved into, would end with a singular confirmation of reliability.) Similarly, "trivial" in the sense of WP:TRIVIA does not mean "avoid facts which a general consensus of Wiki editors feels are unimportant", (We have no guide for that, we follow reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT holds no water as an argument.) it refers to our guideline which states "Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts only loosely regarding the topic." It makes no judgment as to the validity of the facts themselves. I do not even need to discuss "cruft", since "WP:CRUFT" is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and a rather contentious one at that. Geuiwogbil 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite. Brevity is wit. The subject is good, though too many words are used to describe it. --User:Krator (t c) 20:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Re-voted with more arguments below. As the votes don't matter, but the arguments do, I am striking out this one. --User:Krator (t c) 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I'm really not a fan of the "it's too long/detailed" argument. —Xezbeth 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per Omtay38. It is sourced properly as well. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Geuiwogbil 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Really trivial news item. Anything of relevance can be merged back into the main article. This literally takes 2 lines to explain. Anything else is minutiae. - hahnch e n 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No relevant argument can be found in the above comment. What, is it WP:JNN? Geuiwogbil 08:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously not looking hard enough. - hahnch e n 00:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That is, I can't discern what technical argument you're using. "Minutiae"? "Trivia"? I'm not aware of any policy which gives a definition for such potentially loaded terms. No need to be calling responses "idiot" [sic]. Geuiwogbil 00:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep I stare at this and say delete it. I read it and I say keep it. I didn't think I could admit an article about topless women and excessive violence could be encyclopedic and informative, but I confess it is. The sources are there, the prose is there, I just can't find a reason to delete it. I'm torn, and not in "Teen" kind of way, but I'll stand with a good consciousness as a keep vote.--Clyde (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep wikipedia isn't paper and "cruft" is not a deletion argument. The article cites its reliable sources, meets our notability guidelines and our inclusion policies, so it's clearly a keeper. You guys don't think anybody would ever want to research video game ratings or hidden-adult-content-unlocking mods? — brighterorange (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep multiple sources, definitely seems to be notable in the gaming industry Guycalledryan 03:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete excessively long article about a topic that already is covered in the main article. Resolute 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Excessively long"? "Already covered in the main article"? This is what WP:PAPER and WP:SS warned against. Geuiwogbil 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How about WP:RECENT? The main article covers the topic sufficiently, and there is plenty of room to add a little more, if you like, without unbalancing it, or making it too much larger. This article itself asserts multiple times that the changes hardly garnered notice from the public or gaming journalists Resolute 13:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is an essay, not a policy, not a guideline. As a sidenote, the essay states that "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion—lack of attributability and notability are", which seemed interesting enough to me. Geuiwogbil 13:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I am not proposing the deletion of the information, as it is already covered in the main article. Resolute 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So, it's just "excessively long"? That just...baffles me. Geuiwogbil 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Just because this is finely written should not be a reason to keep. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, which says "something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". Corpx 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Can any of the keep voters justify how this is not a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS ? The article itself says "events passed by with little outward concern from the either the public at large or gaming journalists in particular." The only outcomes of this incident, per the article, was that two publicity seeking individuals used it for their gain (and somebody wrote about it in their blog). Just because an article is well written does not mean it should get a free pass if its in violation of policy. Corpx 07:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a reflection of the continuing crisis in video game violence as perceived by the public; it's a tangential effect of the Hot Coffee Mod, involving the same organization, the same publicity-seeking individuals, the same corporation publishing the game. It is one of only three games the ESRB has ever decided to re-rate. It reflects on ESRB policy towards third-party mods, bound to be of increasing relevance in an age dominated by user content. This isn't some cat stuck in a tree or white girl kidnapped in the Bahamas; it's an industry-wide issue. WP:NOT#NEWS, in any case, seems to be something drummed up to make sure our WP:BLP standards stick, more than anything else; those things it specifically cautions against, this article does not do; the only area where you seem to have some type of argument is "long-term historical notability", which seems to be a criterion anyone can read anything into. Geuiwogbil 07:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont think an encyclopedia is the place for "reflection" on any social issue. If anything, this should be mentioned as part of something ilke "Perception of video games", but I'm not sure if that can be written without any WP:OR, while maintaining WP:NPOV. I would characterize this re-rating incident as something that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would show up to protest. (Examples). Corpx 07:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, Corpx, I wasn't saying that material should be in the article. Notability isn't something which needs to be put down point for point in the article, it's a property of the article that's made manifest by analysis. We let our readers decide what these events mean, over and beyond reporting on what others have thought of them. To Jack Thompson, this is but one further example of the failures of the ESRB. Thompson even goes so far as to state that this event is an "even worse disaster than last year's' [sic] "Hot Coffee" scandal". To John Romero, this is one step on the way to a content-protected future. That's the notability. I can't make you see the notability. I can only tell you what others think the notability of these events are. Geuiwogbil 07:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not arguing the notability. I'm arguing that this is "something has been in the news for a brief period of time". Corpx 08:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That criterion states that being in the news for a brief period of time doesn't make something notable. It says nothing in the direction of "if something has been in the news for only a brief period of time, it's non-notable." Zenke's article on the issue, in any case, came one full year after the events themselves. We "properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events", whatever that's supposed to mean. If something has "long-term historical notability" despite being covered only briefly, then it should be kept. If you aren't arguing the notability, you aren't arguing anything. Geuiwogbil 08:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
By that definition, any news story covered by major press would warrant an article on wikipedia. Zenke's article is the only one published this year specifically about this topic and I would consider that as an update to the story. Rest of the stories published this month only include trivial mentions along with GTA (which set the precedent). A search for other articles printed this year comes up with nothing else. This article belongs at wikinews. Corpx 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What definition? I didn't give any "definition". I'm pointing out that what the policy states can in no way be used to prove non-notability. It just cannot necessarily be used to prove the inverse. In any case, this is still an issue, as your search proved. Not only has it provided even more sources to develop the article originating in the midmonths of 2006, it has shown that the ratings change has influenced PEGI and given cause for reconsideration of the events in this month alone. That certainly seems like a set of long term effects, and this is not an update. It doesn't seem sensible to not cover this subject because it was the subject of media interest once. There is a straight line between Hot Coffee and this, or so it has been noted in various RS; trying to occlude that line, to relegate this to an unwholesome footnote, avoids proper discussion of the consequences of the Hot Coffee mod, at the very least. This event set precedent in terms of user-created content. That's long-term notability right there. Why the urge to delete? Why limit the coverage? I broke this off from Oblivion because I felt it could be covered in detail here, and covered in summary form there. A mere footnote does not befit this content; valuable information about the ESRB review process, about the rationales of the various actors involved, gives context and detail to what would otherwise be caricature. That detail gives a deeper understanding to a variety of encyclopedic topics, such as Hot Coffee, the legality and ethics of game modifications, to the ESRB, to Jack Thompson, to the nature of the media circus; that's notable information, if notability has to mean something beyond what WP:N states. I don't know what I'm arguing against. What would it take you, Corpx, to change your vote? What would I have to prove to you? What evidence would I have to show? How should I write this article, Corpx? What do you want? Geuiwogbil 21:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Zenke certainly thinks it's notable.

The speed with which the ESRB revoked the "T" rating should have publishers of mod-able games thinking hard about their priorities. Which is more important: a thriving mod community, or a rating you can bank on?

"Game 3.0" concepts, talked about extensively at Sony's GDC event earlier this year, rely heavily on community input and outside content to make them "sticky," in a social sense. Sony's Phil Harrison spoke calmly about the ability for Home users to mute offensive speech and ignore users with pornography-filled personal spaces. In that light, the ESRB's "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" seems like a gross understatement, the possibility for abuse too tempting for those with lots of time and little perspective to ignore. LittleBigPlanet is even more fraught with problems, as it is more traditionally a game. Will Sony provide personnel to review every fan-made level for offensive content? Will the ESRB? If Barbie-doll breasts can get a game re-rated, consider the dangers of introducing hardcore pornography into a LittleBigPlanet level.

While Hot Coffee will not soon be forgotten, the ESRB's decision on Oblivion should have shaken the world harder. A game had to pass through the re-ratings ghetto because of the work of one free-minded individualist. Under assault from thousands of griefers anxious to share the goatse picture with everyone that passes by, how can collaborative games hope to hold up?

I was going to add some further material along this line to the article, but I was busy elsewhere. Geuiwogbil 07:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"ESRB's decision on Oblivion should have shaken the world harder" - It should've, but it didnt. Corpx 07:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not your place, Corpx, to decide what's notable and what isn't. Titanic changes in the world can take place without anyone ever noticing a thing. When notable people do notice such things, reflected in a single event, and then proceed to make note of them in reliable sources, that should be noted. Notable people have decided that this is a notable event. That's worth more than your laconic "It should've, but it didn't." Geuiwogbil 08:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not saying this is not notable! I'm just saying that this incident does not have "long-term historical notability of persons and event". The hot coffee mod does, because it created the precedent of recalling stuff. Corpx 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - sections exist for a reason and half the info can be taken out - there are way too many quotes~~, including, ""No rest for the weary here!" said game producer Gavin Carter",~~ and a lot of the other stuff is trivial.--daniel folsom 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, you're voting for the wrong article. Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is over here. This article doesn't have that quotation. Geuiwogbil 17:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, actually I was voting for this and looking at the wrong article, but hey, a lotta the same applies - thanks though--daniel folsom 17:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was also put up for deletion by David Fuchs --omtay 38 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge details into the main article, which only has one paragraph. Expanding that to 2 or 3 based on these details sounds fine. — Deckill er 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep with the following arguments:

No policy that qualifies an article for deletion applies here.
WP:PAPER. There is no technical reason this article cannot be kept.
Deleting this will create a horrible precedent for future deletions. "Crufty" is not a reason for deletion on its own. What we classify as cruft is extensively covered in WP:NOT. Essentially, this article would be deleted because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. Deleting articles just because an ad hoc majority does not like it is a Bad Thing.
Almost no people will read this whole article. I'd willing to bet some money for that. That is not a reason for deletion though.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep, notable subject, appropriate as its own article due to length. Everyking 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge into main article. Mrmoocow 06:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, well written (Good Article), well referenced, notable subject. - ARC Gritt^TALK 11:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Condense and Merge into main article. It doesn't need a whole article itself. Fin ©™ 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable subject, and a GA Giggy _U^CP 23:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- The large number of reliable sources cited in ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion#References clearly establishes notability. John254 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- It would be very scary to have a high quality article like this be lost on dubious grounds. Judgesurreal777 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, should not even be up for deletion. Has multiple sources etc... Mathmo ^Talk 07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Has multiple reliable sources meaning it passes notability and is verifiable. Fail to see the problem really. DarkSaber2k 10:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notability established, well sourced, article does much more than discuss one small facet of Oblivion - it also shows what happens if and when games get re-rated by this body, shows the politics and views of censorship surrounding videogames and shows examples of modding causing ripples (and indeed nipples). It's articles like these which cover things peripheral issues which are damned useful but all too often original research or unreferenced. QuagmireDog 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well-written and well-referenced. You say it's not notable because people didn't protest in droves like the Hot Coffee mod, but I say it's even more notable because of the completely different reaction (read: barely any reaction) this issue got in comparison to the Hot Coffee extravaganza. Is it because it's a game that's not as popular as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? Is it because most 12-year olds don't have the attention span for a game like this, in comparison to the ADD-like GTA series, and therefore because its target audience is older, nudity/violence/etc. in the game doesn't matter as much despite its ESRB rating? Interesting topic in my opinion. Sdornan 01:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Guys, notability is NOT in question here. What's in question is whether this incident has "long-term historical notability" per WP:NOT#NEWS. Corpx 02:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it does, certainly more than the Ten Commandments for Drivers. Sdornan 02:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  - What's more, reliable sources believe it does. Zenke thinks so, Kotaku thinks so, ("But was the Oblivion problem a blip on the radar screen, or a sign of larger future problems lurking in the distance?") Shacknews thinks so. Anyone who has commented on its "long-term historical notability" thinks so. Geuiwogbil 02:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Yes, events which may lead to developers being responsible for what modders do is historically notable, a footnote added to the last citation in the article (which is actually a Kotaku article, not the Escapist itself) refers to it being a slow burning issue which may haunt developers in the future. It was notable enough to get its own article in The Escapist, it got people upskittled, it got Romero spitting etc. etc.

