Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists: Difference between revisions
Listing List of Kesha songs |
Archiving closed XfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists/archive Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DeletionSortingCleaner |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Mumbai}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Mumbai}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Barcelona squad numbers}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Barcelona squad numbers}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of science fiction film and television series by lengths}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cinemas in Thailand}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cinemas in Thailand}} |
Revision as of 17:29, 24 June 2010
![]() | Points of interest related to Lists on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Assessment – Style – To-do |
![]() |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Lists. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
Purge page cache | watch |
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people
Lists
- 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. Tone 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Kesha songs
- List of Kesha songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article contains no references, is poorly written and she already has a Discography page, page is non-sense. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 08:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All of this is covered on Kesha Discography Btilm 15:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Kesha discography already exists. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not necessarily nonsense, but definitely redundant when Kesha discography already exists. Also, the unverified list of unreleased songs is just fan trivia. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speddy Delete its just an unnessasary other page. STAT -Verse 03:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Undeniable delete, this should have been deleted using speedy nom because it recreates material already existant. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge into Kesha discography. The redundancy issue is valid and as long as information is not lost via deletion then merging is not necessary. The argument that this list (redundant or not) is OR because the article title has never been published is without merit, and reflects an extremely minority position that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of WP:OR in relationship to article titles.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge into the discography article; totally redundant (and possibly a CSD#A10). —fetch·comms 21:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 23:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of flora (LCRV-picturesEZ)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesEZ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesFZ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesJK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesLA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesLI-2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesQR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesSA-SE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesSE-SL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesCA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of flora (LCRV-picturesSA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It has been over three years since the last discussion on these lists, which I think merit another look. Last time around, the discussion centered on these articles' usefulness as a "field guide," but Wikipedia is not a guide. It also seems to be an abuse of the gallery script, see WP:IG. Many species are represented more than once with multiple images. The worst problem appears to be a complete lack of references that these species occur in the area claimed. This is something we usually take care of with categories, e.g. Category:Flora of the Great Basin desert region Rkitko (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wikimedia Commons, or if already there, delete all, this article was tagged to be copied there. These dont appear to be encyclopedia articles, and i dont think they could be turned into such without renaming and restructuring entirely. no refs doesnt help. some of the target articles dont indicate this is in the plants precise range, so not accurate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue against page transwiki to Commons. As far as I can tell, all the images are already on Commons, but the galleries would need a slash-and-burn before any transwiki. Like I said above, the same plant is often represented by multiple images, but most worrying is that the Lower Colorado River Valley is a poorly-defined geographical area. These plants may occur in the vicinity. I think it would be much easier if someone, working from a WP:RS, would start anew on a single gallery at Commons where each species only had one picture. I don't think these galleries would be any help in that effort as one could easily just search for the species again on Commons, making better choices than those in these pages. Rkitko (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Image galleries belong on Commons and these images are already categorized over there. Resolute 01:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia pages should not be "Mere collections of photographs or media files". In my opinion these pages have insufficient encyclopaedic context to be suitable for the project; as has been said above, Commons would be a more appropriate location. Guest9999 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as Wikipedia is NOT a repository of images. Tavix | Talk 00:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as image galleries. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of neighborhoods in Greenville, South Carolina
- List of neighborhoods in Greenville, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The neighborhoods in Greenville, South Carolina are that of the country and not that of the city proper. Chris (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't appear to be a reason to delete, as it's a problem that could be resolved by editing (and possibly moving) the page. snigbrook (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if anything, this could be covered in Greenville, South Carolina. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to The Sunday Telegraph. Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Top Track 100
- Top Track 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- The article is about a list published by a newspaper. I don't see why we should have an article that can focus only on a single POV.
- It has to be updated yearly.
Delete it or at best merge it with The Sunday Telegraph Forty twoYou talkin' to me? 04:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — Merge with The Sunday Telegraph in a severely cut down version. Kudos to the creator of the article, though. This information is just better kept on the newspaper website and not Wikipedia. mboverload@ 05:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of cities in the European Union with more than 100,000 inhabitants
- List of cities in the European Union with more than 100,000 inhabitants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are two problems with the article. One problem, which in itself doesn't merit deletion, is its poor quality. Different users happily put in the numbers they want for each city; sometimes with best intentions, sometimes with patriotic intentions. There is no single source on which the list is based, explaining why it's in such a bad shape. In short, for some cities the population of a greater area is included, for other cities just the population of the city proper. The only purpose of the list, I assume, is to provide a ranked list of European cities. The list is useless for that purpose, as the different figures used are not comparable. This far, I've merely mentioned a (severe) problem that could be fixed. However, I don't see any purpose of this list. We already have so many lists of cities in the European Union that we could make a list of those lists... There's Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits, Largest urban areas of the European Union, List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population, Largest population centres in the European Union. As this article is in a bad state, not possible to fix (there's no source to use) and quite frankly rather redundant, I suggest it be deleted. I don't see it adding any useful information to that found in the other four articles listed above. Jeppiz (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Each city listed has its own article, many of those contain population data with references. Seems this might be usefull to someone (students looking for jobs in larger cities, travelers, etc). Seems to conform to WP:LIST. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really buy either argument, but the only one relevant to deleting or not is the second one. The information might be useful but did you take the time to check out all the existing lists? The first one (out of the five lists of cities in the EU) is exactly the same as this one, except that it stops at 300.000 and this one stops at 100.000. If the information is useful, it would make more sense to include the cities with less than 300.000 and more than 100.000 in that list, instead of having this as a fifth list of cities in the EU.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was prepared to say keep because of the topic, but it's ridiculous that the "sources" are other Wikipedia articles. Lazy ass work like that is okay for things that people would not be expected to take seriously, but not for something that is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. So we're supposed to assume that the numbers are accurate? I don't think so. Take your collection of little flags somewhere else. Mandsford 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sourced articles have their populations sourced. Someone just needs to do their homwork and add the correct sources to the list. Clean up is not a reason for deletion. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but repetitive and redudant articles certainly are. I'm pointing out again, for the third time, that there are five(!) separate lists for ranking cities in the EU by population. Have you even read my motives for starting the AfD and looked at the other lists?Jeppiz (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List articles, by nature, are redundant. So are most catagories for that matter. (WP:CLN) However WP has plenty of space and as long as the list has a unique criteria for inclusion (which it does) I see no reason to delete. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And what would that unique critieria be? Going all the way to down to 100.000 instead of the one stopping at 300.000? By the same logic, we could create 20 more lists with cities in the EU. One could stop at 200.000, one at 150.000, one at 80.000 and so on. In your opinion, how many different lists ranking the population of cities in the EU do we need? I struggle to understand why five is the magic number...Jeppiz (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List articles, by nature, are redundant. So are most catagories for that matter. (WP:CLN) However WP has plenty of space and as long as the list has a unique criteria for inclusion (which it does) I see no reason to delete. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but repetitive and redudant articles certainly are. I'm pointing out again, for the third time, that there are five(!) separate lists for ranking cities in the EU by population. Have you even read my motives for starting the AfD and looked at the other lists?Jeppiz (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sourced articles have their populations sourced. Someone just needs to do their homwork and add the correct sources to the list. Clean up is not a reason for deletion. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In an attempt to rescue the article, Gtstricky has started adding references to it. While the effort certainly is commendable, it highlights two problems:
- 1.Despite my stating in every post here that the main problem is the redundancy (we have five lists about this), Gtstricky still seems to think that the problem is the numbers. It's not.
- 2. In adding "sources", Gtstricky has made my point better than I could have done myself. He has added references for the first three cities. For London, the reference is "Woodlands Junior School"... Bad as it is, it still pales in comparison to the source for Madrid, being an Iranian tourist agency. Sure, we can find some numbers for any city if we search the web and happily ignore WP:RS but what's the value of such a list? If a junior school and an Iranian tourist agency is what we resort to for London and Madrid, what on earth will we add as sources for small cities in Bulgaria or Latvia? The list is a mishmash of WP:OR, as Gtstricky has exemplified very well.
So once again: the numbers in the list are not reliable, but even if they were, the list would be completely redudant as there already are four lists ranking cities in the EU.Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had spent all of 5 minutes looking fro references. I just went and changed them to official census data. As for the multiple list arguements, see above. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't get me wrong, I said that your effort is commendable. Still, it did highlight the problem of wildly improper sources being used and a general lack of reliability. At the moment, around 10 out of almost 500 cities are sourced, the rest are just random numbers.Jeppiz (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had spent all of 5 minutes looking fro references. I just went and changed them to official census data. As for the multiple list arguements, see above. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd note that a similarly-named article (List of cities in the United States with over 100,000 people) was moved to List of United States cities by population. I agree that there are problems with having "the statistics that anyone can edit" and that we seem to have problems with redundant lists. If this is neglected and has become inaccurate, then I would change my vote to delete.
- Comment The problem with the other (redundant) lists is that they are much less comprehensive. --Boson (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 100,000 is a typical division point. In Germany, for instance it is the dividing line between a city (Großsstadt) and a town (Stadt). So the list for more than 100,000 would suggest itself as the one to keep, if any are to be deleted. If the other lists are better sourced, the references could be copied from there. See, for instance, List of cities in Germany with more than 100,000 inhabitants --Boson (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentSince verification seems to be a problem, I have downloaded the latest available figures (last update May 2010) from the Eurostat database and put them on the article's talk page. There may be some discrepancies, so the table may need adjusting, and it would probably be sensible to add the reference year, since some countries only supply older data. If these data are added to the table, that should make it not only the most comprehensive but also the best and most consistently sourced table; so we could then consider whether to delete the other redundant articles or, if they contain additional information, merge them with this article. --Boson (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Boson. Plenty of maps have towns identified by population, and the 100k threshold is one of them. Perfectly fine list, with a clear inclusion criteria. If the article is of poor quality, as the nom states, then fix it. Lugnuts (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Legitimate doubts about the accuracy of numbers do not fall in the category of "so fix it". This isn't a question of grammar or punctuation. We're still a long way from overcoming the stereotype of "You can't believe anything you see on Wikipedia". A big thank you to User:Jeppiz for nominating a page that was pretending to be an encyclopedia article. Mandsford 18:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. This list is an amalgam of existing list that are published, but it is still an original topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This list meets WP:list albeit much of the deletion rationale above about the sourcing, redundancy and inherently problematic issues with dynamic data such as population information are legitimate points for discussion. None of that rationale is strong enough to warrant deletion, but argues for article improvement. The deletion rationale claiming this list is OR because the list title has never been published anywhere is entirely without merit, displays a true lack of understanding of our policies on OR and is a tired refrain seen in too many List related AfDs that will become no more true no matter how many times it is repeated. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, at least put a big disclaimer on the top that says "We have no idea where the authors got this stuff, they could have made the numbers up for all we know, one would have to be a f***ing idiot to rely upon this for any purpose, Wikipedia was not intended to be taken seriously." Mandsford 13:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandsford, I don't necessarily disagree with you, although such a strong caveat might be detrimental to our credibility. That said, city populations are available in reliable publications--online and in print. We just need to find them and cite them in the article. Additionally, a bit more data about the timeframe as to when the population figure applies will make this a much more useful list. Our job as editors is to find ways to improve these types of articles and encourage and help others learn how to do the same.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, at least put a big disclaimer on the top that says "We have no idea where the authors got this stuff, they could have made the numbers up for all we know, one would have to be a f***ing idiot to rely upon this for any purpose, Wikipedia was not intended to be taken seriously." Mandsford 13:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, wouldn't it be better if this was in userspace until someone can verify it? The big mistake— and it's a huge one—- was for someone to compile this table without putting in any way to verify it. When it comes to statistics, not bothering to mention where the information came from is incredibly stupid, and it shouldn't be accepted. Put another way, if someone writes that Barcelona is the capital of Spain, I know fairly quickly that it's a mistake and that it can be corrected. But if someone tosses out the number that the population of Barcelona is 1,605,602 people, I don't know, and all sorts of questions come up-- When? Based on what? Who says? But most of all, where did you get that from? I can't see keeping an article on display to avoid hurting someone's feelings. And I certainly can't see keeping it as a backlash to the usual comments by Gavin Collins. He has his own view of what Wikipedia should be, but to the extent that they have any effect on the outcome of a debate, I think they result more often in an article being kept. This one needs to be kept in userspace until it's ready to be an encyclopedia artcle. Mandsford 16:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for a disclaimer. As I wrote above, I have put Eurostat data on the talk page. Just replace the data with the sourced data that I have already placed on the article's talk page. I think Eurostat must count as a reliable source for population data. I am not an expert with tables, and I didn't want to go to the trouble of putting the data on the article page while the deletion debate is still going on. Also, it wouldn't hurt for someone else to check the data. But anyone can take the data from the talk page at any time. --Boson (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Boson, Thanks for your initative on this one. Hopefully we can get the data and sourcing integrated in due course.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for a disclaimer. As I wrote above, I have put Eurostat data on the talk page. Just replace the data with the sourced data that I have already placed on the article's talk page. I think Eurostat must count as a reliable source for population data. I am not an expert with tables, and I didn't want to go to the trouble of putting the data on the article page while the deletion debate is still going on. Also, it wouldn't hurt for someone else to check the data. But anyone can take the data from the talk page at any time. --Boson (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of logos used in Logorama