I don't see anything resembling indiscriminate information here, nor an article about Sonic the Hedgehog's favourite breakfast cereal, nor do I see WP:NOT as being relevant when the article passes WP:V and WP:N so well. 'Not News' wraps "long term notability", BLP and neutrality under the same heading, which to me says it's first and foremost a stopguard against potentially harmful articles and articles created from extremely biased sources. Long term notability is asking for filler-news articles to be shown the door or is asking contributors to predict the future. Either the subject intertwines with other subjects or has potential to cause other notable circumstances in the future, or it does not. This subject does intertwine with other issues surrounding game censorship, modding, maturing game audiences etc. etc., there are citations saying so. To pick the bones any further is as meaningful as spinning a bottle. QuagmireDog 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - While at first glance this made think it was another fan created article that was too specific of a topic to stand on its own, I have to say that after reading it I changed my mind. The main article does already explains how it impacted the game itself, but this article does that and goes into greater depth of the explanation and includes information on the industry and public impact. I think it's a good encyclopedic article. Also, (call me a prude) on a side note, I do think the picture of the topless women should be moved further down the article. My two cents (Guyinblack25 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
Keep is verifiable and has coverage from multiple reliable sources. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was No consensus, Keep. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 10:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zachary Lichman

Non-noteable Reality TV contestant. The article is full of trivia and cites sources from tabloid newspapers. He's a minor contestant in Big Brother and is predicted to leave the programme soon, jepordising chances of expansion. Dalejenkins 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per nominator Rackabello 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Big Brother 2007 (UK), from where it was split. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge per AnemoneProjectors --omtay 38 20:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Northern Line (band) where it is more suitable as he is not notable in his own right outside BB. Willirennen 21:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Split into the BB and NL articles Will ^(talk) 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ I would argue that he is notable outside of Big Brother and Northern Line. John Hayes^talk 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For example the mention in the newspaper in 2005, see the sources, well before Big Brother, and no mention of Northern Line in that. John Hayes^talk 09:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. He may have been mentioned in A 2005 newspaper-dating Suzanne Shaw does not equal noteability. Dalejenkins

Comment I quite agree, but when someone is known for two seperate things, and mentioned in newspapers independently of that, I would argue it does get them a little bit further towards achieving notability. If you don't feel that the various sources as a whole make him notable enough for an article, then by all means the article should be deleted. John Hayes^talk 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Keep - I believe he is notable, there are enough sources, but the article needs to be filled out. I would agree in it's current state, it doesn't add much to Wikipedia. John Hayes^talk 10:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC) _{John Hayes is the creator of this article.}

Merge per Rackabello. Bravedog 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment err, Rackabello said delete. Guinness 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep There is information in this article which is not appropriate for the Northern Line article. As a member of Northern Line, and as a BB contestant, he is notable enough to have an article. Guinness 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dungeon Hero

No sources, predicted release date years away, wonderful example of WP:CRYSTAL Rackabello 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

While this article is very short and does not have much information, it is entirely backed up by references. This is a game that has just recently been announced and details are not yet bountiful. However, the article should grow with time.User:Bean23

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It has just been announced and there's no more details to it. Recreate when the game is released/has more sources Corpx 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete and recreate much later per Corpx --omtay 38 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I was looking for more information on the game after seeing the trailer and when I did not find it here (the article is very much just a stub presently) I googled. One of the first hits was an IGN first look preview and I was surprised by the amount of information already found in it. Besides the basic premise of the game the preview goes on to list the quadrants of the goblin city, name some of the factions in the game, details the nature of innovation in the combat system and gives a description and example of the developers' approach to "artificial" CRPG conventions. I think the article could be nicely expanded by information from this preview, and of course from the website of the game once it is launched (which I think should not be far away, because the developer's website links to it on its front page). Also the developer's website lists two notable printed magazines (EDGE (Issue 173) and Game Informer (Issue 167)) that have information about the game. --Cyhawk 08:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. My company was at E3 2007 and saw the game up close. We watched a well thought out intro cinematic and saw some other cinematic presentations as well as some animation tests.

The result was ~~no consensus~~. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaranda reversed his own closure to delete at the DRV. Xoloz 20:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs featuring a theremin

Delete - this is a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs are not related to each other in any way beyond the use of a particular instrument. That the songs include theremin tells us nothing about the song, the theremin, the artists who recorded the song, how any of these things relate to each other or music in general. Otto4711 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you expect a list of songs to tell you how the artists relate to anything? --Romanski 18:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article is a link farm. There are thousands of recordings that feature the theremin and such an open-ended topic invites everyone that makes a theremin noise on a track to post a link here.

Kkissinger 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Propaniac 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PERNOM. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  - "That means that if several people already have showed support for the nominator..." But point taken. Propaniac 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - loosely associated list, probably woefully incomplete too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- It won't get any more complete if it gets deleted. --Romanski 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The criterion is not that arbitrary since theremin is a relatively rare instrument. Is properly sourced. --Romanski 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep because, according to the same page the nominator is linking to,

there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic.

Owing to the fact that the Theremin is such a rare instrument, its use in a (notable) song contributes to the significance of the Theremin, which is the list topic. The list therefore qualifies under the quoted criterion. — Timwi 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide references that these recordings (not songs, as Deor notes below) are famous for including a theremin? (That is, that they have been noted in multiple published sources for that fact, and are not included because someone looked through the liner notes of their CDs until they found one which included a theremin?) Propaniac 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Why should the songs have to be "famous for including a theremin"? Neil ╦ 16:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Because that's what Timwi is claiming gives justification to the existence of the list, as he wrote above. Doctormatt 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nonnotable intersection of topics. And it isn't even a list of songs featuring a theremin; it's a list of recordings featuring a theremin (since any song can be performed in a vast number of arrangements, with a variety of different instrumentations). Deor 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete an encyclopedia is not the place to categorize songs by the instruments used in the production Corpx 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? Neil ╦ 16:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep or better still Merge. A theramin is a rare-ish instrument to use, so it is noteworthy and useful for readers to know which songs contain it. But perhaps merge with Theramin ?Merkinsmum 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. "The theramin is a relatively rare instrument" is a subjective judgement call, and categorizing songs by what instruments they feature is a violation of WP:NOT, regardless of a percieved rarity of said instrument. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It seems to me that the theremin used to be rare, but they are very easy to get nowadays, with a number of companies selling them, either ready-to-play or in kit form, and so there are many, many musicians experimenting with them and incorporating them into their music. This list would eventually grow unmanageable, and at the same time it is not a very useful resource. Should we list every song by The Lothars, for instance? A number of artists who have used theremins are listed at theremin, so, together with the external links there, a reader interested in finding theremin music has some good information here at WP to help them. Doctormatt 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Theremin. The information could be useful to a reader and the article already has great places to put the info in. --omtay38 20:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to be that being a separate article is a better place for an article like this, since one might argue that this is redundant info for the Theremin article, but being separate it does not add any clutter etc, i.e. it's no harm to anyone but useful to some. While I prefer merge to delete, staying separate seems most appropriate to me. --Romanski 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge per omtay. Not "loosely associated list" as the theremin is a highly unusual instrument.Circeus 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I don't see how the theremin's being unusual affects whether or not the list is loosely associated - can you explain? In any case, while the theremin is arguably unusual, it is not rare anymore. See the list of bands who have used them in the "popular music" section of theremin: it is quite a long list, and yet it contains only bands whose WP articles mention theremin use. If this article was properly done, it would include hundreds of songs/recordings. How do we address that, would the list then be useful, and how does this all relate to the existence/non-existence of a "List of songs featuring a guitar"? Doctormatt 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thus my proposition to merge. There are seven songs on the list, nine if you include the other two. The article theremin would not be so overwhelmed if we add in these few songs, right? --omtay 38 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that the first item in the list (Star Trek theme), featured a theremin in the versions used on the show (the link in the article's footnote is to some guy's performance of it on a theremin). The soundtrack of The Day the Earth Stood Still, which is not a song by any definition, is already mentioned in Theremin, as are the Pixies and Good Vibrations. The Lothars thing seems to be a cover recorded by a nonnotable group, and Mysterons explicitly does not feature a theremin. That leaves the Third Eye Blind, Tripping Daisy, and All-American Rejects recordings. What exactly do you think would be the use of adding these to the series of representative examples already included in Theremin? Deor 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess i would merge them more on principal. Some editor took the time to find this information. Some of it may be useful to a reader in the future (and I do know that this point is arguable). I'm just always for salvaging whatever possible from an article while still striving to keep the masses of information manageable. Plus, (and i know this is just a personal thing) if I had started the article, I would be much happier to see my information merged than deleted. What's 30 or so more words to an article? --omtay 38 02:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per above, possibly merge with parent; it contains real listcruft -- incl. a list of songs that don't contain the instrument! Bearian 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There are not many decent lists on Wikipedia; this is one of the few. Referenced, defined, non-arbitrary scope, small enough to be manageable, topic of both note and interest. Neil ╦ 16:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete We wouldn't have an entry for "List of songs featuring slide whistles" or bongo drums or any musical instrument for that matter. But since this list is small, notable songs can be merged into the theremin article. Spellcast 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we have a list of songs featuring slide whistles? If it's rare for a song to include slide whistles, a list of such songs (referenced and accurate) would be a good list to have. Neil ╦ 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely! --Romanski 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The theremin is no longer a rare instrument, and it is no longer rare for a song to be recorded using one. Take a look at the (extremely, and happily, incomplete) list of bands who use them on the theremin page: it is already quite long. Doctormatt 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea was not to include songs by bands who specialize in using a theremin. Such recordings are still rare (and seems like they're actually becoming rarer with time). --Romanski 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "the idea". Where is this idea stated? How are editors to know that this is "the idea"? How does one know if a band "specializes" in using a theremin, or simply uses one? Lots of artitst listed at theremin as having used theremins seem like artists who just happen to have used a theremin on some of their songs. Certainly The Pixies, Phish, The Flaming Lips, Jean Michel Jarre and The Damned (for instance) do not "specialize" in using a theremin, do they? Can you elaborate on this notion of "the idea"? Thanks. Doctormatt 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Archived Discussions
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) —Xezbeth 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Polypop Polypop `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) Hoax/Neologism Latebird 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete nonsense/hoax.Merkinsmum 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete as nonsense/hoax/unsourced neologism. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete and perhaps WP:BJAODN :-) --omtay 38 20:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. There are no references to show that this term actually exists, so the page could possibly be a hoax. GrooveDog (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete; nonsense. WP:MADEUP. — Coren ^(talk) 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete, nonsense, hoax, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Richard 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Historical people Historical people `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) Random collection. No way to define any meaningful inclusion or exclusion criteria. --Latebird 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Looks like the start of a list of some sort - but frankly, it'd get far too bulky to do anything with, very fast. Delete - I think we probably have a category for this anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete Would become overwhelmed far to quickly. --omtay 38 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete - Too broad of a term, with no relation of where they were from and what their accomplishments were. Violation of WP:NOT#DIR. -- Hot Dog Wolf -- Bark! 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Strong delete. This would be far too broad a list if kept -- no inclusion criteria, etc. etc. Funny, we've had a fox, a wolf, and now an otter vote on this... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) How dare you insult the notability of the wild omtay. It is closly related to the badger, only has transparent fur. Heck, it's even on the endangered species list. :-) --omtay 38 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete - To massive a subject to be placed in one article. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete, massively indiscriminate list. (And I defend lists when I can.) --Dhartung \| Talk 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete, one of the most impossible to maintain lists ever. —Xezbeth 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete This is absolutely useless, categories (likely tons of sub-cats) may be more appropriate then this "gem".--JForget 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. Everyone is "historical". --Charlene 00:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete, forgive me but LOL, that would be one long article.Merkinsmum 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete: Perhaps the originator of the article meant Hysterical People? -- Ssilvers 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. John254 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Remington Norman Remington Norman `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) I flagged this article as an autobiography 2 weeks ago, and no attempt to counteract the problems of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, or establish notability/references from third party sources have been made. Eliz81 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per User:Agne27's excellent rewrite. All issues taised have been addressed. Eliz81 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Delete Most definitely seems like an autobiography. I would go for a WP:NPOV rewrite as he does seem to have some google fame, but since it does seem to be written by the creator, it might be better of deleting and waiting for somebody else to start fresh. Keep per Agne's wonderful rewrite. --omtay 38 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Weak keep, his two books do seem to have some notability in wine circles. Pull out the peacock words like "elite" and scrap the trivial stuff like being the guest of honor at wine tastings (perhaps verifiable but so what?). --Dhartung \| Talk 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep, Very notable in wine tasting world, article may need a little cleanup so that it sounds more neutral, but its ok as it is. Callelinea 04:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Keep Very notable wine writers and one of the foremost experts in Burgundy and Rhone wines. I have done a significant rewrite of the article to remove the autobiographical tones and POV violations. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) CommentThanks for taking the time to clean up the article. It looks much better in its current form, and really addresses the autobiographical concerns. Eliz81 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was redirect to Bullshit. John254 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Horseshit Horseshit `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) This disambig. is written like a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. Besides, how often is it used when it refers to nonsense? I have NEVER heard this word being used when not refering to shits from horses. TheBlazikenMaster 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect to Bullshit, as was the consensus in the previous deletion discussion for this article (archived on the article's Talk page). Propaniac 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC) What difference would that make? I have never heard it, well, I have, but very VERY few times heard it when someone is talking about nonsense, most often I have heard it when someone is talking about shits from horses. TheBlazikenMaster 17:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC) If there were an article about horse feces, I'd suggest redirecting there. But there's not, and since multiple people (including yourself, and myself) are familiar with the phrase being used as a synonym for bullshit, it makes sense to redirect it to that article. Redirects are cheap. Propaniac 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC) But there is. I know, since the disambig says that when talking about brown shit from horses is most often two words, what you say me, or someone else redirects horse shit to feces after the deadline? Like the sound of that? TheBlazikenMaster 17:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect to bullshit per nom. It really doesn't matter which animal the shit is coming from; it amounts to the same thing in common usage. Shalom ^Hello 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC) redirect per nom. I've heard "horse shit" used in this sense, but it's really a lesser-used synonym for bullshit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Transwiki to Wikitionary and Redirect to bullshit, per nom Rackabello 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect and that's no bull --omtay 38 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect, a common enough term even if TheBlazikenMaster has led a sheltered life. Some speakers may have grown up with it, others may just use it for its originality. Certainly there were many more such terms when over 50% of the US (or wherever) population was agricultural. But the point is that the meaning is essentially identical. --Dhartung \| Talk 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect to Bullshit. It may be a cultural thing, but I've heard horseshit as much as bullshit, but they really do mean the same thing. --Charlene 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect to Bullshit. To answer the nom's question, it is indeed used enough to be in a collegiate dictionary, but not frequently from what I understand. Only time I've ever heard it was in a line from the film Alien. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect and mention in Bullshit. It may be a regional thing, but in my experience horseshit's a somewhat stronger term than bullshit in the spectrum of crap. Acroterion _(talk) 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Transwiki per above--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect as per above and mention in Bullshit. Bearian 23:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. John254 00:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) I just don't see why there should be such a massive article devoted to one aspect of one game. Looking over the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article, I see little that isn't in there that is particularly needed. While well-referenced, the level of detail to me seems to approach ridiculous levels. David Fuchs 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. I'm not sure it fails WP:NOT by a strict reading, but I must concur with the nominator - this is a level of detail to a specific topic that is not appropriate for a general knowledge encyclopedia. A merge might be proper, but I suspect not needed as the main article has a healthy "development" section already. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep. There are no guidelines of any kind on "level of detail", other than that the detailed information must be either be explaining a more notable whole, or that the details must have been covered by reliable sources specifically about them. The latter is the case here: many reliable sources have written articles specifically about the development of Oblivion, making the development of the game suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, with as much information as the sources and article length allow. The article fits WP:SIZE. I agree with the above editors that the level of detail is approaching ridiculous levels. However, that is not because of this Wikipedia article, but because the amount of pre-game hype around games in major franchises exceeds all normal proportions. Not including this in Wikipedia would be terribly WP:IDONTLIKEIT: it is not up to us, Wikipedia editors, to exclude this if reliable sources have written about it. Changing the games press does not start here. Finally, "Detailed Histories" (what this article is) is not on WP:NOT#INFO. --User:Krator (t c) 15:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Thank you, Krator. This article was split so as to comply with WP:SIZE and WP:SS recommendations. If we are to begin deleting policy compliant articles solely for their level of detail, then these guidelines are dangerously misleading. Geuiwogbil 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep. Since the main topic has established notability, there are no limits on the degree of expansion. If someone can trim it with reasonable justification (repetitions, hype, OR, etc.), go for it. Othewise there is no inherent harm to have it. `'Mїkka 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep. Yet another detailed, well-written, referenced article that I imagine has been branched out of the parent article at some point. WP:PAPER —Xezbeth 16:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep This is basically a time line of events during the development of the game. I think preview articles on the game give the topic notability Corpx 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Strong delete. Yikes. This is incredibly anal-retentive detail, definitely indiscriminate, and dare I say it -- crufty. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Is indiscriminate the new buzzword? Even in that ridiculously overlinked to WP page, none of those five points relate to this article. —Xezbeth 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) And, beyond that, it provides no guidance. It seems we must rely on Dictionary.com for our policy clarification: in·dis·crim·i·nate (ĭn'dĭ-skrĭm'ə-nĭt) adj. 1. Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective: an indiscriminate shopper; indiscriminate taste in music. 2. Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale. 3. Confused; chaotic: the indiscriminate policies of the previous administration. 4. Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending. Now, which one of those is this article supposed to be? Geuiwogbil 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Looks like #4. Certainly is a large piece for one video game and its development. I have yet to see a video game article at FA that has that long a dev section. David Fuchs 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Guess that makes me the first! Geuiwogbil 21:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Strong Keep This is foolish. Geuiwogbil 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC) While you all are here, could one of you assess this article for GAC, or provide helpful, peer-review style commentary? Geuiwogbil 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Geuiwogbil 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep-Not seeing any valid reason to delete. A detailed and well referenced article on a notable subject is a good thing. Deleting an article because it covers its subject too well? Absurd.