- List of logos used in Logorama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The logos are certainly an important aspect of the film but mostly appear in vast number for fractions of a second, and mostly appear arbitrarily, although some are put to clever use. I suggest leaving the notable ones (probably Michelin tires, Ronald McDonald, and Big Boy) as part of the plot summary of the main article and deleting this list. .froth. (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arsenal F.C. squad numbers
- Arsenal F.C. squad numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:NOT#STATS. This article, though it has a nice lede, contains no information of encyclopedic value. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Barcelona squad numbers Sandman888 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Luxic (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; a step too far into non-encyclopaedic stats assembly. Any interesting features can be summarised in the main article. TerriersFan (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTCRUFT. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The content is nice, and obviously well-researched, but the topic is not exactly encyclopaedic. – PeeJay 14:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any prose not already included in Arsenal F.C. strip to that article, do not merge the big tables -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom and previous AfD. GiantSnowman 22:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the prose (but not the table) to an article on the football club. Useful and decently sourced. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 15:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dissident Republican Attacks
- Dissident Republican Attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Totally unsourced; content duplicated from articles, list a duplication of properly sourced timeline articles and heavily biased towards recent events. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 22:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my nom. ninety:one 00:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am currently undecided on this, but considering a merge/redirect to Dissident republican or move to List of attacks attributed to Irish republican dissidents à la List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military, List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, or List of attacks against Israeli civilians before 1967. It seems as though with a proper introduction and referencing that this could be made into a legitimate article, but I'm not sure. Other than Republican Action Against Drugs, I'm not sure where this information might be duplicated from. Location (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per O Fenian: the information is copied from other lists that are much better constructed and referenced. Location (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There is nothing here not covered, better, elsewhere. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Adequately covered by Timeline of Real Irish Republican Army actions, Chronology of Continuity Irish Republican Army actions and other related articles, where this information was copied from in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Although the article is clearly in need of referencing, the consensus is to keep. I would recommend that some of the 'keep'ers perhaps try to find some reliable sources? If I get a chance later this week, I will try to look up some myself -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of world's largest roadside attractions
- List of world's largest roadside attractions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article with very unclear topic, the places in question have little if no notability, as they are not the "world's largest" anything. Voyaging(talk) 21:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The phenomenon of large objects as roadside attractions is clearly a notable one and needs to be addressed in some way on wikipedia. I think most if not all of these will be mentioned in local articles, so is quite a good idea to bring them all together in a list. Many indeed are the world's largest - the world's largest model of a guitar for example. I write as an Australian, as we are rather proud or perhaps sometimes bemused by the large objects that attract, or try to attract, tourists along our roads--Bduke (Discussion) 00:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Totally unsourced, which was pretty well accepted back in Wikipedia's old days, so I won't miss it if it's booted from here. However, it was and is a fine idea for an article topic. To the extent that something is listed in a published tour guide or another reliable, verifiable source as billing itself as the "world's largest _____", it would merit an entry on the list. I don't give a shit whether the world's largest ball of string or whatever would be notable enough for its own article-- some of these probably would be able to prove that they keep ending up in the newspaper on a regular basis or even editions of the Guinness book-- but I don't want to encourage people to make lots of individual articles about these dubious attractions. Mandsford 02:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. It sorely lacks references, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I agree that this is a fine idea for an article topic, but verifiability is not optional. The article has had plenty of time to be made compliant with WP:V and nothing has been done about it. Per WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." In February 2009, an editor added {{citation needed}} tags to challenge every unsourced item, but they were promptly removed: [1]. Location (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It needs serious help, but the subject is notable. Hash789 (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and possibly rename - Many (if not all) of these eccentric attractions are independently notable by our guidelines. As such, it seems only appropriate for us to comprehensively aggregate them in a way that is informative to our readers. — C M B J 00:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but turn it into one of those lists where every entry is a section, so more info can be included. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree keep it. Needs work but undeniably notable.AWHS (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and Keep. The current name indicates a vague inclusion criteria and smacks of Original Research. Perhaps a more appropriate name would be List of claimed largest roadside attractions. Regardless, the topic is notable. --PinkBull 20:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking that we should drop the 'largest' word all together, because that's really the root of the problem here. Perhaps we could work to refine something like List of giant roadside attractions. — C M B J 20:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. Removing "largest" and just leaving "giant" would make the inclusion criteria even more vague and would lead to the inclusion of all sorts of spammy non-notable attractions. --PinkBull 22:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of largest monoliths in the world seems of relevance here. — C M B J 02:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. Removing "largest" and just leaving "giant" would make the inclusion criteria even more vague and would lead to the inclusion of all sorts of spammy non-notable attractions. --PinkBull 22:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking that we should drop the 'largest' word all together, because that's really the root of the problem here. Perhaps we could work to refine something like List of giant roadside attractions. — C M B J 20:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and add sources. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. majority being concerned about the value of the list JForget 14:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of goals scored by African teams at the FIFA World Cup
- List of goals scored by African teams at the FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOT#STATS Luxic (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Similar lists for other continents don't exist. I wonder if African nations at the FIFA World Cup falls into a similar band. 91.106.97.16 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate information, nor is it The World Cup - The Complete History. Also, as stated above, other continents don't have such lists (although it'd be interesting to see how long the ones for Europe and South America would be). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and devoting an article to this subject certainly seems indiscriminate. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom, non-notable list. GiantSnowman 17:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while certainly an interseting list, it does not belong on wikipedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete - I'm African and I compiled this list because it would be of interest to other African football fans. Football is very important in Africa, as is Africa's story at the biggest football tournament in the world. Would you raise the same opposition to the Wikipedia lists in other parts of the world e.g. List of top England international rugby union points scorers and try scorers or List of Washington RFC honors or List of Kinston baseball people? Look people, having some sense of cultural objectivity here! Different things are important to different people in different places. I'm not saying those lists should be deleted; quite the opposite - I think people in England, Washington, or Kinston find thoses lists suitably interesting. The Wikipedia is a valuable repository of information people can show to their kids and neighbours. (PS: The same arguments apply to the article African nations at the FIFA World Cup that I created at the same time as this list.) Now, I had hoped that an African list/article would inspire historians from other confederations to create corresponding lists/articles. I'm now compiling - as originally intended and due to the first (unsigned, initially) complaint - the corresponding article and list for Asian World Cup history. I'm up to 1962, and it's very tricky owing to countries like Turkey and Israel moving between Asia and Europe in qualifying. It would be good to get help on it once its first draft is ready. I wouldn't personally create Europe or South American articles since their history is basically the history of the World Cup. This effort was for the 'smaller' confederations. The preceeding comment was left by the article's creator, who - rather ironically, given one of her sentences - didn't sign it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Ironic indeed. Apologies for following your non-signing example ;-) -Crabbylucy (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: you're completely missing the point. We're not proposing deletion on the concern that Africa is not notable (who would?!), instead because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Especially, when it comes to stats, which can easily be arranged in countless indiscriminate ways. We already have a list of FIFA World Cup goalscorers, and that's enough. No need to create six different lists, one for each confederation. By the way, if you really want to do something for the sake of African football fans, you might create/improve all the articles listed here. That would be way more helpful. — Luxic (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I would be happy to agree with O
- Comment: you're completely missing the point. We're not proposing deletion on the concern that Africa is not notable (who would?!), instead because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Especially, when it comes to stats, which can easily be arranged in countless indiscriminate ways. We already have a list of FIFA World Cup goalscorers, and that's enough. No need to create six different lists, one for each confederation. By the way, if you really want to do something for the sake of African football fans, you might create/improve all the articles listed here. That would be way more helpful. — Luxic (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I have no objection to having extensive coverage of the World Cup in Wikipedia, that does not mean that every possible way of analyzing the data from the World Cup needs to be a Wikipedia article. I would need to see some evidence that sports journalists consider "number of goals scored by a confederation in the World Cup" to be a meaningful statistic before I could support this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transfer. While I do understand the reason for the nomination, I believe this article is well constructed and offers value. I think the contents of this article should be transferred to the African nations at the FIFA World Cup article. I hate to see this great effort wasted. —Osa osa 5 (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, African nations at the FIFA World Cup might be deleted for basically the same reasons. I haven't nominated it yet only beacuse – as you pointed out – in a way it's sad to see such an effort wasted. — Luxic (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The information does already exist at List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers. As for the second article, that information too also exists at National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup#Results by confederation. 91.106.99.14 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the information on each goal at List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers is far less than in this list. Second, the compiled-confederation information available at National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup#Results by confederation is far, far less than in the article. Third, I think that transferring this list to the African nations at the FIFA World Cup article would be more than fine - I had originally intended that to be the case but the article was getting too long. Fourth, the list of articles that need to be made at Template:Football_in_Africa is all very - what's the word, cookie cutter?, but to say that only such articles should be written suppresses initiative - I'm sorry that my world view does not coincide with your world view. Fifth, would you folks make up your mind already? I'm over halfway through making the corresponding Asian article & list (see my Sandbox) and I'd like to know if it should be halted. All these condescending 'Oh we may only keep this list and article out of pity at best' and 'missing the point' remarks are very tiring, and I just want this over with. Thank you.-Crabbylucy (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's put it this way. I think your work is really good; I honestly do. What I mean by missing the point is that you should put your efforts in another direction. Instead of having six different articles by confederation, don't you agree it would be better to use your skills and knowledge to improve the single World Cup articles? I mean, most of them (e.g. 1966, but many others too) are in awful shape, and the info available at African nations at the FIFA World Cup would fit perfectly in them. — Luxic (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for thinking that my work is good. But I do wish you'd try to see my point. No, I definitely do not think that improving the individual World Cup articles is in any way comparable to the articles in question. The two kinds of articles are orthogonal in interest and I simply do not understand why you don't see the difference. Culture clash? Philosophy clash? Horizontal vs Vertical clash? Now, I've read several of the individual World Cup articles (and linked to them) and modified the few of them where I've found additional information worth putting in. -Crabbylucy (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the original complaint, I have compiled the full list of Goals by Asian countries in the World Cup in my sandbox. Haven't double checked it yet. (And yes, the inclusion of Turkey's 1954 goals is certainly debatable.) I won't bother making a new article with it until this discussion is complete. Mind you, I fully expect the final answer to be "The history of minority confederations is not worth documenting separately and should be deleted in accordance with the historical principle that the majority always wins" or some variant thereof. (Note that 'minority' is used in a footballing context to refer to Europe and South America.) Thank you. -Crabbylucy (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see the difference. But the fact is that consesus seems to be for not having the World Cup covered by confederation. And I mean none of them; be it UEFA, CONMEBOL, CAF, AFC, CONCACAF or OFC.
Anyway, bear in mind that this discussion is only about the list of African goalscorers, not the African nations at the FIFA World Cup, which – as I said before – has not yet been nominated for deletion. So, if you want to have a final answer about that, we should nominate it and see what people say. — Luxic (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Do what you will, you've clearly made your mind up already. I'm sorry that my cultural viewpoint does not fit within yours. As for consensus - you do realize who's voting here, right? That the people most likely to find this article informative live in countries where there is low Wikipedia usage and therefore wouldn't have heard of this article so soon, let alone know how wikipedia works or voted on this page? Or maybe that's your point - because most Wikipedia users don't live in Africa, it's not important that articles of interest to them be kept alive. I've offered counterarguments to every argument one of you proposed, and yet... You really don't get it, do you? I don't know why I'm surprised. I hope you've put notices of deletion for the other articles I listed at the start, and for so many other articles of interest to people solely within one country (or one region thereof) with high Wikipedia usage. I thought the Wikipedia encouraged diversity. Apparently not. Very well, I'll slink off now. I give up. Pat yourself on the back, you've won. I hope you're happy now. I don't plan to return to this discussion, this page, or updating these articles, or those in my sandbox, ever again. Goodbye.-Crabbylucy (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see the difference. But the fact is that consesus seems to be for not having the World Cup covered by confederation. And I mean none of them; be it UEFA, CONMEBOL, CAF, AFC, CONCACAF or OFC.