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep - Notable facet of the game, valid subarticle. Still, it's overly long and falls into minutae about how Bethesda set up their E3 demo room. I'd vote to delete ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion though, an utterly inconsequential piece of non-news, but then again we do have lots of other inconsequential pieces of non news like Essjay and Joshua Gardner. - hahnch e n 19:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC) ~~Now you've got your chance! Fuchs has nominated it for deletion too! Wonder where he got that idea? Geuiwogbil 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)~~ That bit was somewhat rude. Apologies. Geuiwogbil 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Keep - Well-researched, thoroughly referenced, notability established, obvious keep. — brighterorange (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep Well referenced article on a notable aspect of a notable game. I could see deleting it if it was on a fictional in universe topic like Development of the Death Star, but this is real world info that is covered in multiple reliable sources. If there are elements of the article that don't meet policy we can just remove them, the article itself should stay. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep Well researched and referenced, thus, making it exactly as detailed as required --omtay 38 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Weak keep There is an article on Development history of The Elder Scrolls series with a section on this; this could be absorbed into that, however, that article is long enough as is. This article does go into more detail possible than the main Oblivion article. Could do with some chopping down, but the topic warrants some decent coverage. Mouse Nightshirt \| talk 12:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Comment ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was also put up for deletion by David Fuchs --omtay 38 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Keep or merge into the general development article. I'd prefer a merge because the content is all real-world and not a mix; however, an entire real-world article is a nice precedent, as it shows that fiction writers are also interested in the out-of-universe aspects (and it clearly passes WP:N and doesn't seem too indiscriminite, if a little overly detailed). This entire AfD is a serious problem; why are we discouraging subarticles on real-world aspects, when we are all obsessed with keeping subarticles on in-universe aspects? Think about it: you are sending the wrong message. Deletion is a ~~simpleton and childish~~ poor approach to problems like this; fix it appropriately by starting a merge proposal, and have respect for the people who are trying to set a precedent here. — Deckill er 22:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the keep vote, but I can't make out what you're suggesting in the first few sentences. What does the "it" in "it's all real-world" refer to? The content to be merged or the article into which the content will be merged? Do you like real-world/not real-world mixes, or do you dislike them? What would be setting a precedent? The merge? Not having an AFD? Who's trying to set precedent? Me? Fuchs? You? Geuiwogbil 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC) I added to the message; I wrote it as I was heading out the door. — Deckill er 02:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Geuiwogbil 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Keep, attributed article and meets notability. I oppose to merge into Development history of The Elder Scrolls series because it will increase highly article size. Carlosguitar 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Keep, notable subject, appropriate as its own article due to length. Everyking 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Keep - Since the article is this long, it is clearly notable enough to stand alone as an article. I also just reviewed and passed this article for GA.--Danaman5 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Keep. [Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the "Elder Scrolls" games beyond what I just read in Wikipedia.] This is a multi-award winning, very popular game and thus highly notable. Therefore the development of the game deserves a place in Wikipedia. However given the lengthy and detailed description, this aspect of the game's background needs its own article. Axl 09:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Keep, detailed, well sourced, notable subject etc. Fin ©™ 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was redirect to Scientism. John254 00:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Scientific fundamentalism Scientific fundamentalism `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) Completely POV original research. "Scientific fundamentalism" is only used as a pejorative term by those who wish to erroneously equate science with religious movements. Groupthink 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) ~~Delete~~ There's room for a balanced article on the use of this term, but this isn't it, or even the beginnings of it. I'd edit it to remove the POV, but that would mean blanking the page. Iain99 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Added: better still to redirect to scientism per Leinad-Z below. Iain99 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Delete, I agree with Iain99. Oliver Keenan 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete, Iain99 says it all here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC) delete Drivel. Nick mallory 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC) delete per Iain99 - superβεεcat 23:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Comment. While I agree the present article is inherently PoV and would be hard to fix, it appears to be a valid topic. Is it worth retaining a stub and pointing the History of Science WikiProject people at it? Does anyone have access to the Nature article linked, even just to extract a proper citation? Espresso Addict 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Comment I considered stubifying it, but the way I'd have done it would just have left a dicdef as I don't have the knowledge to write much more, and tbh my patience for reading creationist sites is too limited to do the research myself. But if anyone else would like to rewrite it in the next few days then I'll say keep. However, the article has been up for a year - if nobody improves it soon it would be better to delete and let a future editor start from scratch. ~~I'll look at the Nature article from work later - if there's enough in it for a valid stub I might change my mind~~Iain99 07:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Added The Nature reference (Philip Clayton, Nature 409, 979-980 (22 February 2001) \| doi:10.1038/35059152) is a review of "In search of unity" by Mary Midgley. It doesn't contain the phrase "scientific fundamentalism" so it's not a good place to start. Iain99 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete Unless this can be expanded, referenced and made a hell of a lot more interesting, it can't be saved. This is little more than a dictionary definition and a link to a website. Mandsford 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Comment What substitute are systematic research methods and firsthand empirical data for superstition and ignorance? ~ Infrangible 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete article has way too many problems as evident by the numerous tags.--Sefringle^Talk 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete and salt POV fork, possible WP:SOAP violation. Suggest salting as well--the title essentially SAYS it's POV. Blueboy 96 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Let's keep salting for if the article gets recreated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC) At least one tenured academic has used the term in the title of a book so there may be potential for a proper article. No need to salt unless it gets recreated in something like its current form. Iain99 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete per Iain. No salt per Dennis --omtay 38 20:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete and salt as per nom, Iain99, Blueboy96, and Dennisthe2. Bullocks, Bullshit. Bearian 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC) (Further) comment. I'm rather disturbed by the 'delete and salt' comments here. Scientific fundamentalism is, as far as I'm aware, a recognised critique of the scientific method and, in particular, the application of scientific judgements to real world decision making. As a scientist, I don't agree with much of what its adherents say, but that doesn't make it invalid. It might be difficult to create a neutral poV article, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth attempting. Espresso Addict 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Comment. I'm not calling for salting here, just deletion... but "recognised" by whom? I'm not denying that the scientific method has been critiqued, but who frames said critiques as "scientific fundamentalism"? I appreciate the cite that Iain99 came up with, but that's one citation of an article by an English professor in an obscure journal. I'd like more, please. Groupthink 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Response. I admit I'd never heard this precise term before, but I have often come across the critique it appears to represent. A quick Google search on this/very similar terms, turns up for example, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (this and other similar sites state that the 'Ten Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism' they quote originate in The Wall Street Journal, 1993), [7] (quotes a piece by Bryan Appleyard in New Scientist, possibly [8]). Espresso Addict 00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Those first few cites smack of POV phrase-mongering: much as I'd love to use the term "anti-choice" here on WP, in deference to neutrality I employ "pro-life". However, there might be something of substance in those last few refs, but is there really enough to support a whole article, especially given that "scientific fundamentalism" appears to be a neologism? Can it really be argued that there's a formal scientific fundamentalist movement or belief system? I'd push for a redirect ~~to something like naturalistic fallacy or science wars instead~~. Groupthink 00:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC) I'm a complete amateur in this area, but on a quick scan neither article seems to encompass the precise scientific fundamentalist critique, though it could perhaps be added to the science wars article. The 1993 date of the The Wall Street Journal reference, if correct, would tend to suggest it isn't a neologism. Espresso Addict 01:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC) There are 85 hits on Google Scholar Not as many as I expected (and I was even more surprised that there were only 619 on Google proper), but Google is not the sole arbiter of notability and there might be enough there for someone to write an article. I'm not going to do it myself, partly because I don't have easy access to most of the journals, partly because reading things with "postmodernism" in the title is bad for my blood pressure and partly because I think the term is pretty silly and wouldn't know where to start writing an article which took it seriously. But that's just my opinion - if someone with access to a university library disagrees and thinks they can manage it I don't think we should stop them trying. Iain99 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC) I suspect there's enough there to write a brief article, but I too have neither the expertise nor the access to an appropriate library. I'll pop a note to the History of Science WikiProject; someone there might perhaps be interested. Espresso Addict 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Delete per most previous comments. Rjm at sleepers 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect to "scientism". Common current usages of scientism seem similar enough to the topic discussed in the article. If someday one can write a meaningful page about the term "Scientific fundamentalism" alone, then it can cease to be a redirect. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 12:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Perfect. Redirect to scientism. Groupthink 14:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Brilliant. I agree with Leinad, have changed recommendation accordingly. Iain99 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Another me too, for a redirect to scientism. Espresso Addict 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Proposal. If no one objects, at this time tomorrow I will withdraw my AfD nom and redirect this page to scientism. Groupthink 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This is not an objection, merely a question. What will happen to the current contents of the page? Shouldn't the content of Scientism be modified before redirection, otherwise it's simply a back door deletion. Rjm at sleepers 07:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Quite the contrary: Unlike with a deletion, the contents of this page will remain in page history. Plus, I'll post the page contents to Talk:Scientism with a note that scientific fundamentalism has been redirected there. Groupthink 09:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I'd suggest adding a sentence to the introduction of scientism along the lines of "The term scientific fundamentalism has also been used to refer to similar concepts". The "recent examples" could then be incorporated into the scientism article if someone can find sources showing that these things have actually been notably described as scientific fundamentalism. The term seems to be less widely used than I thought, I don't think it's certain that they will have been. Iain99 08:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Agree with adding the sentence. If we've come to consensus on the deletion + redirect, the discussion on the details should probably be moved to the talk page of scientism. The list of links that have been dug up here should probably be copied there. Espresso Addict 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Sr 13 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Project Husker Project Husker `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) Promotion of YouTube material; not encyclopedic. – Swid ^{(talk \| edits)} 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete / Strong delete Blatant spam, not notable (the videos, not the team), just a list without content. - superβεεcat 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete fancruft, spam, and The Play didn't occur in the 2005 Alamo Bowl regardless of what Nebraska fans and the authors of this article may think. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete spam.Merkinsmum 19:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete per WP is not a directory of links Corpx 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOT. Comes pretty close to being an A3 as well. Blueboy 96 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete NN, spam, and linkage --omtay 38 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete - per WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:NN. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 20:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete as per nom and above discussion. Bearian 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Sr 13 06:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Devotional Ministry of Trance Devotional Ministry of Trance `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) Possible non notable group, sorted under Wikiproject notability. Article claims significant news coverage, but I was unable to find any mention on Google News and only trivial mention through a standard google search. Daniel J. Leivick 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete does not establish notability of group.TheRingess (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete fails notability, no citations establish notability other than the unsourced assertion that an author mentions it in a book - superβεεcat 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete top google hit is this article, not notable --omtay 38 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Comment Agree not notable, but wikipedia articles very often are top google hits in my experience. Google "stork" "hexagon" or "apples" to see what I mean. - superβεεcat 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Another comment Ohh, i know that. What I meant to imply was that the only other quick and dirty representation of the existence of this group was the very article itself :-) --omtay 38 02:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Sr 13 06:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] H. S. Paul School H. S. Paul School `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) I realize that schools are typically notable, but this contains almost no content whatsoever other than contact information and a website. Rackabello 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I realize that it has very little content at this point, but could you please hold off for a day or two? I'm working on adding more. Nikkimaria 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Comment Except in some cut and dry speedy delete cases (which this is not one) AfD's don't happen overnight, you've got about five days before an admin makes a final decision. If your article is looking promising by then, it'll likely be kept, schools are generally notable. Didn't mean to discourage you, I only listed this for deletion because when I saw it it had no content. Rackabello 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep. This one's kind of tricky, as schools aren't inherently notable -- but on the other hand, individual school articles seem to almost always survive AfDs (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know...). Article at least features sufficient context now, so the reasons for deletion are no longer valid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I'd agree with you if this was a high school, but this is just an elementary school! Are kindergarten's notable too? Corpx 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. Just another cookie-cutter elementary school like thousands of others. What's next, articles for every fire hydrant? (Plenty of 'individual school articles' have been deleted over the past 6 years, especially common elementary schools.) Seattlenow 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete per lack of notability for elementary schools. Corpx 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete but I would contest the deletion of New York Fire Hydrant #452b ;-) --omtay 38 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete, elementary schools are generally nn.