- Let's put it this way. I think your work is really good; I honestly do. What I mean by missing the point is that you should put your efforts in another direction. Instead of having six different articles by confederation, don't you agree it would be better to use your skills and knowledge to improve the single World Cup articles? I mean, most of them (e.g. 1966, but many others too) are in awful shape, and the info available at African nations at the FIFA World Cup would fit perfectly in them. — Luxic (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the information on each goal at List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers is far less than in this list. Second, the compiled-confederation information available at National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup#Results by confederation is far, far less than in the article. Third, I think that transferring this list to the African nations at the FIFA World Cup article would be more than fine - I had originally intended that to be the case but the article was getting too long. Fourth, the list of articles that need to be made at Template:Football_in_Africa is all very - what's the word, cookie cutter?, but to say that only such articles should be written suppresses initiative - I'm sorry that my world view does not coincide with your world view. Fifth, would you folks make up your mind already? I'm over halfway through making the corresponding Asian article & list (see my Sandbox) and I'd like to know if it should be halted. All these condescending 'Oh we may only keep this list and article out of pity at best' and 'missing the point' remarks are very tiring, and I just want this over with. Thank you.-Crabbylucy (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The information does already exist at List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers. As for the second article, that information too also exists at National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup#Results by confederation. 91.106.99.14 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, African nations at the FIFA World Cup might be deleted for basically the same reasons. I haven't nominated it yet only beacuse – as you pointed out – in a way it's sad to see such an effort wasted. — Luxic (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. --MicroX (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should have a look at WP:POLL. — Luxic (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Sandman888 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Chinese administrative divisions by population
- List of Chinese administrative divisions by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced,OR BsBsBs (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese city population entries are completely unsourced. The footnotes 1-5 do not point to sources, but to explanations of the type of the administrative region. The comparison entries are all unsourced except for India. Comparisons with other regions may be viewed as Original Research.-- BsBsBs (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: If an article has WP:V issues, that's what template tags are for. An AfD is out of the question, especially since you have only added the disputed, unreferenced and OR tags 7 minutes before nominating the AfD. This is not what an AfD is for. I would also like to mention WP:SOFIXIT - certainly if you are concerned about the welfare of an article, you'd be bold enough to fix it yourself? The same amount of effort following the three steps to AfD could have been made looking up statistics. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone who is looking after the welfare of Beijing, I can assure you that
- it is not easy to obtain up-to-date population numbers in China
- once you have them, they are contentious (there was an edit war over Beijing's official population number of 22 million - pls compare to the number in this list)
- I am all for this list, but to stay alive, it must be sourced. Thank you for the invitation, but maintaining it timely and correctly is beyond my capacities. The assertion that "the same amount of effort following the three steps to AfD could have been made looking up statistics" is patently wrong. Try it on a few major provinces. If it's so easy, why isn't there a single reference? -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone who is looking after the welfare of Beijing, I can assure you that
- Keep I believe all nations have official websites that list their census bureau's information on it. Some information is listed on the American government's Census bureau's website. www.census.gov Shouldn't be difficult to find if any of the information is sincerely in doubt. I don't see any reason to have the section "Comparable country (country rank worldwide)". Why mention what nation or state has the same population of that area? I don't see as how that helps anyone. Dream Focus 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try it. Sourced in China. -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just noticed a little something. Quote: "The footnotes 1-5 do not point to sources" - precisely. They are notes, not references. The article specifically states that. I don't see anything "wrong" with that. Many WP:FA also contain notes. They are used to clarify certain things that some readers might not understand, without completely ruining the format of the body article. Sources, on the other hand, are given as external links, because as the figures change each year, so does the page URL. I also don't see why linking to the main page of the Bureau of Statistics is "wrong". Linking to the direct page can lead to link rot. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Red herring. Where are the sources? Next time I write that someone killed someone, I provide the main page of the National Enquirer and say look for yourself, there might be link rot? -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have fixed the problem with footnotes not being separated from references. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I deleted all the nation comparison stuff, which got the nominator all worked up about OR and seems rather arbitrary to me. Yoenit (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It may seem arbitrary to you and me, but editors have been accused of Original Research in much less obvious cases. The fact that the list is unreferenced remains. I have made three good faith edits for Chongqing, Beijing, and Shanghai. Sorry, the numbers for Chongqing and Beijing are different than what was in the list, but now they are properly referenced. The other numbers should be properly referenced likewise. I happen to follow Chongqing, Beijing and Shanghai, so I have those numbers. As two out of three numbers were wrong, I expect further changes as this list is properly referenced. If it's not, all unreferenced data can be deleted. It is now unlikely that the whole page will be deleted. However, all unreferenced data can be deleted at any time. (Caution: Even after everything is properly referenced, giving a ranking could attract accusations of WP:OR on the grounds of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." I don't like it, but them's the rules.) -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even see the rank until now. A rather useless column as you can use the autosort function to sort the table on population size, so I removed it. If you feel the need to remove all numbers you can not get a reliable source for, please do so. It would leave the list utterly gutted for now, but eventually lead to improvement. Yoenit (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It may seem arbitrary to you and me, but editors have been accused of Original Research in much less obvious cases. The fact that the list is unreferenced remains. I have made three good faith edits for Chongqing, Beijing, and Shanghai. Sorry, the numbers for Chongqing and Beijing are different than what was in the list, but now they are properly referenced. The other numbers should be properly referenced likewise. I happen to follow Chongqing, Beijing and Shanghai, so I have those numbers. As two out of three numbers were wrong, I expect further changes as this list is properly referenced. If it's not, all unreferenced data can be deleted. It is now unlikely that the whole page will be deleted. However, all unreferenced data can be deleted at any time. (Caution: Even after everything is properly referenced, giving a ranking could attract accusations of WP:OR on the grounds of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." I don't like it, but them's the rules.) -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a valid topic. If there is any uncertainty or dispute as to the numbers for a particular area, this should be noted and explained in the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Although the arguments in favour of keeping this article make some valid points, the consensus seems to be that this list is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants
- List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list has WP:NOTDIR issues, because it is an non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no coverage of superhuman "characters who can manipulate plants" in reliable sources: [2]. Claritas § 18:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The real question here is how do we limit the characters listed on the list. Do we limit the lists to characters just characters with stand-alone articles that assert the character's notability independently of the works they are form? (The position I would naturally default to.) Do we also include characters that have an entry on a character list? Or some other inclusion critical. Because including all fictional characters who can manipulate plants is just too abstract of an inclusion criteria to be suitable for a stand-alone list without running afoul of WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. The base subject, Plant manipulation in fiction, isn't notable and does not have an article. So the list has to explain why fictional characters who can manipulate plants are notable instead of just being random trivia. —Farix (t | c) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would go with how major or notable the character in the story then. If a character's plant manipulation is a major factor in the story for example that would be worthy of inclusion or if the character is notable enough itself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Importance in a work of fiction is too arbitrary of a standard, based entirely an editor's personal opinion or analyst, and usually unverifiable. —Farix (t | c) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I dispute the status of this as cross-categorization (after all, plant manipulation is a "real", if lame, fictional superpower), I still don't see any good reason this is a list rather than just a category. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perfectly valid list article. Any character featured in a notable work should be listed, not just those with their own articles. It shows how often notable media uses this in it. All information is confirmed in the primary source. List articles don't need coverage in reviews somewhere. Dream Focus 03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete this might be more appropriate as a category. This list doesn't provide much more than the characters' names. Their source of power is an in-universe detail and doesn't seem appropriate for organizational purposes. The publisher/medium information can just as easily be viewed at individual articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, fails WP:NOTDIR which reads People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. Fictional characters that manipulate plants are not a culturally significant phenomenon for our purposes unless there is adequate sourcing to prove it, which I cannot find. ThemFromSpace 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorize. List brings little to the table. --Gwern (contribs) 19:55 22 June 2010 (GMT)
- The list shows what series they are from. A category wouldn't do that. Easier to navigate this way. Dream Focus 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh lordy, could there ever be a more arbitrary collection of information? wikia:list exists for this cruft, and Dream Focus is an administrator there so should be more than happy to oblige in transwikiing it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, this applies to several (possibly all) of the other superhero lists in this article's see also section. These were created historically when the categories were deleted. Any chance they can be co-nominated? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally dislike mass nominations except in uncontroversial circumstances, because they don't allow for the merits of each individual list/article to be taken into account. If this AFD closes as delete or categorise, I'll nominate them too. Feel free to do so yourself, if you'd like to speed the process up. Claritas § 12:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has an objective inclusion criteria, and is not too broad or narrow. I don't agree that this is unreasonable cross-categorization, since someone with plant manipulation abilities would necessarily be a fictional character. As with any other list, content needs to be limited to that which is verifiable. Marasmusine (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it have "objective inclusion criteria"? The majority of the entries are utterly unrelated to one another, as much as if they were grouped by eye colour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gardening is a form of "plant manipulation", so your claim that only fictional characters can "manipulate plants" is hardly correct..Claritas § 15:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it have "objective inclusion criteria"? The majority of the entries are utterly unrelated to one another, as much as if they were grouped by eye colour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, of course. <;)>But first merge with List of fictional plants who can manipulate fictional characters, which should be started with Audrey II.</;)> Oh, and it's been 'rescued' — wikia:list:List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Feed me, Seymour!
- Delete a coatrack of primary research that violates WP:OR... don't just make up categories and then start hanging examples in there... non encyclopedic cross category which goes against WP:NOTDIRArskwad (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unencyclopedic list based on trivial intersection. While not per se OR, it would be hard to keep it out of this list since the concept of "plant manipulation" is not well defined and is treated differently in different fictional works. However, even if well defined and sourced the list would still be a directory based on a trivial intersection, some which Wikipedia does not include. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if only to counter the illogical arguments above. IINFO doesn't apply, and this is NOT a trivial intersection. A trivial intersection is things like "financiers who parachute" where the two categorizations are unrelated--this case is not that. Likewise, any list that can have articulable inclusion criteria isn't IINFO, because it is, by definition, discriminate. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Rough consensus seems to favor deletion more than anything else here. –MuZemike 00:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non Winter storms of 2004–2007
- Non Winter storms of 2004–2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is not complete, not well sourced, does not pass WP:N Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give it some time to develope more?--82.11.103.72 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The original article exceeded 100 KB, and it appears to be in the midst of a WP:SPLIT. Also, the original article appears to be well sourced. At this point, I say give it more time to develop. Akerans (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That was my plan to do so, User:Akerans--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then place {{underconstruction}} on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow Evan (talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 June 2010
Tentative Keepthis appears to be part of a wider set of articles, if it is brought up to speed then seems very much an encyclopaedic page. On the other hand the whole series needs a lot more work (copyediting, reworking etc.). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Maybe Delete/Merge any valuable content. I just tried to improve areas of the article. While I think the subject has merit there are issues for what storms to include. There is, currently, no clear principle as to what has been included. A large number of the references appear to consist of simply photographs of storms; which are useful but don't really assert any notability (for example the 2004 Chad storms occur around 100 days every year, and there is nothing particularly big or "impressive" I can find for that year). Clearly storms in which people die (of which there are a few) may have notability. But it strikes me they may be better served as sections on other pages (such as those for the region they affect). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Created with good intentions, but it fails WP:IINFO as indiscriminate. Juliancolton (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, WP:IINFO doesn't seem to cover this particular article (unless it counts as statistics, which I am not convinced it does) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - The writer has redirected and merged it back to the old articl, which was better over all in my veiw.--81.100.126.134 (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected I did, since it was not big enough to stand on it's own. See- Global storm activity of 2005-2007.
--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I undid the redirect, since the AFD comment on the previous version indicated that it should not have been removed etc. (i.e. I think the redirect was premature.). I got here by way of the
{{under construction}}
tag on its talk page (via Category:Pages actively undergoing construction), which I have removed. Hope I did the right thing there. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This seems to be an archetypal example of WP:IINFO - an arbitrary collection of weather events with no supporting sources which collect or categorise them in this way. It's not clear how we would generalise this without getting into OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Global storm activity of 2005-2007, which it aparenty shared most of the content with.--81.100.116.232 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE FROM ADMIN The article should not be redirected whilst this AfD debate is in progress. Such actions should only be performed once the AfD discussion closes, and if that is the consensus as determined by the editor who closes the AfD. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A dust storm here, a rain storm there...is there a point to this article? It looks like Weather Channel filler. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Boareing It's too Boareing!--86.16.8.204 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Merge in to 'Global storm activity of 2005-2007'.--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about these lists, or the definitions they contain, once they have been published and become part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The authors seem to believe that there is something special about these random weather reports. Wikipedia is not a collection of random news reports, and it should not be a collection of random weather events either. Do meteorologists state in reliable sources that there was something special about the 3 year period the article covers? Is the 3 year collection of weather reports evidence for or against climate change, for instance? This complaint would be satisfied by breaking it out into "Severe storms of 2004, Severe storms of 2005", etc. I do not see the point in breaking it into "Winter Storms" and "Nonwinter Storms." Just go by month. In August it is hot in Northern Hemisphere winter and cold in Southern Hemisphere . Some storms are notable enough for their own articles, but many of these are clearly not. It looks like an indiscriminate collection of information. At the same time a list is preferable to separate articles about "a dust storm which killed one man" or articles about random little storms of different types in different places. Edison (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's covered on other pages, like the tornado page.--82.11.82.114 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of gangs in the Saints Row series
- List of gangs in the Saints Row series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Gave a shot at improving this, this subject appears to only be covered in instruction manuals and WP:GAMEGUIDEs. No third party sources, no reception or impact. Fails WP:N and WP:V. For consensus on similar articles, look at:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series (2nd nomination) (deleted 2010-06)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto 3 era (deleted 2010-06)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in The Warriors (deleted 2010-06)
... which all show a community consensus that these kinds of video WP:GAMEGUIDE articles are inappropriate unless there are sources about the real-world impact of these fictional gangs. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. No objection to transwiki'ing it somewhere where it might fit better, but it doesn't belong here. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Claritas § 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We're not a game guide. Real-world lists like this should also be deleted, they're full of shit. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow/Speedy Delete - The very definition of WP:GAMECRUFT, and has no notability. There's a snowball's chance anything like this could survive. --Teancum (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unsuitable on multiple levels, particularly WP:OR and WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –MuZemike 00:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of hotels in Mumbai
- List of hotels in Mumbai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP is not a directory or a travel guide. Codf1977 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are lots article like List of hotels of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, List of largest hotels in the world, List of hotels in Dubai, List of Las Vegas Strip hotels and so on, Also there are more than 50% of names in the list having there own articles. If anything is required to make this article more suitable let me know, I will improve it. KuwarOnline Talk 15:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is pretty well referenced and everything there is verifiable. Only notable hotels are on the list and for having over thirty hotels on that list, it shows that it is obviously a notable topic. Tavix | Talk 17:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was only notable hotels then you may have a point - but it is not. Codf1977 (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them are notable. Just because a couple of them are redlinked does not make my point invalid. Redlinks help article growth... Tavix | Talk 20:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think they are - see analysis below. Codf1977 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them are notable. Just because a couple of them are redlinked does not make my point invalid. Redlinks help article growth... Tavix | Talk 20:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment below notwithstanding, removing non-notable entries can be done by editing, and therefore it is not a valid reason to delete, per deletion policy.--Cyclopiatalk 18:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - KuwarOnline (talk · contribs) is currently attempting to votestack by canvassing editors (like me) that would probably argue for keeping (I would do in fact, but now that I've been canvassed I feel uncomfortable doing that): see [3] , [4], [5], [6]. I think the editor is somehow in good faith in seeking for help, but better to explain him that he's just shooting himself in the foot this way. --Cyclopiatalk 18:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -I was doing what called Friendly notices not only editor who supported keep but also the editors who supported delete see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Software Companies in India but unfortunately you just noticed keep editors see User talk:Sodabottle, User talk:Deepak D'Souza who supported delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Software Companies in India, Certainly I am not doing attempting to votestack or neither I asked any editor to vote in my favor. Just asked to vote as per there view please see there talk pages, where i m requesting them to express there suggestions/opinion. Please dont feel that you are being canvassed. KuwarOnline Talk 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment notwithstanding the alleged votestacking- I am kind of neutral, swaying towards delete on articles with names in the following format "List of <type of business> in <city>". IT industry in India is a different thing. The best thing to do is to write an article called Hotels in Mumbai and merge the list to that article. I wouldn't mind a fork if required later.--Nilotpal42 19:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - most of them are blue links. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But not to articles about the given hotels :
- Of the 41 Hotels listed only FIVE have there own article :
- But not to articles about the given hotels :
-
- THREE point to WP articals un-related to India or Mumbai
- Ambassador Hotel - to a hotel in LA
- Palms Hotel - is in Nevada
- The Retreat - is a 'place in England for the treatment of people with mental health needs. '
- THREE point to WP articals un-related to India or Mumbai
-
- THIRTEEN point to articles about the company that owns the hotel.