--JForget 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Merge into Louis Riel School Division as per AfD precedent. TerriersFan 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete I really dont see notability besides the services and subjects that are generally provided. Not that it's impossible, just that it isn't here with this one now. DGG (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete as per above discussion. Lots of elementary schools across North America provide the same services. Possibly merge as per TerriersFan. Bearian 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Merge into an appropriate compendium, or delete if no-one can be bothered to do that; there is no claim of notability, and can someone point me to a policy that says that schools are inherently or generally notable? SamBC 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. The article is reasonably well-sourced now, and it has been pointed out that his notability stems from more than just his candidacy in the Big Brother TV show. Sala Skan ^{(Review me)} 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Jonathan Durden Jonathan Durden `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) Non-noteable, failed Reality TV contestant. The article is full of trivia about Oompa-Loompas and cites sources from tabloid newspapers. He was only in Big Brother for 2 weeks and the article is unlikely to expand. I don't think being rich means you're noteable.Dalejenkins 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Redirect to Big Brother 2007 (UK). Propaniac 17:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Merge any important information, then redirect per Propanic Conditional Keep If the article can be fleshed out more. --omtay 38 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Merge or Delete, The Secret Millionaire series deserves an article better than this entry Merge to Big Brother 2007 (UK) Will ^(talk) 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep If he was only known for being on Big Brother I'd agree with a redirect, but since he's been on two notable programmes that doesn't seem appropriate (even if one doesn't have an article yet). The article obviously needs a lot of improving, but that's not a reason for deletion. Iain99 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC) PS removed the nonsense about Oompa-Loompas ~~Keep~~ I created this on the basis, that there were a large amount of sources about him, independant of his time on Big Brother, which certainly aren't relevant to Big Brother, he is known for other things, such as the journalism. I agree that the nonsense about the Oompa-Loompas isn't needed, I just copied over what was there. The article is still rather thin, but not for a lack of sources, rather a lack of filling out the article. John Hayes^talk 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Conditional Keep - As said above, if the article is filled out. John Hayes^talk 10:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Keep, I think failed is a bit harsh, he left to attend a funeral. He had done stuff before entering the house and this stuff is not relevant for the BB article, leave it until the end of the series at least, and if he has been heard from then delete it. Darrenhusted 12:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC) To be fair we can't keep it just because something might happen, but I feel there is enough in the article already (with a bit of filling out needed). John Hayes^talk 12:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete per nom. What a pointless article-not noteable. Bravedog 18:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Keep, he has done a lot more than BB and I was pleased to be able to follow that up 88888 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Comment. But suerly there's so little infomation that it could be merged with the Big Brother article? Dalejenkins 08:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Comment I would disagree, as most of the information is not relevant to an article on Big Brother. John Hayes^talk 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Comment. So you're telling me that infomation about a Housemate's life can not be included in their biography section on the Big Brother series article in which they were in??? Dalejenkins 10:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) That's like arguing we should merge all the information on Tom Cruise into the Top Gun article. Neil ╦ 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Yes Dale that is exactly what I am saying, a lot of it has no relevance to an article on Big Brother, the Big Brother wikiproject is quite clear on what should and shouldn't be in an the housemates section. John Hayes^talk 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Keep, published writer, appeared on multiple television programs, business owner. While just being on a gameshow does not necessarily make someone notable, it also does not mean someone notable for other works suddenly becomes non-notable; that would be silly. Neil ╦ 19:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Sr 13 06:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Tarmac (student newspaper) Tarmac (student newspaper) `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) This is a high school newspaper that fails [[WP:]] and WP:N. Though it claims multiple awards, a Google search here shows up just one independently verified award here which is one given by a local church newspaper. None of the 'alumni' have their own Wikipedia articles. Finally, there are no sources on the page. Undoubtedly a worthy paper but I don't see the multiple reliable sources required to keep. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete No evidence of notability; specific information and references about awards might change that. Propaniac 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete I have selectively merged two paragraphs into the article on Chaminade High School. For GFDL purposes (though it's not really necessary), I recommend blanking the article and redirecting it to that same page. It's not notable in it's own right as a newspaper. Shalom ^Hello 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete, nonnotable high school paper. NawlinWiki 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete sadly. I'm not a fan of squelching High School Journalism. Ahh well. --omtay 38 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete the High school article makes mention of the Journal, although some info from here can be transferred to the High school article.--JForget 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete as per above, and sadly as per Omtay38. Can the best be merged back into the parent article? Bearian 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Comment - I have completed the merge back of the key facts and the one award reference I can find. Bridgeplayer 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Sr 13 07:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Gash (slang) Gash (slang) `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) Dicdef, pure and simple. HArdly notable. `'Mїkka 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete per nom - Not a dictionary, especially one of slang Corpx 16:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete article is completely gash ;-) --omtay 38 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)* Delete - This is what the urban dictionary is for. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, gash is relatively common slang here, but that ain't what it means. --Charlene 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete The article is just wrong, the word means 'rubbish' because it primarily means what the fair Charlene is hinting at. Nick mallory 23:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete as per above, esp. Charlene and Jayvdb. That's Nasty. Bearian 23:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Sr 13 05:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Retroactive abortion Retroactive abortion `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) A combination of Original research, soap-boxery, and neologism that is a fairly obvious POV-fork. Throw in bad-writing, tendentious argument, and other vices too many too mention, and this article really doesn't belong. Bucketsofg 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete as nom. Bucketsofg 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Note I stubbed the article to remove some of the unacceptable, unsourced and libelous content. Currently it is no more than a dicdef. Since it is a real term I am not sure it should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete - per WP:DICT. Should go in the Wiktionary. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. Should go in the Urban Dictionary perhaps, but as an unnotable non-universal term, has no place in either WP or WK. Groupthink 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete per WP:DICT. It's a common enough phrase, but it's a dicdef. The definition given doesn't even match what "retroactive abortion" means - it's usually applied towards adults, whether just annoying or truly criminal. I have never once heard it used in relation to a child, not once, ever. --Charlene 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete poor quality dicdef, unless some evidence is produced that something could be made of this. Oliver Keenan 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. Oliver has this one right, this one isn't even well written. Maybe submit to Wiktionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete (G3) and salt Obviously unencyclopedic, thus fitting the definition of pure vandalism. Should be salted as well. Blueboy 96 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC) This is the second such !vote from you I've seen. Are you trying to prove a WP:POINT? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete but no salt. This term could be wiki-linked to later in it's life from things other than the AfD and might deserve a redirect or something then (perhaps to abortion). --omtay 38 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete as per nom, WP:HOAX, and above discussions. Bearian 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Sr 13 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [edit] Saskatchewan in popular culture Saskatchewan in popular culture `(`edit`\|`talk`\|`history`\|`links`\|`watch`\|`logs`)` – (View AfD) Yet another cluttered, crufty and trivial popular culture article. One example from the article: Punk band No Fun At All's song "My Extraordinary Mind" contains the lyrics "Sunday afternoon, I was bending every spoon/Stopping all the clocks in Saskatoon." I see no importance in that at all. The province being mentioned in numerous songs and all that isn't notable. As I've stated before (and others have too): put the notable ones in the article and leave it at that. Don't branch it off to a massive list that is out of control. RobJ1981 20:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete little to no encyclopedic content. I agree with the nominator, a prose section in the main Saskatchewan article can include some of the notable examples, but a separate article is not needed. The picture at the top says it all, the fact that the word Saskatchewan is used on a Scrabble board in a movie is completely meaningless. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete -- Nothing more than fan cruft. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete - It is cruft. Nothing but primarily pointless cruft. As suggested take the notable trivia and place it appropriately. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete there are no WP:RSes that Saskatechewan in popular culture is a notable phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. Again, some random mentions in movies and TV shows is not what "culture" is. If any of this is notable, and I don't think it is, it can go in the main article. --Charlene 21:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete Even if I'm Canadian, this article is another classic example of listcruft trivia with little references.--JForget 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Delete load of crap. Per nom. Oliver Keenan 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Keep and clean-up irrelevant items. Was written with content removed from the Saskatchewan article (is a sub-article), keeps trivial info out of the main article. --Qyd 00:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC) I agree this info is trivial but we shouldn't have a separate article to act as fly paper to keep the trivia out of the main article. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete as yet another collection of loosely associated items. If it doesn't belong in the main article it doesn't belong in its own garbage spin-off article. Better here than there is no reason for creating or keeping an article full of trivia. Otto4711 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Keep Even if contents of article is a bit Non notable there needs to be an article about Sask in popular culture, it's better than having it in the Saskatchewan article, and I think this article warrants no more than cleanup.JoeyETS 06:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC) "It's better than having it in the Saskatchewan article," in other words, better here than there. If the only reason for having an article is because not having it would clutter the main article, then there shouldn't be an article. The solution to trivial crap in the main article is to delete it, not to spin it off into a separate crap articl and make it someone else's problem. Otto4711 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Keep I agree that Wikipedia is an encylopedia and should have mostly serious, important articles. But here is a case of, we have a serious article, Saskatchewan, and then we have a sub-article, that supplements it in a light, fun way. It's a separate article and people who aren't interested in that aspect of the topic don't have to click on the link to the sub-article; those who are interested can. I don't see any harm in that. Perhaps it could use a bit of trimming down, but I think that's all it needs.Moisejp 02:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid AfD argument. Resolute 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete per precident. Nothing more than a list of trivia. Resolute 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete Cruft, subjective, unmaintainable. Blueboy 96 13:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC) According to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to avoid, for which the example: "Delete as cruft" is given: "The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted." Also, in Wikipedia:Fancruft it says that "there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects." That makes invalid all of your arguments such as "Delete. It is cruft." and "Delete load of crap." and any argument saying that it is nothing more than trivia.Moisejp 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete Like most "X in popular culture" articles, this is just an indiscriminate collection of information and completely unencyclopaedic. Books and films about Saskatchewan should be discussed in the main article - I count about six, before pruning for notability, so they wouldn't clutter it. Books and films which contain a one line mention of Saskatchewan should be listed on another website, if anywhere. Iain99 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. "Keep it because it keeps trivia out of the main article" is a terrible reason for keeping this article. The reason we seek to eliminate trivia sections is because typically the information does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia in the first place. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and certainly isn't an indiscriminate collection of what effectively amounts to keyword search results. Skeezix1000 19:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete and, perhaps, merge the few notable mentions back into Saskatchewan --omtay 38 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. Most of the article breaks the principles of Wikipedia:Verifiability, particularly the lyrics and lines from comedy sketches, movies and cartoons. PKT 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete as per above discussion, but merge back some useful content as per Omtay38. With all due respect, I think most cases of listcruft are fairly obvious -- like porn, you know it when you see it. A few cases are difficult ones, because (a) they are not obvious, (b) they have more than one nontrivial cite, (c) there is well-known/independently verifiable cultural impact, and (d) numerous non-SLA editors have edited content and references. This article has a single source and not much else except a long list of cross-references by wikilinks. Bearian 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. Woah that scrabble picture is HUGE...but I can just make out the man's words..."After precise examination, we've found zero evidence of notability"....If your province's mention in pop culture is so background that you have to magnify it and ask people to look back there and around the corner to see it...all you've got is a list of trivia. Can someone save this for the Wikipedia:Handy guide to grading in popular culture articles? Canuckle 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC) The article on Saskatchewan should certainly include significant aspects of its representation in popular culture, such as Corner Gas and Little Mosque on the Prairie, but Wikipedia absolutely doesn't need a list of every individual time the name "Saskatoon" popped up in a song lyric or a David Letterman Top 10 list. We don't need it in Saskatchewan's article, and we don't need it in a forked list, either. Delete. And start pruning and/or killing all "X in popular culture" articles, too. Bearcat 22:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Keep' or delete all wikipdia in popular culture articles.... In comparison to other articles at In popular culture articles, Saskatchewan in popular culture is as good, the same or better. Would the format be better if it was modified the appearance and styling of Wikipedia in culture? If the article can be cleaned up according to Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and the description of fictional places as objects of the narrative I believe it should be kept. Keep... if an increase is shown in the amount of references of the author's intention as well as stating the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world. Work on this article in this regard has commenced. Please advise if direction taken is improving. As a personal Saskatchewanian I take offence that a province of 588,276.09 square kilometres (227,134.67 sq mi) and population of 968,157 is not considered notable and is misspelled from some deletionists, and is considered trivia as mentioned above. Pop culture influence society and its institutions in various ways. Culture refers to the real world and its patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance as pertaining to the province of Saskatchewan. I have emailed No fun at all to find out what the reference was to stopping at the eateries in our slow paced relaxed city of Saskatoon, and making time stand still on a Thursday afternoon. I will publish the answer when they reply. SriMesh \| talk 05:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Comment. Erm... nobody's saying that Saskatchewan isn't notable - just that an obsessively compiled list of every random mention of Saskatchewan in "popular culture" (whatever that is - as opposed to unpopular culture perhaps?) isn't notable. The same would be true of any state, province or country. As it stands this article tells the reader nothing useful whatsoever about Saskatchewan, except perhaps that it's occasionally used by songwriters in need of a rhyme, and even that's my interpretation, not something stated in the text. As with most of these things, there is room for a properly sourced article or section which uses significant works about Saskatchewan to demonstrate how it is perceived in culture - which aspects of it are most frequently depicted and have any of its people or places become iconic - and are Saskatchewanians generally happy with the way their province is viewed by the outside world, or have there been efforts to improve it? If you think you can write it I'll have no objections. Incidentally, I'm increasingly in favour of killing all "X in popular culture" articles and sections, as the term seems to be taken as a license to compile obsessive trivia. The few salvageable ones which attempt to tell the reader something useful about their subject should be renamed "Cultural influence of X" or "Cultural depictions of X" as happened with the Joan of Arc one. Iain99 08:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Canuckle 12:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Comment I know I already made my comments, but I would just like to note that according to listcruft the removal of listcruft is not official wikipedia policy, but merely an opinion of some. JoeyETS 15:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Archived Discussions

The result was Speedy Delete (G1) —Xezbeth 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polypop

Hoax/Neologism Latebird 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete nonsense/hoax.Merkinsmum 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nonsense/hoax/unsourced neologism. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete and perhaps WP:BJAODN :-) --omtay 38 20:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There are no references to show that this term actually exists, so the page could possibly be a hoax. GrooveDog (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete; nonsense. WP:MADEUP. — Coren ^(talk) 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, nonsense, hoax, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Richard 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical people

Random collection. No way to define any meaningful inclusion or exclusion criteria. --Latebird 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the start of a list of some sort - but frankly, it'd get far too bulky to do anything with, very fast. Delete - I think we probably have a category for this anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Would become overwhelmed far to quickly. --omtay 38 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Too broad of a term, with no relation of where they were from and what their accomplishments were. Violation of WP:NOT#DIR. -- Hot Dog Wolf -- Bark! 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. This would be far too broad a list if kept -- no inclusion criteria, etc. etc. Funny, we've had a fox, a wolf, and now an otter vote on this... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How dare you insult the notability of the wild omtay. It is closly related to the badger, only has transparent fur. Heck, it's even on the endangered species list. :-) --omtay 38 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - To massive a subject to be placed in one article. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, massively indiscriminate list. (And I defend lists when I can.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, one of the most impossible to maintain lists ever. —Xezbeth 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is absolutely useless, categories (likely tons of sub-cats) may be more appropriate then this "gem".--JForget 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Everyone is "historical". --Charlene 00:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, forgive me but LOL, that would be one long article.Merkinsmum 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Perhaps the originator of the article meant Hysterical People? -- Ssilvers 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. John254 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remington Norman

I flagged this article as an autobiography 2 weeks ago, and no attempt to counteract the problems of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, or establish notability/references from third party sources have been made. Eliz81 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per User:Agne27's excellent rewrite. All issues taised have been addressed. Eliz81 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Most definitely seems like an autobiography. I would go for a WP:NPOV rewrite as he does seem to have some google fame, but since it does seem to be written by the creator, it might be better of deleting and waiting for somebody else to start fresh. Keep per Agne's wonderful rewrite. --omtay 38 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, his two books do seem to have some notability in wine circles. Pull out the peacock words like "elite" and scrap the trivial stuff like being the guest of honor at wine tastings (perhaps verifiable but so what?). --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Very notable in wine tasting world, article may need a little cleanup so that it sounds more neutral, but its ok as it is. Callelinea 04:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Very notable wine writers and one of the foremost experts in Burgundy and Rhone wines. I have done a significant rewrite of the article to remove the autobiographical tones and POV violations. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

CommentThanks for taking the time to clean up the article. It looks much better in its current form, and really addresses the autobiographical concerns. Eliz81 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Bullshit. John254 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horseshit

This disambig. is written like a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. Besides, how often is it used when it refers to nonsense? I have NEVER heard this word being used when not refering to shits from horses. TheBlazikenMaster 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Bullshit, as was the consensus in the previous deletion discussion for this article (archived on the article's Talk page). Propaniac 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- What difference would that make? I have never heard it, well, I have, but very VERY few times heard it when someone is talking about nonsense, most often I have heard it when someone is talking about shits from horses. TheBlazikenMaster 17:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  - If there were an article about horse feces, I'd suggest redirecting there. But there's not, and since multiple people (including yourself, and myself) are familiar with the phrase being used as a synonym for bullshit, it makes sense to redirect it to that article. Redirects are cheap. Propaniac 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    - But there is. I know, since the disambig says that when talking about brown shit from horses is most often two words, what you say me, or someone else redirects horse shit to feces after the deadline? Like the sound of that? TheBlazikenMaster 17:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to bullshit per nom. It really doesn't matter which animal the shit is coming from; it amounts to the same thing in common usage. Shalom ^Hello 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
redirect per nom. I've heard "horse shit" used in this sense, but it's really a lesser-used synonym for bullshit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikitionary and Redirect to bullshit, per nom Rackabello 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirect and that's no bull --omtay 38 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirect, a common enough term even if TheBlazikenMaster has led a sheltered life. Some speakers may have grown up with it, others may just use it for its originality. Certainly there were many more such terms when over 50% of the US (or wherever) population was agricultural. But the point is that the meaning is essentially identical. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Bullshit. It may be a cultural thing, but I've heard horseshit as much as bullshit, but they really do mean the same thing. --Charlene 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Bullshit. To answer the nom's question, it is indeed used enough to be in a collegiate dictionary, but not frequently from what I understand. Only time I've ever heard it was in a line from the film Alien. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirect and mention in Bullshit. It may be a regional thing, but in my experience horseshit's a somewhat stronger term than bullshit in the spectrum of crap. Acroterion _(talk) 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki per above--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as per above and mention in Bullshit. Bearian 23:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. John254 00:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

I just don't see why there should be such a massive article devoted to one aspect of one game. Looking over the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article, I see little that isn't in there that is particularly needed. While well-referenced, the level of detail to me seems to approach ridiculous levels. David Fuchs 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not sure it fails WP:NOT by a strict reading, but I must concur with the nominator - this is a level of detail to a specific topic that is not appropriate for a general knowledge encyclopedia. A merge might be proper, but I suspect not needed as the main article has a healthy "development" section already. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There are no guidelines of any kind on "level of detail", other than that the detailed information must be either be explaining a more notable whole, or that the details must have been covered by reliable sources specifically about them. The latter is the case here: many reliable sources have written articles specifically about the development of Oblivion, making the development of the game suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, with as much information as the sources and article length allow. The article fits WP:SIZE.
I agree with the above editors that the level of detail is approaching ridiculous levels. However, that is not because of this Wikipedia article, but because the amount of pre-game hype around games in major franchises exceeds all normal proportions. Not including this in Wikipedia would be terribly WP:IDONTLIKEIT: it is not up to us, Wikipedia editors, to exclude this if reliable sources have written about it. Changing the games press does not start here. Finally, "Detailed Histories" (what this article is) is not on WP:NOT#INFO. --User:Krator (t c) 15:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Krator. This article was split so as to comply with WP:SIZE and WP:SS recommendations. If we are to begin deleting policy compliant articles solely for their level of detail, then these guidelines are dangerously misleading. Geuiwogbil 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Since the main topic has established notability, there are no limits on the degree of expansion. If someone can trim it with reasonable justification (repetitions, hype, OR, etc.), go for it. Othewise there is no inherent harm to have it. `'Mїkka 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Yet another detailed, well-written, referenced article that I imagine has been branched out of the parent article at some point. WP:PAPER —Xezbeth 16:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is basically a time line of events during the development of the game. I think preview articles on the game give the topic notability Corpx 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Yikes. This is incredibly anal-retentive detail, definitely indiscriminate, and dare I say it -- crufty. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is indiscriminate the new buzzword? Even in that ridiculously overlinked to WP page, none of those five points relate to this article. —Xezbeth 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And, beyond that, it provides no guidance. It seems we must rely on Dictionary.com for our policy clarification:

in·dis·crim·i·nate (ĭn'dĭ-skrĭm'ə-nĭt) adj.

1. Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective: an indiscriminate shopper; indiscriminate taste in music.

2. Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale.

3. Confused; chaotic: the indiscriminate policies of the previous administration.

4. Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending.

Now, which one of those is this article supposed to be? Geuiwogbil 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like #4. Certainly is a large piece for one video game and its development. I have yet to see a video game article at FA that has that long a dev section. David Fuchs 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess that makes me the first! Geuiwogbil 21:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep This is foolish. Geuiwogbil 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- While you all are here, could one of you assess this article for GAC, or provide helpful, peer-review style commentary? Geuiwogbil 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Geuiwogbil 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep-Not seeing any valid reason to delete. A detailed and well referenced article on a notable subject is a good thing. Deleting an article because it covers its subject too well? Absurd.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Notable facet of the game, valid subarticle. Still, it's overly long and falls into minutae about how Bethesda set up their E3 demo room. I'd vote to delete ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion though, an utterly inconsequential piece of non-news, but then again we do have lots of other inconsequential pieces of non news like Essjay and Joshua Gardner. - hahnchen 19:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Now you've got your chance! Fuchs has nominated it for deletion too! Wonder where he got that idea? Geuiwogbil 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)~~ That bit was somewhat rude. Apologies. Geuiwogbil 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Well-researched, thoroughly referenced, notability established, obvious keep. — brighterorange (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well referenced article on a notable aspect of a notable game. I could see deleting it if it was on a fictional in universe topic like Development of the Death Star, but this is real world info that is covered in multiple reliable sources. If there are elements of the article that don't meet policy we can just remove them, the article itself should stay. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well researched and referenced, thus, making it exactly as detailed as required --omtay 38 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep There is an article on Development history of The Elder Scrolls series with a section on this; this could be absorbed into that, however, that article is long enough as is. This article does go into more detail possible than the main Oblivion article. Could do with some chopping down, but the topic warrants some decent coverage. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 12:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was also put up for deletion by David Fuchs --omtay 38 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge into the general development article. I'd prefer a merge because the content is all real-world and not a mix; however, an entire real-world article is a nice precedent, as it shows that fiction writers are also interested in the out-of-universe aspects (and it clearly passes WP:N and doesn't seem too indiscriminite, if a little overly detailed). This entire AfD is a serious problem; why are we discouraging subarticles on real-world aspects, when we are all obsessed with keeping subarticles on in-universe aspects? Think about it: you are sending the wrong message. Deletion is a ~~simpleton and childish~~ poor approach to problems like this; fix it appropriately by starting a merge proposal, and have respect for the people who are trying to set a precedent here. — Deckill er 22:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the keep vote, but I can't make out what you're suggesting in the first few sentences. What does the "it" in "it's all real-world" refer to? The content to be merged or the article into which the content will be merged? Do you like real-world/not real-world mixes, or do you dislike them? What would be setting a precedent? The merge? Not having an AFD? Who's trying to set precedent? Me? Fuchs? You? Geuiwogbil 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I added to the message; I wrote it as I was heading out the door. — Deckill er 02:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Geuiwogbil 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep, attributed article and meets notability. I oppose to merge into Development history of The Elder Scrolls series because it will increase highly article size. Carlosguitar 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable subject, appropriate as its own article due to length. Everyking 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Since the article is this long, it is clearly notable enough to stand alone as an article. I also just reviewed and passed this article for GA.--Danaman5 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. [Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the "Elder Scrolls" games beyond what I just read in Wikipedia.] This is a multi-award winning, very popular game and thus highly notable. Therefore the development of the game deserves a place in Wikipedia. However given the lengthy and detailed description, this aspect of the game's background needs its own article. Axl 09:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, detailed, well sourced, notable subject etc. Fin ©™ 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Scientism. John254 00:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific fundamentalism