- the other EIGHTEEN hotels listed have no links or a 'red-links'. Codf1977 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice, but again, deletion policy tells us that this is absolutely not a reason to delete. At best, your analysis indicates the need to merge into a larger list, like List of hotels in India. All you tell us about is that the article has problems. We don't delete article which have problems solvable with editing -we fix them. --Cyclopiatalk 00:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did look for a page as a suitable merge target but there was not one - and felt that editing out the non-notable hotels and having a list of five or six and then nom for AfD would be bad form. If some one with more insight into the subject wishes to create such a target will be happy with mergeing into it. Codf1977 (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice, but again, deletion policy tells us that this is absolutely not a reason to delete. At best, your analysis indicates the need to merge into a larger list, like List of hotels in India. All you tell us about is that the article has problems. We don't delete article which have problems solvable with editing -we fix them. --Cyclopiatalk 00:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but clean up. See WP:STAND. The references are all links to the hotels and should be removed.GtstrickyTalk or C 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No opinion on the merits of this article other than the fact that it should clearly cite which standards are being used. Which organizations gave these hotels five-star ratings? ThemFromSpace 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge information about the hotels and hotel chains in the city into Economy of Mumbai, but delete the star ratings. This page is a travel guide as it is currently constituted (something Wikipedia is not), and it is difficult to imagine how it could be rewritten to be anything other than a travel guide. On the other hand, the city's hotels are a notable element of the local economy that can appropriately be listed in the "Economy" article, but the star ratings are purely "travel guide" content that does not belong there. --Orlady (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepbut star rating should be removed.It's just an informative article, not any travel guide.Everybody please take a look at List of hotels in Dubai.It's just same kind of article like List of hotels in Mumbai.If it is kept on Wikipedia, then List of hotels in Mumbai must be kept.$Max Viwe$ (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The existence of other similar articles is not a valid basis for keeping an article. The question to be asked is whether the articles are consistent with Wikipedia policy. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
F.C. Barcelona squad numbers
- F.C. Barcelona squad numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Used twinkle, however something seems to have gone awry. Article topic not notable, just a collection of stats, and I'm not sure what's gained by having it. Sandman888 (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - violates WP:LISTCRUFT, nothing to be gained by this. GiantSnowman 07:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NOT#STATS. In my opinion, this article contains no information of encyclopedic value. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With respect, nom resembles WP:JDLI. Eliteimp (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With "respect", keep resembles "I just like it" Sandman888 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTCRUFT. Armbrust Talk Contribs 07:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To the dark side of the moon and quickly nothing encyclopaedic about this at all, pure list cruft. BigDom 06:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above arguments. --MicroX (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: what about Arsenal F.C. squad numbers? I mean, if we are going to delete Barça's, we should delete both. — Luxic (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a clear cut case of WP:LISTCRUFT to me. I fails to see how this list has any encyclopedic value. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- You seem quite keen to delete this list. Did you perhaps mean the Arsenal article? Sandman888 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; a step too far into non-encyclopaedic stats assembly. Any interesting features can be summarised in the main article. TerriersFan (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-encyclopaedic. – PeeJay 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per Sir Sputnik - Does not add to the encyclopedic value, most (if not all) is on other pages. Codf1977 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional New Zealanders
- List of fictional New Zealanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List which fails WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Considering the amount of fiction in all forms which has been published/broadcast in New Zealand, this list would be impractical and unmaintainable if expanded. In its current state it is simply unrepresentative. Claritas § 15:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pretty much per nom (WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR all apply here). It's important to note that because each of these characters are from a different fictional universe, the designation of being a New Zealander is pretty arbitrary cross categorization. ThemFromSpace 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see any special problem with the list. It seems to be limited to notable characters from notable works. More could be added to balance out the superheroes and science fiction characters. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SALAT → "List of people" section. These fictional people are not notable for being from New Zealand so the list is completely arbitrary. It is also way to broad in scope. If every fictional New Zealander was in the list, it would become an unuseful index but in its uncompleted state, its just a random group. Its a non-notable intersection and therefore, should be deleted. Tavix | Talk 15:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Sorry for the slippery slope, but if we start with NZ, we could do similar lists for, say the US, UK, Japan, fictional places... Think of the scope of those articles.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space, and those who don't like it, won't be likely to ever find it anyway. Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Space isn't the issue, it's the "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" of WP:NOTDIR that is. Fictional New-Zealanders are not a notable subject as they have not been the subject of any other encyclopedia. That the list is short now has nothing to do with it. If you think of a similar article from a nation that produces a lot more fiction like the US, you'd put together a gigantic list of completely unrelated charactesr, from Huckleberry Finn to Philip J. Fry to Cheerleader #78 in Bring It On Again to Sarah McDougal from Love Hina. The list of fictional cats you mention elsewhere in this discussion has the exact same issue, the inclusion criterion is too vast and too vague and does not follow WP:SALAT.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fictional New-Zealanders are not a notable subject as they have not been the subject of any other encyclopedia. : Being the subject of other encyclopedias is definitely not our criteria for keeping articles, let alone lists (which have different criteria). See WP:NOTPAPER. --Cyclopiatalk 16:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a category for fictional New Zealanders would work better. dramatic (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories aren't as easy to read, and don't allow for as much information to be presented. Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't honestly see how it is harder to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_New_Zealand_people than it is to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_New_Zealanders . And surely the place for information to be presented is in the characters' articles themselves, not in a list? Daveosaurus (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Does not fail WP:SALAT: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). - This is exactly the case: the list is specific in scope, being about (1)fictional characters and (2)New Zealanders only. Also: Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles , and that is the case here. Also, An exception is nationality/ethnicity, and we're doing exactly that. Does not fail WP:IINFO, not falling under any of the categories specified; the list is well discriminate in scope and in content, containing almost only notable entries (notable enough to have a WP article or being otherwise well covered in WP). Does not fail WP:NOTDIR, since it is not a Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, but a list of characters tightly linked by nationality (see also above). The "impractical" argument does not hold, since we use to split in sub-lists any list that becomes too large, see List of people for an example of such hierarchical listing. Arguments about the current state of the list do not hold, since per deletion policy we don't delete on the basis of article quality. About the "slippery slope" argument, we already have such lists for other countries. About the "a category is better" argument, remember that categories and list are by no means mutually exclusive. The list is not a random intersection: it is a good starting point to investigate the role of New Zealand in fiction. --Cyclopiatalk 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Reyk YO! 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in favour of a category as per Dramatic. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More information there as a list article, and easier to navigate, than it would as a category. If you search for "List of Fictional" in the Wikipedia search bar, you will find 17,721 results. Everything from list of fictional cats to List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list (once subdivided by headings) can only be subdivided in one way. But an article can fit into multiple subcategories as necessary - e.g. a character in a book which is made into a film. Which makes the categories better for navigation. But that is a long way off since the list only contains one valid item at present. (Remember how list entries need to be sourced?) dramatic (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating. Yes it will be a long list, but it will be finite, as it will be in proportion to our coverage of NZ fiction. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTPAPER is not a free pass for inclusion and as such should not be solely cited in a rationale. If that were the case, one could just cite WP:NOTPAPER for anything and use it for their keep !vote. Tavix | Talk 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think DGG comment addresses the rationale of who thinks that such a list would be "too large" or leading to a "slippery slope": we have no space problems, so those rationales make no sense. --Cyclopiatalk 17:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but it goes the other way too. Just because a list would be massive is no reason to keep an article just as thinking having a list that is "too large" is not a reason to delete. Tavix | Talk 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not--I agree the size of a list is irrelevant. (For that matter, hat a list has too few items is sometimes given as a reason for rejection, which is also irrelevant if its more than 2 or 3. Lists of finite size are objected to as finite, those of indefinite but large size as infinite. --none of this is relevant in accepting or rejecting). DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just hope no one creates List of articles that User:DGG has !voted to keep... :P (joking) SnottyWong squeal 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only to be dwarfed by List of articles that User:Dream Focus has !voted to keep..... Claritas § 10:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, don't worry. Both would vanish in front of List of lists that User:Claritas and User:Gavin Collins have !voted to delete.
--Cyclopiatalk 18:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I don't really like most lists very much. Claritas § 18:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noticed that. Which is sad, given that many users could find them good navigational helps. But oh, too bad, Claritas didn't like it... --Cyclopiatalk 18:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a justification for !voting delete. I dislike most lists because most lists should be deleted from my point of view - they are indiscriminate and violate WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO, etc. Having said that, there are plenty of useful lists in Wikipedia, such as List of US Presidents etc.Claritas § 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we're here chatting: Now, if tomorrow this list is deleted, and understanding that lists are navigational aids for our readers more than anything else, what has WP gained? What has our readership gained? This is something that baffles me. When we delete original research, completely non-notable entries etc. we help by not giving credibility to stuff which has no encyclopedic credibility. But in this case, of a list of notable entries? What users do you feel will be served by doing that? Articles are not kept on the basis of being useful, but lists, being navigational aids, are meant to be useful. So, what is the usefulness, the help, the service in doing that? I really can't get it. --Cyclopiatalk 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be got rid of precisely because it doesn't do anything useful which a category wouldn't. It's a waste of editor's time to concentrate on improving something with no utility. Claritas § 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no. Our guidelines disagree in full with this point of view. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive : Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. - Also, all else being equal, you shouldn't decide how other editors decide to concentrate their efforts. This is a volunteer project. --Cyclopiatalk 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest two situations in which this list would be useful to the average reader of Wikipedia ? I can't think of any, either in this current state, or in any state. Claritas § 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, if you want to know something about the treatment of New Zealanders in fiction, the list is an excellent starting point. Better than a category, because it gives some quick context to the entries, and as such one can quickly focus on something he/she's more interested in than others. Also, the fact that you "can't think of any" does not mean at all that such situations do not exist. It only shows lack of imagination. --Cyclopiatalk 21:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a great starting point. At the moment, it is twenty or so indiscriminate entries. It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction.... Claritas § 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a great starting point.: Better than no starting point, for sure.
- It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. : Are there 2000 notable NZ fictional characters? If so, good, but then it is not indiscriminate. If not, it won't grow. It is all matter of proper maintenance.
- Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction: Provided they are notable (which I doubt being the case for most of these characters, but can be for a reasonable minority), where is the problem? --Cyclopiatalk 21:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that being NZ isn't a particularly notable feature for these characters. We might as well create List of fictional characters who wear top hats. WP:IINFO is the policy here. Claritas § 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:SALAT: Nationality is explicitly indicated as a proper categorization. --Cyclopiatalk 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Real nationality and fictional nationality are very different kettles of fish. The fictional nationality is attached to a fictional New Zealand, and as the characters don't share the same fictional New Zealands, they also don't share the same fictional nationalities. Claritas § 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is clutching at straws at its best, isn't it?
--Cyclopiatalk 12:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is clutching at straws at its best, isn't it?
- Real nationality and fictional nationality are very different kettles of fish. The fictional nationality is attached to a fictional New Zealand, and as the characters don't share the same fictional New Zealands, they also don't share the same fictional nationalities. Claritas § 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:SALAT: Nationality is explicitly indicated as a proper categorization. --Cyclopiatalk 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that being NZ isn't a particularly notable feature for these characters. We might as well create List of fictional characters who wear top hats. WP:IINFO is the policy here. Claritas § 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a great starting point. At the moment, it is twenty or so indiscriminate entries. It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction.... Claritas § 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, if you want to know something about the treatment of New Zealanders in fiction, the list is an excellent starting point. Better than a category, because it gives some quick context to the entries, and as such one can quickly focus on something he/she's more interested in than others. Also, the fact that you "can't think of any" does not mean at all that such situations do not exist. It only shows lack of imagination. --Cyclopiatalk 21:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest two situations in which this list would be useful to the average reader of Wikipedia ? I can't think of any, either in this current state, or in any state. Claritas § 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no. Our guidelines disagree in full with this point of view. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive : Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. - Also, all else being equal, you shouldn't decide how other editors decide to concentrate their efforts. This is a volunteer project. --Cyclopiatalk 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a justification for !voting delete. I dislike most lists because most lists should be deleted from my point of view - they are indiscriminate and violate WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO, etc. Having said that, there are plenty of useful lists in Wikipedia, such as List of US Presidents etc.Claritas § 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noticed that. Which is sad, given that many users could find them good navigational helps. But oh, too bad, Claritas didn't like it... --Cyclopiatalk 18:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I don't really like most lists very much. Claritas § 18:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, don't worry. Both would vanish in front of List of lists that User:Claritas and User:Gavin Collins have !voted to delete.