Completely POV original research. "Scientific fundamentalism" is only used as a pejorative term by those who wish to erroneously equate science with religious movements. Groupthink 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ There's room for a balanced article on the use of this term, but this isn't it, or even the beginnings of it. I'd edit it to remove the POV, but that would mean blanking the page. Iain99 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Added: better still to redirect to scientism per Leinad-Z below. Iain99 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I agree with Iain99. Oliver Keenan 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Iain99 says it all here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
delete Drivel. Nick mallory 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
delete per Iain99 - superβεεcat 23:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. While I agree the present article is inherently PoV and would be hard to fix, it appears to be a valid topic. Is it worth retaining a stub and pointing the History of Science WikiProject people at it? Does anyone have access to the Nature article linked, even just to extract a proper citation? Espresso Addict 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I considered stubifying it, but the way I'd have done it would just have left a dicdef as I don't have the knowledge to write much more, and tbh my patience for reading creationist sites is too limited to do the research myself. But if anyone else would like to rewrite it in the next few days then I'll say keep. However, the article has been up for a year - if nobody improves it soon it would be better to delete and let a future editor start from scratch. ~~I'll look at the Nature article from work later - if there's enough in it for a valid stub I might change my mind~~Iain99 07:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Added The Nature reference (Philip Clayton, Nature 409, 979-980 (22 February 2001) | doi:10.1038/35059152) is a review of "In search of unity" by Mary Midgley. It doesn't contain the phrase "scientific fundamentalism" so it's not a good place to start. Iain99 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unless this can be expanded, referenced and made a hell of a lot more interesting, it can't be saved. This is little more than a dictionary definition and a link to a website. Mandsford 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment What substitute are systematic research methods and firsthand empirical data for superstition and ignorance? ~ Infrangible 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete article has way too many problems as evident by the numerous tags.--Sefringle^Talk 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete and salt POV fork, possible WP:SOAP violation. Suggest salting as well--the title essentially SAYS it's POV. Blueboy96 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Let's keep salting for if the article gets recreated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- At least one tenured academic has used the term in the title of a book so there may be potential for a proper article. No need to salt unless it gets recreated in something like its current form. Iain99 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Iain. No salt per Dennis --omtay 38 20:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete and salt as per nom, Iain99, Blueboy96, and Dennisthe2. Bullocks, Bullshit. Bearian 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
(Further) comment. I'm rather disturbed by the 'delete and salt' comments here. Scientific fundamentalism is, as far as I'm aware, a recognised critique of the scientific method and, in particular, the application of scientific judgements to real world decision making. As a scientist, I don't agree with much of what its adherents say, but that doesn't make it invalid. It might be difficult to create a neutral poV article, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth attempting. Espresso Addict 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not calling for salting here, just deletion... but "recognised" by whom? I'm not denying that the scientific method has been critiqued, but who frames said critiques as "scientific fundamentalism"? I appreciate the cite that Iain99 came up with, but that's one citation of an article by an English professor in an obscure journal. I'd like more, please. Groupthink 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Response. I admit I'd never heard this precise term before, but I have often come across the critique it appears to represent. A quick Google search on this/very similar terms, turns up for example, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (this and other similar sites state that the 'Ten Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism' they quote originate in The Wall Street Journal, 1993), [7] (quotes a piece by Bryan Appleyard in New Scientist, possibly [8]). Espresso Addict 00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Those first few cites smack of POV phrase-mongering: much as I'd love to use the term "anti-choice" here on WP, in deference to neutrality I employ "pro-life". However, there might be something of substance in those last few refs, but is there really enough to support a whole article, especially given that "scientific fundamentalism" appears to be a neologism? Can it really be argued that there's a formal scientific fundamentalist movement or belief system? I'd push for a redirect ~~to something like naturalistic fallacy or science wars instead~~. Groupthink 00:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a complete amateur in this area, but on a quick scan neither article seems to encompass the precise scientific fundamentalist critique, though it could perhaps be added to the science wars article. The 1993 date of the The Wall Street Journal reference, if correct, would tend to suggest it isn't a neologism. Espresso Addict 01:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 85 hits on Google Scholar Not as many as I expected (and I was even more surprised that there were only 619 on Google proper), but Google is not the sole arbiter of notability and there might be enough there for someone to write an article. I'm not going to do it myself, partly because I don't have easy access to most of the journals, partly because reading things with "postmodernism" in the title is bad for my blood pressure and partly because I think the term is pretty silly and wouldn't know where to start writing an article which took it seriously. But that's just my opinion - if someone with access to a university library disagrees and thinks they can manage it I don't think we should stop them trying. Iain99 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there's enough there to write a brief article, but I too have neither the expertise nor the access to an appropriate library. I'll pop a note to the History of Science WikiProject; someone there might perhaps be interested. Espresso Addict 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per most previous comments. Rjm at sleepers 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to "scientism". Common current usages of scientism seem similar enough to the topic discussed in the article. If someday one can write a meaningful page about the term "Scientific fundamentalism" alone, then it can cease to be a redirect. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 12:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Redirect to scientism. Groupthink 14:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. I agree with Leinad, have changed recommendation accordingly. Iain99 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Another me too, for a redirect to scientism. Espresso Addict 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal. If no one objects, at this time tomorrow I will withdraw my AfD nom and redirect this page to scientism. Groupthink 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not an objection, merely a question. What will happen to the current contents of the page? Shouldn't the content of Scientism be modified before redirection, otherwise it's simply a back door deletion. Rjm at sleepers 07:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary: Unlike with a deletion, the contents of this page will remain in page history. Plus, I'll post the page contents to Talk:Scientism with a note that scientific fundamentalism has been redirected there. Groupthink 09:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a sentence to the introduction of scientism along the lines of "The term scientific fundamentalism has also been used to refer to similar concepts". The "recent examples" could then be incorporated into the scientism article if someone can find sources showing that these things have actually been notably described as scientific fundamentalism. The term seems to be less widely used than I thought, I don't think it's certain that they will have been. Iain99 08:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with adding the sentence. If we've come to consensus on the deletion + redirect, the discussion on the details should probably be moved to the talk page of scientism. The list of links that have been dug up here should probably be copied there. Espresso Addict 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Husker

Promotion of YouTube material; not encyclopedic. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete / Strong delete Blatant spam, not notable (the videos, not the team), just a list without content. - superβεεcat 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete fancruft, spam, and The Play didn't occur in the 2005 Alamo Bowl regardless of what Nebraska fans and the authors of this article may think. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete spam.Merkinsmum 19:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP is not a directory of links Corpx 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. Comes pretty close to being an A3 as well. Blueboy 96 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN, spam, and linkage --omtay 38 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - per WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:NN. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 20:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and above discussion. Bearian 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devotional Ministry of Trance

Possible non notable group, sorted under Wikiproject notability. Article claims significant news coverage, but I was unable to find any mention on Google News and only trivial mention through a standard google search. Daniel J. Leivick 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete does not establish notability of group.TheRingess (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails notability, no citations establish notability other than the unsourced assertion that an author mentions it in a book - superβεεcat 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete top google hit is this article, not notable --omtay 38 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Agree not notable, but wikipedia articles very often are top google hits in my experience. Google "stork" "hexagon" or "apples" to see what I mean. - superβεεcat 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Another comment Ohh, i know that. What I meant to imply was that the only other quick and dirty representation of the existence of this group was the very article itself :-) --omtay 38 02:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H. S. Paul School

I realize that schools are typically notable, but this contains almost no content whatsoever other than contact information and a website. Rackabello 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize that it has very little content at this point, but could you please hold off for a day or two? I'm working on adding more. Nikkimaria 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Except in some cut and dry speedy delete cases (which this is not one) AfD's don't happen overnight, you've got about five days before an admin makes a final decision. If your article is looking promising by then, it'll likely be kept, schools are generally notable. Didn't mean to discourage you, I only listed this for deletion because when I saw it it had no content. Rackabello 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This one's kind of tricky, as schools aren't inherently notable -- but on the other hand, individual school articles seem to almost always survive AfDs (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know...). Article at least features sufficient context now, so the reasons for deletion are no longer valid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if this was a high school, but this is just an elementary school! Are kindergarten's notable too? Corpx 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Just another cookie-cutter elementary school like thousands of others. What's next, articles for every fire hydrant? (Plenty of 'individual school articles' have been deleted over the past 6 years, especially common elementary schools.) Seattlenow 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability for elementary schools. Corpx 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete but I would contest the deletion of New York Fire Hydrant #452b ;-) --omtay 38 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, elementary schools are generally nn.--JForget 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Louis Riel School Division as per AfD precedent. TerriersFan 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete I really dont see notability besides the services and subjects that are generally provided. Not that it's impossible, just that it isn't here with this one now. DGG (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above discussion. Lots of elementary schools across North America provide the same services. Possibly merge as per TerriersFan. Bearian 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge into an appropriate compendium, or delete if no-one can be bothered to do that; there is no claim of notability, and can someone point me to a policy that says that schools are inherently or generally notable? SamBC 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. The article is reasonably well-sourced now, and it has been pointed out that his notability stems from more than just his candidacy in the Big Brother TV show. Sala Skan ^{(Review me)} 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Durden

Non-noteable, failed Reality TV contestant. The article is full of trivia about Oompa-Loompas and cites sources from tabloid newspapers. He was only in Big Brother for 2 weeks and the article is unlikely to expand. I don't think being rich means you're noteable.Dalejenkins 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Big Brother 2007 (UK). Propaniac 17:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge any important information, then redirect per Propanic Conditional Keep If the article can be fleshed out more. --omtay 38 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge or Delete, The Secret Millionaire series deserves an article better than this entry
Merge to Big Brother 2007 (UK) Will ^(talk) 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep If he was only known for being on Big Brother I'd agree with a redirect, but since he's been on two notable programmes that doesn't seem appropriate (even if one doesn't have an article yet). The article obviously needs a lot of improving, but that's not a reason for deletion. Iain99 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC) PS removed the nonsense about Oompa-Loompas
~~Keep~~ I created this on the basis, that there were a large amount of sources about him, independant of his time on Big Brother, which certainly aren't relevant to Big Brother, he is known for other things, such as the journalism. I agree that the nonsense about the Oompa-Loompas isn't needed, I just copied over what was there. The article is still rather thin, but not for a lack of sources, rather a lack of filling out the article. John Hayes^talk 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Keep - As said above, if the article is filled out. John Hayes^talk 10:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep, I think failed is a bit harsh, he left to attend a funeral. He had done stuff before entering the house and this stuff is not relevant for the BB article, leave it until the end of the series at least, and if he has been heard from then delete it. Darrenhusted 12:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair we can't keep it just because something might happen, but I feel there is enough in the article already (with a bit of filling out needed). John Hayes^talk 12:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. What a pointless article-not noteable. Bravedog 18:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, he has done a lot more than BB and I was pleased to be able to follow that up 88888 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. But suerly there's so little infomation that it could be merged with the Big Brother article? Dalejenkins 08:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would disagree, as most of the information is not relevant to an article on Big Brother. John Hayes^talk 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. So you're telling me that infomation about a Housemate's life can not be included in their biography section on the Big Brother series article in which they were in??? Dalejenkins 10:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's like arguing we should merge all the information on Tom Cruise into the Top Gun article. Neil ╦ 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes Dale that is exactly what I am saying, a lot of it has no relevance to an article on Big Brother, the Big Brother wikiproject is quite clear on what should and shouldn't be in an the housemates section. John Hayes^talk 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep, published writer, appeared on multiple television programs, business owner. While just being on a gameshow does not necessarily make someone notable, it also does not mean someone notable for other works suddenly becomes non-notable; that would be silly. Neil ╦ 19:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tarmac (student newspaper)