- Only to be dwarfed by List of articles that User:Dream Focus has !voted to keep..... Claritas § 10:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just hope no one creates List of articles that User:DGG has !voted to keep... :P (joking) SnottyWong squeal 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not--I agree the size of a list is irrelevant. (For that matter, hat a list has too few items is sometimes given as a reason for rejection, which is also irrelevant if its more than 2 or 3. Lists of finite size are objected to as finite, those of indefinite but large size as infinite. --none of this is relevant in accepting or rejecting). DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That characters from NZ appear in fiction is made-up? DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are missing the point, DGG. Characters from NZ appear in sources everywhere, except in a list. If there are no reliable, third-party sources for the list itself, then Wikipedia does not have a rationale for its inclusion. If there is no such list in the real world, then there should not be one in Wikipedia either. This article would make an interesting appendices to a book or paper on NZ characters, but then Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And you are missing the point of 1)The purpose of lists, that is that of being a navigational help to readers, not a topic 2)WP:MADEUP which exists to prevent articles to pop about non-notable stuff that has been done one day 3)WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. Gavin, you are really better reading policies and guidelines before appealing to them. --Cyclopiatalk 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lists can have any number of purposes that are useful to editors, but that is not a valid rationale for their inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:NOT#OR says that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and if this list has not been published anywhere else, then if it is an entirely novel and original list topic that does not exist in the real world, it has no place here. What is needed is some verifiable source to show that the list itself (not just its content) is not original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are now deliberately ignoring what WP:OR says, that I quoted above. And WP:ITSUSEFUL says explicitly: An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.". --Cyclopiatalk 10:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not ignoring you, in fairness. I have nothing to say about the content of list; rather it is the existence of the list topic itself that is being challenged. It if has not been published or defined as a list topic in the real world, then Wikipedia should not have a seperate standalone list article about it. Usefulness or naviation does enter into it - good or bad, that is your opinion, but it is not supported by any source. What is missing is an external source to show that this list does not fail WP:NOT#OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list does not fail OR. What I quoted above makes it extremly clear. The way we structure content has nothing to do with OR. Please read the above. I do not care if you ignore me, I care if you ignore the policies meaning. --Cyclopiatalk 11:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But you admit that it fails WP:NOT#OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Absolutely not. It doesn't fail WP:NOT#OR. It does not fail any original research policy, because structuring content is not OR, and if you actually read the policies you would hopefully understand that. Please tell me which part of WP:OR, WP:NOT#OR the list "fails". I repeat here what I quoted above, and this time please read it and comment on it, do not ignore it: WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. --Cyclopiatalk 10:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The topic of fictional New Zealanders has pedigree and merit. Note for example one of the earlier icons of a fictional New Zealander: Lord Macaulay's visitor to a future ruined London: Ascari, Maurizio; Corrado, Adriana, eds. (2006). Sites of exchange: European crossroads and faultlines. Internationale Forschungen zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 103. Rodopi. p. 135 of 296. ISBN 9789042020153. Retrieved 2010-06-19.
[...] one of [Thomas Macaulay's] visions of the future ruin of London, from 1840, endured as a rhetorical commonplace for the rest of the nineteenth century, being given huge additional currency by Gustave Doré's famous illustration, 'The New Zealander', in London, a Pilgrimage in 1872.[...] Macaulay's identification of the new Zealander as a symbolic tourist who will represent a new world when power shall have passed from the old one, [...] centres on the Thames.
And fiction by New Zealanders too has contributed to archetypal images of fictional New Zealanders: recall the importance in New Zealand literature of the "Man Alone": Sturm, Terry, ed. (1998) [1991]. The Oxford New Zealand History of New Zealand Literature in English (2 ed.). Auckland: Oxford University Press. p. 157 of 890. ISBN 0 19 558385 X.Chapman commented that for the writers up to 1950 their 'way of examining the society they depict' was primarily through 'the individual isolated in every sense, who may or may not explode into violent gestures under the distorting weight of a pattern he does not understand'. [...] Although John Mulgan's novel gave this Man Alone pattern its name, it had appeared earlier in the novels of Lee and Hyde, and even its later appearances may not have been influenced by Mulgan, for his novel was not widely available in New Zealand until reprinted in 1949.
But even in the modern period too, non-New Zealanders have expanded or revived the image of fictional New Zealanders as survivors and representatives of a post-apocalytic future. Thus "the Sealand woman" plays a significant role in the closing sequences of John Wyndham's The Chrysalids. (Compare Charles Sheffield's fictional universe of Cold as Ice and The Ganymede Club where a devastated Earth retains southern New Zealand as its last major populated region.) Wikipedia has the ability to build up lists of such characters and tropes. -- If the list eventually grows too large we can subdivide it thematically and chronologically as desired. -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. This is not a useful list in any way, easily achieved by appropriate categorisation. This kind of pointless article is a time sink which diverts editors from actually improving the project. As such, it is actually damaging the project. Verbal chat 15:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Categories are not ideal replacements for lists, as they may contain articles which are not members of the list. WP:IINFO has nothing against this list. WP:SALAT's applicability is also questionable; this list is only one facet off from List of New Zealand politicians (politician -> fictional person). Arguing WP:SALAT in this case suggests that politicians are inherently more important than fictional characters, which is questionable in the long run of culture. WP:NOTDIR is the best policy against this list, but the existence of other similarly precise lists suggests that unless you are prepared to argue that fictional characters (who merit their own articles) are not culturally significant, it still does not stand up. - BalthCat (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "tto long potentially" is not, per se, sufficient as a reason for deletion. And, as has been mentioned above, a category would eliminate what would otherwise be proper in this list, and well-known enough for such a list, even is not "notable" enough for a separate artcle on WP (or more likely result in too many very short articles). All things considered - keep. Collect (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as overly broad and thus indiscriminate. Fails WP:IINFO in terms of lists (see WP:SALAT). Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If the list gets too large, it can be subdivided into lists for characters from films, books, etc. --PinkBull 01:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The open-ended nature of the subject (I'd wager that practically all local NZ literature features such characters) makes this unworkable, along with the still largely-unanswered problem that being from NZ does not unite these subjects in any way but rather simply collects them in as arbitrary a manner as a list of fictional characters by eye colour. Addressing the keeps:
- Pedant17's is interesting, but it rather speaks of the fictional portrayal of New Zealanders. This is a very different thing from an open-ended list of characters who may (and probably mostly don't) reflect the archetype given in his sources.
- Collect's comment makes a false equivalence: New Zealand politicians, by definition, work for the New Zealand government, and thus have a great deal in common with each other over and above their nationalities. Fictional characters have no implied shared characteristics except not existing. That a category might not be appropriate either does not force us to have a list; we can have neither.
- The rest don't make any arguments based on our guidelines as the majority of the project understands them.
- Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Moving/merging/splitting can all be discussed on the talk page (or even better, done WP:BOLDly). T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of cinemas in Thailand
- List of cinemas in Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:IINFO, WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIR, this list is not encyclopaedic. Will never meet a reasonable level of completion, and sets precedent for even less manageable lists such as List of cinemas in California. Claritas § 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't suppose there's a vote called "Rename the article and remove what it was originally about". I think that this would work as a non-list article, based on the content that was added after it started as a directory of cinemas. Remove the list and rename it. The best part of this article is the information other than the list, which describes the culture associated with going to the cinema in Thailand. I'm astounded that the before a film, "the audience must stand for the 'Royal Anthem', which is accompanied by a montage of images of King Bhumibol Adulyadej." but it's sourced [7]. Americans are used to standing for the national anthem prior to a sports event, but it's not part of going to a movie. While I can't see having a list of cinemas for any nation, there is some good stuff here that should be carried over to a different article. Mandsford 23:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see that there's some encyclopaedic content here too - it might be appropriate to copy it to userspace and then create an article called Cinemas in Thailand based on it. This simply doesn't work as a list, which was why I nominated. Claritas § 11:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why have the intermediate step of copying to userspace rather than simply renaming it (or, as we stupidly call it so that nobody understands what's going on, "moving" it) to that title and allowing the wiki editing process to improve it? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that, per Paul, some of the content concerning individual cinemas could also be split. Claritas § 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why have the intermediate step of copying to userspace rather than simply renaming it (or, as we stupidly call it so that nobody understands what's going on, "moving" it) to that title and allowing the wiki editing process to improve it? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see that there's some encyclopaedic content here too - it might be appropriate to copy it to userspace and then create an article called Cinemas in Thailand based on it. This simply doesn't work as a list, which was why I nominated. Claritas § 11:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge non-list content to Cinema of Thailand and split content about notable chains/cinemas (i.e. almost all, IMO) into their own articles, if they don't exist yet. I agree in principle with Mandsford's above comments. Redirect likely needed for attribution purposes. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep all. T. Canens (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of English Electoral Wards by Constituency
- List of English Electoral Wards by Constituency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Replicates near-verbatim SI 2007/1681. Wereon (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus subsets of the above:
- List of Electoral Wards in Avon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Electoral Wards in Bedfordshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Electoral Wards in West Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Electoral Wards in South Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Electoral Wards in Tyne and Wear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Electoral Wards in Merseyside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Electoral Wards in Greater Manchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Electoral Wards in Warwickshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Electoral Wards in The West Midlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Welsh equivalent:
- List of Welsh Electoral Wards by Constituency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- And two redirects:
- List of Electoral Wards in Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Electoral Wards in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- I can see that this is potentially useful, and has been collated in an extremely organized way - it doens't seem the least bit indiscriminate. What is the exact problem with these articles existing in Wikipedia? At the very least they should have a place in some Wikimedia project or another, if they are not encyclopedic could they be rehomed e.g. in Wikisource? TheGrappler (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Wikisource accepts material under Crown Copyright. Besides, is reproducing secondary legislation really what any Wikimedia project is for, when HMSO / OPSI already do it? Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that this material is under Crown Copyright? These are just plain facts, no creativity seems to have been used even in the ordering of the facts. I think the source material is therefore ineligible for Copyright; besides which, it should be possible to wikify these pages to "add value" to them. The fact these improvements haven't happened yet doesn't seem a good reason to delete. As for whether any Wikimedia project is "for" reproducing information available anywhere else, the answer is a big fat yes, surely? The facts contained in Wikipedia are all from somewhere else (due to the rule against no original research); Wikisource contains lots of information straight from other sources as does Commons. TheGrappler (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, publications that contain only facts are not copyrightable? SnottyWong talk 01:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no, they are not. You can sell your own phone book by taking the phone company's and copying all the info, at least in the U.S.. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, publications that contain only facts are not copyrightable? SnottyWong talk 01:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that this material is under Crown Copyright? These are just plain facts, no creativity seems to have been used even in the ordering of the facts. I think the source material is therefore ineligible for Copyright; besides which, it should be possible to wikify these pages to "add value" to them. The fact these improvements haven't happened yet doesn't seem a good reason to delete. As for whether any Wikimedia project is "for" reproducing information available anywhere else, the answer is a big fat yes, surely? The facts contained in Wikipedia are all from somewhere else (due to the rule against no original research); Wikisource contains lots of information straight from other sources as does Commons. TheGrappler (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Wikisource accepts material under Crown Copyright. Besides, is reproducing secondary legislation really what any Wikimedia project is for, when HMSO / OPSI already do it? Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Certainly the articles are not perfect at present. But there are advantages in having wikified articles in addition to the source documents; it is clearer to link from one article to a specific section of one of the above articles (and backlink to the relevant constituency, placename etc) than it is to link only to a less structured document on an external website. The article does not seem to breach the policies listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion (though the list is not intended to be exhaustive). More specifically, it is not clear that the articles are "indiscriminate" in the sense described at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, since they are ordered and wikified in an accurate and potentially useful way. Perhaps it would be sufficient to merge the county articles into just four articles (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales – corresponding to the four boundary commissions), so as to balance the advantages of wikification against the disadvantages of duplicated and scattered content. — Richardguk (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of relevant wards would be a welcome addition to the individual constituency articles, but I'm not sure what the value is of listing them all by country or county in such a way. Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppose someone is interested not in which wards comprise a known constituency, but in which constituency each ward in a district is allocated to. More generally still, suppose someone wants an idea of the constituency to which each ward in a certain area is allocated (regardless of council boundaries). There is no perfect solution, but listing the data on one page makes it easier for the reader to gather information more flexibly than if it is only scattered across many articles or on an external site, allowing wikilinks to be used effectively. — Richardguk (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds entirely reasonable to me. TheGrappler (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppose someone is interested not in which wards comprise a known constituency, but in which constituency each ward in a district is allocated to. More generally still, suppose someone wants an idea of the constituency to which each ward in a certain area is allocated (regardless of council boundaries). There is no perfect solution, but listing the data on one page makes it easier for the reader to gather information more flexibly than if it is only scattered across many articles or on an external site, allowing wikilinks to be used effectively. — Richardguk (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of relevant wards would be a welcome addition to the individual constituency articles, but I'm not sure what the value is of listing them all by country or county in such a way. Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The information provided is not indiscriminate. The fact that it has a good, reliable source is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In a mass nomination, it's poor strategy to nominate the best of the articles first, and I think it will prove to have been "a lot of work for nothing". Many of the "afterthoughts" are actually duplicates of the information in List of English Electoral Wards by Constituency, except for (List of Welsh Electoral Wards by Constituency) so I see no reason to keep anything that duplicates info on a larger list. Rather than confusing the matter with a "keep this one, delete that one and that one and that one, but keep the next one" vote, I'll just leave the question of merger to others. Mandsford 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know that, as the author, I am slightly impartial, but I feel that these articles are good reference guides and are useful. I also put a lot of hard work into them and would hate to see my work deleted. 07bargem (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikisource. There is nothing in these articles which doesn't appear verbatim somewhere on this site. SnottyWong talk 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The only issue I have with this article is that this will be a bugger to maintain. I wonder if the information would be better contained in articles like List of Parliamentary constituencies in Cleveland, where the people who maintain the pages are likely to be clued up on boundary changes. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nothing indiscriminate here.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. The information is directly copied from here. The material is under copyright. Nuttah (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*keep - useful and cited. The content is imo not a copyright violation, the copyright notice is here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/about/copyright-notice.htm it looks to me like they are actively encouraging reprinting and requesting hyperlinks to be created to their site which we have done in our article. Off2riorob (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "…provided it is reproduced accurately…" — it may be accurate at the moment, but how can we ensure it stays accurate? Full edit protection?? Qwfp (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we will try in good faith but I see your point. I am far from expert in copyright. User:Moonriddengirl is a good person to ask. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It cannot be, unfortunately. The Crown Copyright exemption is that all material can be copied WITHOUT CHANGE. The nature of Wikipedia makes that impossible to guarantee. Nuttah (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting that copyright notice in full:
- "The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. The permission to reproduce Crown protected material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. OPSI encourages users to establish hypertext links to this site." — OPSI Crown copyright notice (emphasis added)
- Wikipedia policy implications: So long as due attribution is given and the article is created accurately with a link to the source, we can't limit ourselves by the hypothetical actions of future vandals, which would in any event be subject to correction by other editors and be made evident by examining the history page or comparing with the source, to which we link.
- After all, a vandal can insert text from any copyright publication on almost any page and immediately cause a copyright breach. This real risk does not cause us to delete every page of the encyclopedia! Instead, we maintain the articles and respond to informal and formal feedback as best we can.
- Practical implications: I'm sure all of us here want Wikipedia articles to be accurate. If someone notices an inaccuracy subsequently introduced, how likely is it the Crown would sue Wikipedia (or the miscreant editor)? Frankly, if the Crown even bothered to complain, we should be grateful for them taking an interest, but it's inconceivable that they would object in principle to an article that Wikified the data contained in the statutory instrument.
- — Richardguk (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm afraid that Crown copyright is not permissible on Wikipedia. :/ As is noted at WP:C and Wikimedia:Terms of Use, our content must be licensed compatibly with WP:CC-By-SA, which permits modification (obviously, public domain is acceptable). That Crown copyright mandate forbidding modification makes it incompatible, so it must be used in accordance with WP:NFC, which forbids extensive quotation. The real question, though, is whether this material is copyrightable under the US law that governs Wikipedia. While some countries recognize "sweat of the brow", U.S. copyright law requires creativity. The requirement here is minimal (most content easily passes the threshold), but lists that are simply straightforward and obvious compilations of facts are not creative. (As with Feist v. Rural.) I'm not sure here. When the Nielsen Company wrote to the Wikimedia Foundation to complain that we were reproducing their lists of U.S. television markets, our attorney removed the content (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive170#Nielson DMCA Takedown). Except in the case of an official takedown request (which in spite of the language bandied at this discussion this was not; note that Mike said, "Wikimedia Foundation has not received a DMCA takedown notice"), he does not do that in situations without merit. (He didn't automatically comply with the American Psychiatric Association wrote us.) I would be inclined to presume that there is no creativity in the content, but the Nielsen market precedent makes that a bit complicated. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to let you know that I've asked Mike. Since there are 13 articles involved here, best to find out if copyright concerns are a factor. I'll update if he has an opportunity to respond to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Thanks for the advice, which is clearly an informed and thoughtful contribution, but I'm puzzled by the logic:
- There seems to be an assumption that "accuracy" precludes "modification". The Crown copyright waiver (and para 12b of the relevant guidance) requires accuracy, but there is no "Crown copyright mandate forbidding modification". Modification in the articles consists only of wikilinking, annotating and layout changes.
- Feist implies that facts per se are not copyrightable in US law. The article does not reproduce the other (creative and presentational) aspects. Nor are the statutory instruments the only authoritative source of the data (Boundary Commission reports, draft statutory instruments and National Statistics lists contain the same data in different formats, though are also Crown copyright).
- The lists can also be derived from OS OpenData datasets which are licensed to be compatible with CC-BY 3.0. (Admittedly this is not applicable to most Crown publications at present, but does happen to apply to the content being discussed here.)
- Unlike Nielsen, the Crown is not seeking to exploit its website content commercially, nor is it objecting to the current articles or similar instances. Clearly the Crown does not want us to mislead, but nor do we. If the content ceases to be accurate, the obvious remedy is to correct the content, not to pre-emptively delete articles.
- I can see that the articles could be criticised for duplicating information; that's a plausible view to be balanced against the advantages of having the data listed together and wikified, hence the tentativeness of my Weak keep. But the legal point seems a red herring.
- — Richardguk (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Content on Wikipedia must be licensed compatibly with Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. This license does not guarantee that the material will remain accurate; our reusers may do whatever they wish with it, even if they wish to deliberately mess it up. They may modify it in any way. Per our copyright policy and Terms of Use (both linked above), we can't accept content that is licensed more restrictively than that even if we should agree that accuracy is a good idea. (For background, see this 2002 pronouncement by User:Jimbo Wales. Plus there are plenty of conversations about it in Wiki.) The only question here is whether there is sufficient creativity in the content for Crown copyright to apply. I am inclined to doubt it, but as I said I've asked our attorney. Pending his answer, further discussion of the copyright question seems unnecessary, unless he tells us to settle it in house. If he says it is uncreative, there is no concern. If he says it is protected expression, it will be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mike has kindly offered quick response; copyright concerns are off the table. The lists can and should be judged on other factors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking into this. It's certainly complicated, but thanks for obtaining such clear and swift advice. — Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Content on Wikipedia must be licensed compatibly with Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. This license does not guarantee that the material will remain accurate; our reusers may do whatever they wish with it, even if they wish to deliberately mess it up. They may modify it in any way. Per our copyright policy and Terms of Use (both linked above), we can't accept content that is licensed more restrictively than that even if we should agree that accuracy is a good idea. (For background, see this 2002 pronouncement by User:Jimbo Wales. Plus there are plenty of conversations about it in Wiki.) The only question here is whether there is sufficient creativity in the content for Crown copyright to apply. I am inclined to doubt it, but as I said I've asked our attorney. Pending his answer, further discussion of the copyright question seems unnecessary, unless he tells us to settle it in house. If he says it is uncreative, there is no concern. If he says it is protected expression, it will be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting that copyright notice in full:
- It cannot be, unfortunately. The Crown Copyright exemption is that all material can be copied WITHOUT CHANGE. The nature of Wikipedia makes that impossible to guarantee. Nuttah (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we will try in good faith but I see your point. I am far from expert in copyright. User:Moonriddengirl is a good person to ask. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "…provided it is reproduced accurately…" — it may be accurate at the moment, but how can we ensure it stays accurate? Full edit protection?? Qwfp (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no consensus to delete. Copyright concern is inchoate at best.--Milowent (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource - I struck my comment after Moonriddengirl's comment. There are doubts as to the status of such content and for the limited value of the content I don't under the circumstances support Keeping it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the articles were moved to Wikisource, reproducing the statutory instruments verbatim, wouldn't it be harder to link to it from relevant articles on English Wikipedia, and vice versa, and harder to maintain those links? We don't need to reproduce the source unchanged, as it's already online at the official website; but by using the content here, we can enhance it with internal wikilinks. — Richardguk (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I also think that under the circumstances and the no consensus that is present that as there is no hurry and relisting to get wider community comment would be a fair request. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That wouldn't hurt.--Milowent (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 20:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "If the articles were moved to Wikisource, reproducing the statutory instruments verbatim, wouldn't it be harder to link to it from relevant articles on English Wikipedia, and vice versa, and harder to maintain those links? We don't need to reproduce the source unchanged, as it's already online at the official website; but by using the content here, we can enhance it with internal wikilinks."
It looks pretty verbatim to me, as you say...it is already online...to me this content in an external link, through wikisource or see also or wherever but our hosting it verbatim here when it is already hosted and when there are issues with copyright is not part of the remit ot the project. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are not "issues with copyright". Moonriddengirl consulted an authoritative source and reported above (20:19, 21 June 2010) that "copyright concerns are off the table. The lists can and should be judged on other factors." — Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I don't see any major problems - organised, factual, and no doubt useful to those who study such things. I note the copyright issues; however, facts cannot be copyrighted, of course, only creative writing. TerriersFan (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTREPOSITORY It's a direct copy of material available elsewhere on the net, thus it should be at most on Wikisource per the guidelines.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re NOTDIR: none of the seven cases listed there seem to apply; the information is lengthy but specific not indiscriminate. Conversely, the articles do not contradict anything at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists.
- Re NOTREPOSITORY: none of the four cases apply. The articles are not "original, unmodified wording", they comprise the relevant facts rearranged and reformatted with wikilinks, which is what makes them useful as articles on enwiki, and would make them ineligible for Wikisource.
- — Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep -- Many consistutency articles are weak on the description of the boundaries. Information on the local govenrment wards of which each consists is useful and should be added to those articles. However, I would be happier if the constituencies were grouped by District Council, so that it was clear which council the ward elected a councillor for. WP has many list articles, and this is just another. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One option would be to reformat the lists into a sortable table, so that readers can choose to view the list either in constituency order or in local authority order. This could also allow areas to be grouped by county or ceremonial county. — Richardguk (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting idea. The main list is 160kb long. Would sorting be practical, or might it take ages? I don't think there should be two copies of the info as this will be difficult to maintain. How about transcluding each of the sub-lists into the main list? Qwfp (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a go, at User:Richardguk/List of United Kingdom electoral wards by constituency. See note below for some initial thoughts. — Richardguk (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only problem I can see is that come Local Authorities are covered by more than one constituency, so the reader wouldn't get a list by Local Authority. 07bargem (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a go, at User:Richardguk/List of United Kingdom electoral wards by constituency. See note below for some initial thoughts. — Richardguk (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting idea. The main list is 160kb long. Would sorting be practical, or might it take ages? I don't think there should be two copies of the info as this will be difficult to maintain. How about transcluding each of the sub-lists into the main list? Qwfp (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One option would be to reformat the lists into a sortable table, so that readers can choose to view the list either in constituency order or in local authority order. This could also allow areas to be grouped by county or ceremonial county. — Richardguk (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete, useful information and a valid list, unfortunately the crown copyright requirements are incompatible with our licensing, which allows the work to be further altered. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]- Wikimedia's chief lawyer has advised that copyright is not a problem in this case (via Moonriddengirl, above). Sorry for the emphasis, but this seems to be repeatedly being overlooked. So can we please consider this matter on its own merits?
- — Richardguk (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, he has. I trust that whatever admin closes this will take that into account when weighing "delete for licensing issue" arguments. There is insufficient creativity in these lists for copyright to convey under the U.S. law that governs us. (Closing admin: if you want more details about my e-mails with Mike, please feel free to e-mail me.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, Keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Indeed, he has. I trust that whatever admin closes this will take that into account when weighing "delete for licensing issue" arguments. There is insufficient creativity in these lists for copyright to convey under the U.S. law that governs us. (Closing admin: if you want more details about my e-mails with Mike, please feel free to e-mail me.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki or Delete. This is essentially directory information which should have a home somewhere but not on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've created a prototype of an alternative layout using sortable wikitables: User:Richardguk/List of United Kingdom electoral wards by constituency. It's a hefty 500KB page, but that includes all four parts of the UK so could be split.
The list includes official ward codes to distinguish between areas of the same name where ward boundaries have changed.
As this is only a prototype, I've not included county or review area details. Also, the constituencies are listed in the order published and would need re-sorting so that the default ordering makes more sense without needing to click the header first.
— Richardguk (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two factors to consider here. The first is the status of Crown Copyright on Wikipedia (a matter on which, I've said several times, Wikipedia needs clear guidelines that it doesn't currently have). I'm pleased to see from Mike Godwin's remarks above that concerns about copyright may safely be disregarded in this particular case and we need only consider the benefits to the encyclopaedia.
The second factor is whether this is an indiscriminate collection of information. My position is that it isn't. The matter is clearly explained in the first pillar:- Wikipedia is not just an encyclopaedia. It's also a gazetteer, and gazetteers need content that organises material for navigation. So for example, paper gazetteer would have a contents and an index page. Wikipedia lacks those but we have categories, lists and navigational templates that ought to serve their function instead. The rule that governs these is WP:CLN. And over and above the considerations of WP:CLN, there's a secondary factor: this material also supports and clarifies the UK's political structure. In short, I can see a variety of reasons why this material is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but a highly focused and relevant one and I'd expect to find decent coverage of this on Wikipedia. Richardguk's version looks suitable for the moment, though in a perfect world we'd have a clickable interactive map.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, opinion split on whether to keep or merge. Discussion can proceed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of professional wrestling promotions in Mexico
- List of professional wrestling promotions in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Created by an IP through a poorly sourced AFC, who appears to have a vested interest in this bringing a possible COI issue into consideration. Fails WP:NOTDIR under Section 4. Promotions that do not have WP articles are not notable and this is therefore an unneeded copy of the content of List of professional wrestling promotions. Suggestion of a violation of WP:ADVERT in the pushing for the inclusion of this material promoting these promotions. This is not encyclopaedic and should be deleted. !! Justa Punk !! 11:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, overriding concern that this type of content is not encyclopedic and mass advertising. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As per my response here, I specifically addressed the concerns given by the nominator prior to removing the prod. I referenced each and every supposedly "non-notable" promotion with multiple cited references from books and news articles. His assertion that this is an attempt to list every lucha libre promotion in Mexico is highly misleading as are claims of advisertising considering this article is an exact mirror of similar listings of wrestling promotions (e.g. List of National Wrestling Alliance territories). The nominator has yet to specify how this article falls under WP:ADVERT. Several of these promotons are already listed on Template:Professional wrestling in Mexico. Yet there can't be a list of wrestling promotions in Mexico? 71.184.39.119 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You definitely have a vested interest in this. You'd better review WP:COI. My claim is not misleading. It's fact. Just look at the list. It tries to list everything. This fails WP:ADVERT on the grounds that the listing serves no purpose other than advertising the promotions that are around and were around. !! Justa Punk !! 09:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could instead stick to the facts and discuss this like two mature adults? Let's look at the list. What exactly is on here that constiutes advertising? The only information on here is the name of the promotion, the founder/promoter (if notable), the general location, years its been active and the official website. That's it. Nothing that that wouldn't be included an actual article. In fact that could be a description of Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion. There is no contact information, upcoming events or anything remotely close to what is described in WP:ADVERT. Maybe you could also explain what would be the point of advertising "promotions that are no longer around"?