This is a high school newspaper that fails [[WP:]] and WP:N. Though it claims multiple awards, a Google search here shows up just one independently verified award here which is one given by a local church newspaper. None of the 'alumni' have their own Wikipedia articles. Finally, there are no sources on the page. Undoubtedly a worthy paper but I don't see the multiple reliable sources required to keep. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability; specific information and references about awards might change that. Propaniac 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete I have selectively merged two paragraphs into the article on Chaminade High School. For GFDL purposes (though it's not really necessary), I recommend blanking the article and redirecting it to that same page. It's not notable in it's own right as a newspaper. Shalom ^Hello 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable high school paper. NawlinWiki 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete sadly. I'm not a fan of squelching High School Journalism. Ahh well. --omtay 38 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete the High school article makes mention of the Journal, although some info from here can be transferred to the High school article.--JForget 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above, and sadly as per Omtay38. Can the best be merged back into the parent article? Bearian 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I have completed the merge back of the key facts and the one award reference I can find. Bridgeplayer 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gash (slang)

Dicdef, pure and simple. HArdly notable. `'Mїkka 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom - Not a dictionary, especially one of slang Corpx 16:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete article is completely gash ;-) --omtay 38 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)*
Delete - This is what the urban dictionary is for. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, gash is relatively common slang here, but that ain't what it means. --Charlene 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article is just wrong, the word means 'rubbish' because it primarily means what the fair Charlene is hinting at. Nick mallory 23:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above, esp. Charlene and Jayvdb. That's Nasty. Bearian 23:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retroactive abortion

A combination of Original research, soap-boxery, and neologism that is a fairly obvious POV-fork. Throw in bad-writing, tendentious argument, and other vices too many too mention, and this article really doesn't belong. Bucketsofg 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom. Bucketsofg 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Note I stubbed the article to remove some of the unacceptable, unsourced and libelous content. Currently it is no more than a dicdef. Since it is a real term I am not sure it should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:DICT. Should go in the Wiktionary. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Should go in the Urban Dictionary perhaps, but as an unnotable non-universal term, has no place in either WP or WK. Groupthink 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:DICT. It's a common enough phrase, but it's a dicdef. The definition given doesn't even match what "retroactive abortion" means - it's usually applied towards adults, whether just annoying or truly criminal. I have never once heard it used in relation to a child, not once, ever. --Charlene 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete poor quality dicdef, unless some evidence is produced that something could be made of this. Oliver Keenan 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Oliver has this one right, this one isn't even well written. Maybe submit to Wiktionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete (G3) and salt Obviously unencyclopedic, thus fitting the definition of pure vandalism. Should be salted as well. Blueboy96 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is the second such !vote from you I've seen. Are you trying to prove a WP:POINT? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete but no salt. This term could be wiki-linked to later in it's life from things other than the AfD and might deserve a redirect or something then (perhaps to abortion). --omtay 38 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom, WP:HOAX, and above discussions. Bearian 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saskatchewan in popular culture

Yet another cluttered, crufty and trivial popular culture article. One example from the article: Punk band No Fun At All's song "My Extraordinary Mind" contains the lyrics "Sunday afternoon, I was bending every spoon/Stopping all the clocks in Saskatoon." I see no importance in that at all. The province being mentioned in numerous songs and all that isn't notable. As I've stated before (and others have too): put the notable ones in the article and leave it at that. Don't branch it off to a massive list that is out of control. RobJ1981 20:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete little to no encyclopedic content. I agree with the nominator, a prose section in the main Saskatchewan article can include some of the notable examples, but a separate article is not needed. The picture at the top says it all, the fact that the word Saskatchewan is used on a Scrabble board in a movie is completely meaningless. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- Nothing more than fan cruft. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - It is cruft. Nothing but primarily pointless cruft. As suggested take the notable trivia and place it appropriately. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete there are no WP:RSes that Saskatechewan in popular culture is a notable phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Again, some random mentions in movies and TV shows is not what "culture" is. If any of this is notable, and I don't think it is, it can go in the main article. --Charlene 21:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even if I'm Canadian, this article is another classic example of listcruft trivia with little references.--JForget 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete load of crap. Per nom. Oliver Keenan 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean-up irrelevant items. Was written with content removed from the Saskatchewan article (is a sub-article), keeps trivial info out of the main article. --Qyd 00:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree this info is trivial but we shouldn't have a separate article to act as fly paper to keep the trivia out of the main article. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as yet another collection of loosely associated items. If it doesn't belong in the main article it doesn't belong in its own garbage spin-off article. Better here than there is no reason for creating or keeping an article full of trivia. Otto4711 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep Even if contents of article is a bit Non notable there needs to be an article about Sask in popular culture, it's better than having it in the Saskatchewan article, and I think this article warrants no more than cleanup.JoeyETS 06:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"It's better than having it in the Saskatchewan article," in other words, better here than there. If the only reason for having an article is because not having it would clutter the main article, then there shouldn't be an article. The solution to trivial crap in the main article is to delete it, not to spin it off into a separate crap articl and make it someone else's problem. Otto4711 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep I agree that Wikipedia is an encylopedia and should have mostly serious, important articles. But here is a case of, we have a serious article, Saskatchewan, and then we have a sub-article, that supplements it in a light, fun way. It's a separate article and people who aren't interested in that aspect of the topic don't have to click on the link to the sub-article; those who are interested can. I don't see any harm in that. Perhaps it could use a bit of trimming down, but I think that's all it needs.Moisejp 02:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid AfD argument. Resolute 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per precident. Nothing more than a list of trivia. Resolute 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Cruft, subjective, unmaintainable. Blueboy 96 13:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to avoid, for which the example: "Delete as cruft" is given: "The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted." Also, in Wikipedia:Fancruft it says that "there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects." That makes invalid all of your arguments such as "Delete. It is cruft." and "Delete load of crap." and any argument saying that it is nothing more than trivia.Moisejp 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Like most "X in popular culture" articles, this is just an indiscriminate collection of information and completely unencyclopaedic. Books and films about Saskatchewan should be discussed in the main article - I count about six, before pruning for notability, so they wouldn't clutter it. Books and films which contain a one line mention of Saskatchewan should be listed on another website, if anywhere. Iain99 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. "Keep it because it keeps trivia out of the main article" is a terrible reason for keeping this article. The reason we seek to eliminate trivia sections is because typically the information does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia in the first place. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and certainly isn't an indiscriminate collection of what effectively amounts to keyword search results. Skeezix1000 19:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete and, perhaps, merge the few notable mentions back into Saskatchewan --omtay 38 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Most of the article breaks the principles of Wikipedia:Verifiability, particularly the lyrics and lines from comedy sketches, movies and cartoons. PKT 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above discussion, but merge back some useful content as per Omtay38. With all due respect, I think most cases of listcruft are fairly obvious -- like porn, you know it when you see it. A few cases are difficult ones, because (a) they are not obvious, (b) they have more than one nontrivial cite, (c) there is well-known/independently verifiable cultural impact, and (d) numerous non-SLA editors have edited content and references. This article has a single source and not much else except a long list of cross-references by wikilinks. Bearian 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Woah that scrabble picture is HUGE...but I can just make out the man's words..."After precise examination, we've found zero evidence of notability"....If your province's mention in pop culture is so background that you have to magnify it and ask people to look back there and around the corner to see it...all you've got is a list of trivia. Can someone save this for the Wikipedia:Handy guide to grading in popular culture articles? Canuckle 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The article on Saskatchewan should certainly include significant aspects of its representation in popular culture, such as Corner Gas and Little Mosque on the Prairie, but Wikipedia absolutely doesn't need a list of every individual time the name "Saskatoon" popped up in a song lyric or a David Letterman Top 10 list. We don't need it in Saskatchewan's article, and we don't need it in a forked list, either. Delete. And start pruning and/or killing all "X in popular culture" articles, too. Bearcat 22:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep' or delete all wikipdia in popular culture articles.... In comparison to other articles at In popular culture articles, Saskatchewan in popular culture is as good, the same or better. Would the format be better if it was modified the appearance and styling of Wikipedia in culture? If the article can be cleaned up according to Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and the description of fictional places as objects of the narrative I believe it should be kept. Keep... if an increase is shown in the amount of references of the author's intention as well as stating the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world. Work on this article in this regard has commenced. Please advise if direction taken is improving. As a personal Saskatchewanian I take offence that a province of 588,276.09 square kilometres (227,134.67 sq mi) and population of 968,157 is not considered notable and is misspelled from some deletionists, and is considered trivia as mentioned above. Pop culture influence society and its institutions in various ways. Culture refers to the real world and its patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance as pertaining to the province of Saskatchewan. I have emailed No fun at all to find out what the reference was to stopping at the eateries in our slow paced relaxed city of Saskatoon, and making time stand still on a Thursday afternoon. I will publish the answer when they reply. SriMesh | talk 05:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Erm... nobody's saying that Saskatchewan isn't notable - just that an obsessively compiled list of every random mention of Saskatchewan in "popular culture" (whatever that is - as opposed to unpopular culture perhaps?) isn't notable. The same would be true of any state, province or country. As it stands this article tells the reader nothing useful whatsoever about Saskatchewan, except perhaps that it's occasionally used by songwriters in need of a rhyme, and even that's my interpretation, not something stated in the text. As with most of these things, there is room for a properly sourced article or section which uses significant works about Saskatchewan to demonstrate how it is perceived in culture - which aspects of it are most frequently depicted and have any of its people or places become iconic - and are Saskatchewanians generally happy with the way their province is viewed by the outside world, or have there been efforts to improve it? If you think you can write it I'll have no objections. Incidentally, I'm increasingly in favour of killing all "X in popular culture" articles and sections, as the term seems to be taken as a license to compile obsessive trivia. The few salvageable ones which attempt to tell the reader something useful about their subject should be renamed "Cultural influence of X" or "Cultural depictions of X" as happened with the Joan of Arc one. Iain99 08:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Canuckle 12:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I know I already made my comments, but I would just like to note that according to listcruft the removal of listcruft is not official wikipedia policy, but merely an opinion of some. JoeyETS 15:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)