As for your other issue, that this is attempt to list "every" lucha libre promotion in existance, I don't think you realize just how many lucha libre promotions are in Mexico right now. Or how many there have been in the past 80 years. There are, at present, 17 entries with almost half that of articles already on Wikipedia. Even if these were removed, there's more then enough promotions to justify a list. However, I think the recently added references support that the "vast majority" are notable. 71.184.47.67 (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you have only proven existence. If the promotions were notable, where are the individual articles on them? Clearly you're a wrestling fan who wants it all on Wikipedia. This site doesn't work that way, and trying to put junk on here - well what amounts to junk under WP rules - is in effect advertising the promotion. A direct violation of WP:ADVERT. The list is already available on the page List of professional wrestling promotions. The list has to be NOTABLE - and it's not and that's why it's here for deletion discussion. !! Justa Punk !! 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And again you continue to repeat the idea that because a promotion does not exist on Wikipedia, it is not notable. You still refuse to acknowedge the sources provided or any of the points I've raised above. Does, for example, Rey Misterio, Jr.'s book Rey Mysterio: Behind the Mask "only prove existence" for Promo Azteca? Several of the un-linked promotions run monthy PPVs on Mexican television. Others are owned by notable promoters or luchadores. There are multiple independent third party reliable sources. Instead of continuing your personal attacks towards me you can demonstrate why these fail WP:N? Or how this fails WP:LIST? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are yet to prove your case. I have already proven my point. Yes, it only proves it's existence, not it's notability. Just because Rey Mysterio worked for them doesn't automatically make the promotion notable. Any church hall based promotion with a ring with any money could hire whoever they wanted. It doesn't prove notability at all. !! Justa Punk !! 03:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to sound rude, however, you haven't actually "made a case" so much as you've repeatedly asserted an opinion (i.e. "It doesn't have an article so its not notable"). Also you may want to re-read the chapter I linked to. It's almost five pages long and quite detailed. Roughly half of Asistencia Asesoría y Administración's roster left with Konnan to form the promotion and had a working relationship with World Championship Wrestling well into the late-1990s. It also had a contract with TV Azteca. I'd hardly call it a "church hall based promotion". The source cited clearly meets WP:RS (as do the other 6 cited references). 71.184.44.253 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, and it fails WP:IINFO, as do many of these lists. Claritas § 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could you be a bit more specific as to how it fails WP:IINFO? In my opinion, this is a listing of "notable" lucha libre promotions, not every promotion, and is supported by multiple books and news articles. Even if every un-linked promotion on here wasn't, there are still 7 WP articles here that justify a list under WP:LIST. And also, regarding WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTDIR, what information is here that isn't on, say, List of National Wrestling Alliance territories or List of airlines of the United States? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the seven promotions mentioned are already listed on List of professional wrestling promotions. !! Justa Punk !! 03:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but, and again per WP:LIST, it is perfectly reasonable to create a more specific list. Lucha libre organizations are distinct from American professional wrestling as are puroresu organizations in Japan. That such a list might be created is not all that unreasonable as you make it sound. 71.184.44.253 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we have some other opinions here please? !! Justa Punk !! 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken the liberty of contacting one of your colleagues from WP:PW. If he feels as you do then I'll have no further objections. 71.184.44.253 (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's as valid as a list of NWA Territories. There is actually a very LIMITED number of promotions on there, the notable ones from what I can see. And as for the snide "why don't they have articles" comment, that's first of all NOT a criteria and more a sad state of affairs pertaining to non-WWE wrestling on Wikipedia, I should know for the longest time I've been the most active lucha libre editor here. Why is it a conflict of interest for some guy to list the more notable Lucha promotions? He's making a list that he finds helpful and I agree it's a good idea. The subject of the list is valid, if one item or other is or is not notable in itself is a matter of content - but the list is valid, you cannot state that the world's oldest promotion (CMLL) isn't notable. You don't delete a list beacausee you believe some of the entries are not notable, you delete a list if it's not a topic worthy of a list, which this is. MPJ -DK 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and on the "notable" subject, this list is more valid that a list of US promotions considering that in the US pro wrestling is the running joke of "serious press", in Mexico lucha gets coverage in mainstream newsoutlets not just wrestling sites like 99% of the US coverage. So the topic of wrestling in Mexico is notable, more so than "wrestling in the United States". Providing a list to go with a notable topic is very common. I have yet to see where the conflict of interest comes from unless you've got proof he's working for one of the promotions that does not currently have an article on Wikipedia. So Punk unless you can actually explain what the conflict is the argument is not valid. MPJ -DK 16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MPJ, the reason for the COI view is in the manner that the IP is pushing this. If you look through his or her arguments, it smacks of a determination to have this listing including for no real reason other than for the heck of it. The constant argument is that Wikipedia "needs" this. Why? I find such a point lacking in NPOV, and where there's a lack of a NPOV, COI thoughts inevitably follow. Perhaps, on thinking of it now - perhaps I should be querying the IP on NPOV rather than COI, but I'd be lying if I said I still have COI suspicions on this.
- Also, if there is major coverage in Mexico of the promotions that presently don't have articles, they should be created. I should point out that my point here is not core to the AfD. The core is WP:NOTDIR (and the double handling) and I pick up the point made on one of these four AfD's (I think it was the US one) that WP:IINFO applies as well. The fed notability issue is related but not core. !! Justa Punk !! 01:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah well if NOTDIR and INFO are your main point we're good, it's not an indiscriminat directory of the 75 or so feds active in Mexico right now, but a reduced list of those who would actually be worth mentioning and it does not fit any of the other things on the list of NOTDIR either. And I'm glad to see you volunteer to help create articles, very helpful of you, just not relevant to the AFD. MPJ -DK 05:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said I'd be creating any articles. I can't. I'm in Australia and I have no clue as to where to even start looking for sources. A reduced list already exists on List of professional wrestling promotions so it would be double handling (which I also mentioned in the nomination). I disagree with you because this list has no purpose other than simply being a list. That - if I remember my dictionary correctly - is a definition of "indiscriminant". At least the existing page has a purpose, and that's to enhance Wikipedia itself by listing the promotions that have WP articles. This list's only conceivable purpose is to promote the promotions - and that's advertising/spam - which is definitely part of #4 of WP:NOTDIR (IIRC). !! Justa Punk !! 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And i live in Denmark yet i do create articles, not a point. By your logic every article that was created today was only notable from today on forward, that's just illogical. MPJ -DK 05:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you just said there was illogical in itself! How on earth do you draw that conclusion from what I said?? *confused* !! Justa Punk !! 10:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And i live in Denmark yet i do create articles, not a point. By your logic every article that was created today was only notable from today on forward, that's just illogical. MPJ -DK 05:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said I'd be creating any articles. I can't. I'm in Australia and I have no clue as to where to even start looking for sources. A reduced list already exists on List of professional wrestling promotions so it would be double handling (which I also mentioned in the nomination). I disagree with you because this list has no purpose other than simply being a list. That - if I remember my dictionary correctly - is a definition of "indiscriminant". At least the existing page has a purpose, and that's to enhance Wikipedia itself by listing the promotions that have WP articles. This list's only conceivable purpose is to promote the promotions - and that's advertising/spam - which is definitely part of #4 of WP:NOTDIR (IIRC). !! Justa Punk !! 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah well if NOTDIR and INFO are your main point we're good, it's not an indiscriminat directory of the 75 or so feds active in Mexico right now, but a reduced list of those who would actually be worth mentioning and it does not fit any of the other things on the list of NOTDIR either. And I'm glad to see you volunteer to help create articles, very helpful of you, just not relevant to the AFD. MPJ -DK 05:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what MPJ-DK means is that he lives in Denmark but regularly works on lucha libre articles despite living in another continent. Also your claim that articles that do not exist on WP yet are, by definition, not-notable. It follows then that an article on, say actor Steven Wickham, is not notable because his article doesn't exist. But if its created tomorrow...well it's quite a paradox wouldn't you agree? 71.184.42.165 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. MPJ -DK 05:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I think I've been perfectly clear and concise in my objections. I don't understand why you believe I'm "pushing" the issue "for the heck of it" simply because I object to your reasoning. Because we have opposing views, this constitutes NPOV on my part? While you may suspect my motives, justified or not, accusing me of them outright without proof is presumptuous and unethical. Nor, as you claim, have I said Wikipedia "needs" this list. I put forth a logical argument for why I feel this and the other lists are notable per Wikipedia policies (e.g. WP:RED, WP:LIST). Or more specifically that it does not qualify for the reasons you specified (i.e. WP:NOTDIR, WP:ADVERT). Your defence thus far has been to discredit me by "attacking the person" and asserting what seems to be your personal point of view (i.e. "It doesn't have an article so its not notable"). Can you refer to a Wikipedia guideline that specifically supports this? A listing of notable lucha libre promotions, or for that matter US independent promotions, supported by reliable sources is not an indiscriminate listing (a list of "wrestling promotions whose wrestlers have red hair" is a more appropriate example). In your reply to MPJ-DK's comments you say notability is not "a core issue". Was not your exact phrase in proding this article "Fails WP:NOTDIR and includes many promotions that fail WP:N"? 71.184.40.33 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I'm leaning towards the nom, but the IP brings up a fair point re mainstream coverage in Mexico. However one needs to provide a limitation in the lead paragraph to avoid WP:IINFO as Mexico has a very blurred line between proper feds and backyard (it's not as distinct as it is in other countries like the US). Placing a limitation on would validate MPJ's currently invalid comparison with NWA territories. As the IP created the article he should be the one to fix that. There is also the issue of a list already existing. A quick comment to the IP; Punk said it was not a core issue. He didn't say it wasn't an issue at all. Aren't you nit picking his argument? Mal Case (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it "invalid" to compare the lists? if anything the NWA List has a lot more non-notable entries on it, it indiscriminately lists ALL NWA territories, former and present (indiscriminantly). MPJ -DK 05:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. He listed two points for proding the article: WP:NOTDIR and WP:N. He did not, however, mention WP:ADVERT or WP:IINFO as a concern. At the time of the prod, given those were the specific concerns I addressed after removing it (by adding reliable sources as you've already acknowledged), would it not be reasonable to assume that these were the main issues? If there's some kind of disclaimer that needs to be on the article, I did not see one on List of National Wrestling Alliance territories, List of airlines of the United States or WP:LIST, perhaps someone may choose to "be bold"? I (and MPJ-DK) explained why WP:IINFO does not apply to this list. Can you explain why this list does not qualify for WP:LIST? Or why this would not be a legitimte stand-alone list? 71.184.42.165 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does List of Airlines in the US advertise the airlines? Does List of CMLL World Heavyweight Champions advertise the champions? Does "List of Grade A Buildings in Runcorn" advertise the buildings? It's a list that gives you an overview of a topic, namely "Wrestling in Mexico", if it's "Advertisement" then every single article on wrestling promotions are advertisement as weell. MPJ -DK 05:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How hard is it to create an airline? Very hard. Only a select few can do it. Ditto "winning" ANY world championship (let alone CMLL). A building has no direct advertising potential as such.
- Now - how hard is it to create a wrestling promotion? Easy. All you need is a ring, a venue, some money and some other trinkets and you're in business. See where I'm going here? Little promotions are always looking for ANY way to advertise cheeply - and Wikipedia has been the target of such things. Hence the existence of WP:ADVERT. That's why we have notability rules. The NWA doesn't let just any old fed join up. They have standards to maintain. Now if they DID do that, then I would question the notability of the NWA Territories list. But they don't. !! Justa Punk !! 10:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL these days NWA let's anyone who pays the fee join, don't just make up stuff. Also so what if there are backyard feds? they're not on this list, so what if there are small time feds that are not notable?? they're not on the list. All entries on the list are notable enough that they could have their own article. It's not a valid argument for deletion since it does not pertain to the list in question. MPJ -DK 05:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list does not qualify for WP:ADVERT because it contains absolutely zero information which blatantly advertises these promotions. You have had many opportunities to provide a specific example. As I have already pointed out to you this list actually contains "less" information then Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion. Would any the information listed in the template be considered advertisement? This list does not contain contact information, upcoming events, or any other information that would be considered promoting these organizations. Because of this, it also is disqualified from WP:NOTDIR for the same reasons.
I also think you're missing the point of why I pointed out the NWA and US Airlines list. You contend that lists are not allowed to have entries in which Wikipedia does not have an article for them. This, you claim, is because if they were notable they would already have an article. This list (and the others you've nominated) essentially covers the exact same information that is on the two lists I've pointed out. It apparently "violates" the same polices you claim warrant this articles deletion.
Both you and Mal Case have made some interesting, if somewhat questionable, claims.
- Mexico has "a very blurred line between proper feds and backyard". (From what I read here the Mexican athletic commissions are quite strict. Promo Azteca was heavily fined for its "hardcore" elements. And isn't backyard wrestling an American phenomenon? Even so, can you prove that any of the promotions listed are "backyard feds"?)
- Establishing a wrestling promotion is "easy" compared to an airline. (Fair enough. What about a List of convenience stores?)
Perhaps you can cite some sources to support your statements. Given the number of resources I've added to this list, wouldn't that be a fair request to do so in this discussion? And to Mal Case, it's recommended by WP:LIST to use {{Stand-alone list}} instead of leaving a "message of intent" on the article itself. 71.184.42.165 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Backyard wrestling is worldwide. No exceptions. It's the nature of the business. I know there are backyard feds in Australia for example. The list of convenience stores is in fact in trouble under WP:IINFO so in fact bringing that up helps my case for deletion. Besides, that speaks of chains and not individual stores. A chain would have strict rules, and besides even setting up such a store would be harder than setting up a wrestling promotion. Remember that there are very few countries that regulate pro wrestling. In Australia, only the state of New South Wales has a regulatory body. There is no federal body. I don't doubt what you say about Mexico's controlling body, but that still doesn't stop "tin-pot" feds from popping up.
- Why should I source my statements? This is a discussion based on opinion per WP rules. Trying to challenge my opinion outside of the rules reveals a NPOV issue with you. You are clearly determined to retain this list no matter what to the point of WP:IAR. I oppose that view point and you are clearly not allowing me to do so by cherry picking my valid points to pieces. You've said all that needs to be said as have I. This is my last statement to you on this AfD. We are getting nowhere and the last thing either of us want right now is a no consensus result. We need other opinions (aside from MPJ) and this AfD is being short circuited by your long winded comments that will make others think TL;DR and not even get involved. Well done. I think there may even be a rule against doing that. !! Justa Punk !! 02:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I make a subjective statement, say Promo Azteca was the most popular promotion in Mexico in 1996, unless I give a source to support this statement then this is based on my personal point of view not an established fact (e.g. the US has 50 states, the Earth is round, etc.). To do otherwise is intentionally misleading. You say "backyard feds" are worldwide? Fine. Are any of the promotions on this list "backyard feds"? If there are then please name one. Otherwise, its irrelevant to the discussion.
Your comments about the article are, once again, misleading. The convenience store article is not so much "in trouble", as if it had been proded or nominated for AFD, so much as it had been tagged for cleanup. Note the editor felt the list need to be cleaned up not deleted and allowed considerable time to do so. That was my point to bringing up this article. I can point out lists for restaurants and other "small businesses" that are allowed on Wikipedia (including GA and FL-grade lists). You say my comments are "long winded" (I'll take that as constructive criticism rather than a personal attack). That is also your opinion. I believe I'm being thorough as possible. Some people find that helpful. Others may find it annoying. Does that mean I have a conflict of interest or a hidden agenda? If you'll notice, there hasn't been a great deal of activity here. I also have the right to correct someone if there "vote" is based on an incorrect belief to points I have refuted earlier in the discussion (e.g. "this is being used as a business directory" or "this is an indiscriminate listing of "every" US promotion ever"). If you've paid attention to anything I've said here or elsewhere, my stance it the exact opposite of the "ignore all rules" policy. My main argument is that the policies you cite are being misapplied and ignore other basic policies (WP:LIST and WP:RED). Every argument I've made has clearly refuted your points. I've been specific as to how WP:LIST and WP:RED apply. Why do you consider this "nit picking" or "cherry picking" your arguments? Even Mal Case has admitted I bring up "a fair point". I should also point out I not only took the initiative of getting a third-party opinion I even went to someone from your own wikiproject. I even agreed to withdraw from this discussion if he decided to side with you. Is this really an act of sabotage? You claim what I'm doing is in bad faith (see [8], [9]) and you "think there may even be a rule against doing that". But doesn't Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions apply here? 71.184.42.120 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another reference has been added for Promo Azteca. In the November 1997 edition of Pro Wrestling Illustrated, the magazine removed the "Most Popular" and "Most Hated" ratings, leaving room to feature more promotions. In total, eight promotions were featured in their ratings: WWF, WCW, ECW, USWA, New Japan, All Japan, EMLL, and Promo Azteca. In terms of asserting notability, I'm sure that being selected to be featured in the company of those other 7 should do the trick. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Close and relist This AfD has been hijacked by both the nominator and the objector who are both violating WP:SNOW in this AfD. No one will read all of this. Justa Punk's last comment is correct but he is just as guilty as the IP is. AinslieL (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly, may I ask, am I guilty of? I think I've made many valid points in this discussion. Your statement seems to imply that I, and Justa Punk, are acting in bad faith. Because this discussion has become "too long to read", somehow we've "hijacked" this discussion and our points (right or wrong) are invalid? Again, I point to Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions. Per WP:SNOW, can you explain how I have engaged in "pointy, bureaucratic behavior"? 72.74.199.238 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, overly long comments are bureaucratic behaviour by default. You only need to be brief, link the rules and leave it at that. But you haven't. Pretty simple I would have thought. I agree with Ainslie about relisting this to get a proper consensus, but when it is I'll be voting KEEP. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I to understand I am being penalized because my comments are "too long to read"? I am not a professional writer. If my "writing style" isn't all that particularly engaging, or even interesting, it's certainly not intentional. In reading Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, I was led to believe that citing policy without specifing why is discouraged in AFD discussions. 71.184.38.152 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly, may I ask, am I guilty of? I think I've made many valid points in this discussion. Your statement seems to imply that I, and Justa Punk, are acting in bad faith. Because this discussion has become "too long to read", somehow we've "hijacked" this discussion and our points (right or wrong) are invalid? Again, I point to Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions. Per WP:SNOW, can you explain how I have engaged in "pointy, bureaucratic behavior"? 72.74.199.238 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes relist it and see if anyone wants to delete an article with 65 sources. MPJ -DK 16:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the entries with more than two reliable sources to the existing article on professional wresting in Mexico - certainly seems well referenced, but as there are only a few entries, merging to the main saves readers a click and adds much needed refs to that list (and better formatting/info). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Anma. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability established through plethora of reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:RS citations which demonstrate WP:N. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge per Anma if no one else will agree to keep - seems to be adequately sourced (65 sources certainly seems like enough!), although I would be fine with simply adding it to the other article, which does not have the full list. But it does seem like it needs to go somewhere. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete; opinions are split on whether this article should be kept separate or merged. Discussion of the topic can proceed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 19:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of independent wrestling promotions in the United States
- List of independent wrestling promotions in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Created by an IP through a poorly sourced AFC, who appears to have a vested interest in this bringing a possible COI issue into consideration. Fails WP:NOTDIR under Section 4. Promotions that do not have WP articles are not notable and this is therefore an unneeded copy of the content of List of professional wrestling promotions. Suggestion of a violation of WP:ADVERT in the pushing for the inclusion of this material promoting these promotions. This is not encyclopaedic and should be deleted. !! Justa Punk !! 11:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's unfortunate that the nominator decided to send this to AFD without allowing me to respond to my perfectly reasonable question on the talk page. As I explained to this editor, this does not merit deletion under WP:NOTDIR, specifically clause 4, which states:
- "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article."
This is not an attempt to list every independent wrestling promotion in the United States but is intended to be a well-referenced listing of notable independent promotions Wikipedia "should" have (not unlike WP:MISSING). In the original version of this article, every entry had two or more cited references. While the majority were from ProWrestling.com, Solie.org and Wrestling-Titles.com, all frequently used and accepted sources on WP wrestling articles [10] [11] [12], it also contained several books and news articles. While its true additional entries have been added without sources, the current article contains over 200 cited references. I don't understand why he feels the article is "poorly sourced" or which of the references he has an issue with.
I also find it in somewhat bad faith that this editor has accused me of having a conflict of interest or that I am trying to "advertise". Its also misleading to suggest I am the original author. I told the editor that I would have been happy to help improve the article if he pointed out his concerns. There are more than enough existing promotions on WP to justify a list although I could have provided additional references had I been given the opportunity to do so (as I had on List of professional wrestling promotions in Australia, Mexico and New Zealand). Deletion seems a tad extreme in this case given other alternatives available, for example, removing the uncited or "non-notable" entries. Despite my polite request, the editor has not named even one of the "number of promotions that fail the test under WP:N".
I attempted to discuss these issues in a civil manner but, from what I gathered on the talk page (and his above comments), he isn't interested in my opinion. In his reply, I was told that I "failed to address the concerns expressed in the prod" despite the fact that I was awaiting his response to find out what these concerns specifically were. On the articles in which I did "address these concerns", he nominated them for deletion regardless. While I disagree with many of his assertions, particularly that an article isn't notable if it doesn't already have a WP article, I have made a sincere attempt to improve this and similar articles. I've never questioned his motives only his reasoning.
In short, there are a number of independent wrestling promotions in the US. While I'll be the first to agree that not "every" promotion is notable, there are a limited number of promotions that are regardless if there isn't an article for them yet. A significant amount already exist on Wikipedia so why is putting them on a list suddenly a problem? If there are specific "non-notable" entries, then they can be removed. Deleting the list in its entirety simply doesn't make sense according to the reasons given by the nominator. 71.184.40.212 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reads to me like you definitely have a vested interest in this. Suggest you back off and see what everyone else thinks. !! Justa Punk !! 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that may I ask? Because I disagree with you? I've simply given my opinion and I do have a right to express it. I've done nothing to warrant your hostile tone. Instead of making accusations perhaps you could respond to any of the points I raised above? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are yet to prove my statement incorrect. You're adding cruft to Wikipedia and that's not encyclopaedic. You have the right to express an opinion, but you have no right to go completely against WP:NOTDIR, WP:N and WP:COI. That is what you are trying to do and I have the right to try and stop you from adding what amounts to junk on this site. You have to prove that it's not junk - and with facts. Not your opinion. And there is already a page listing all the promotions with WP articles so this is double handling like I said. !! Justa Punk !! 13:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what are you suggesting exactly? That I'm somehow associated with every independent promotion on this list, defunct or otherwise? And I assume this applies to my arguments for the Australia, Mexico and New Zealand list as well? I'm sorry but I'm the only one who has been arguing with facts. Unfortunately, you have responded by intimidation, dishonesty and rudeness. You continue to make unwarrented and wild accusations towards me. I haven't added ANY promotions (i.e. "junk") to the list. I did add additional sources to the other pages you've nominated and which you've yet to acknowledge.
I've never once objected to the removal of non-notable promotions from this list. I'm not arguing that all the promotions on the list must be kept. But are all the un-linked promotions on here "not notable"? You've refused to even discuss the matter on the talk page and in this discussion. If you look through the list carefully, there are more then enough existing articles already. This follows WP:LIST to the letter and does not warrant the deletion of the list itself. 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The argument for deletion is pretty shabby. Promotions that do not have WP articles obviously need to get WP articles, provided sourcing is available. I wasn't aware that so many regional independent wrestling leagues exists. This article could use some attention and help. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing is not available, Regent. That's why they aren't notable. It is not possible to improve this article. I've already done my research, and this makes my argument far from shabby. You can't just add promotions to Wikipedia for the heck of it. They have to be notable and that notability has to be verifiable through third party independent reliable sources. Why double handle what's already available? !! Justa Punk !! 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then a list containing promotions referenced with "third party independent reliable sources" would be acceptable correct? There are 200+ cited references right now. Which of these do disagree with? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of them because they only establish existence - not notability. The only notable ones are the ones who have WP articles. !! Justa Punk !! 13:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The very "first" cited reference, for Power & Glory Wrestling in Connecticut, is to an article on the promotion by noted wrestling author Brian Solomon. A quick search on Wikipedia shows his work is cited in 440+ wrestling articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, a project you yourself are involved with, lists Solomon as a reliable source.
Essentially your argument boils down to this:
- Wrestling promotions that do not have WP articles are not notable (which violates WP:RED among other policies; many independent promotions that do exist are included in the article).
- Even if they were, the list is "poorly sourced" and is not covered by "third party independent reliable sources" (despite the 200 cited references already on the page you've yet to name one unreliable source as an example).
- A list such as this is "unencyclopedic" (despite articles covering independent wrestlers and the independent circuit itself).
- This list constitutes advertising and a directory (despite the fact that the clauses you state in said policies do not apply in any way - you've yet to specify how they do).
You state you've "done your homework" and that "all of them" are not notable. It took me a considerable time to find sources for List of professional wrestling promotions in Australia, Mexico and New Zealand. Because of this, I believe I've made a strong case that the majority of the un-linked promotions are notable. Perhaps now you might be willing to do the same? 71.184.47.67 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. About an hour after my last post, I've done a cursory search on Google News. At random I picked the 20-year old "Power League Wrestling" in Rhode Island (currently the only one in the state). Among my results? An article on the promotion by the Providence Journal ("Bruisers go to the mat for a worthy cause"). Albeit a pay article, as many of them were, there were a number of articles covering their activities as a charity organization. Beginner's luck perhaps? Alright, let's see what our second random search picks up for the Allied Independent Wrestling Federation in North Carolina. Another news article by the Winston-Salem Journal ("IT'S ALL-OUT WAR ; BLOOD, GUTS AND THEATER ATTRACT FANS TO THE WONDERS OF HARD-CORE WRESTLING"). The New York Wrestling Connection, a promotion owned by Mikey Whipwreck, has numerous hits. And among these is an article by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel ("WHIPWRECK LEARNED HARD LESSONS -- NOW HE'S A TEACHER"). According to SLAM! Sports, Mike Mondo started his career there ("Mike Mondo still has the spirit") as well as Matt Striker (SLAM! Wrestling Bio: Matt Striker) and Christopher Daniels (SLAM! Wrestling Bio: Christopher Daniels) having notable stints in the promotion. The promotion has been listed on your own wrestling wikiproject's "requested articles" list for nearly a year.
- The news articles I've produced are not press releases or advertisements. They are articles, granted from local (but perfectly notable) newspapers, that fulfill "Significant coverage" as required by WP:N and WP:CORP. If you've "done your homework", as you say, then you've unfortunately missed one of two of these articles in your search. Furthermore, this demonstrates that at least "some" of the articles in question "are" notable. While you may show some that are not, and again I would not object to removing a legitimate non-notable entry, your whole argument hinges on the fact that "all" of the un-linked articles are not notable, not only because they don't already have an article on Wikipedia, but that there are no reliable sources that exist even if they did. 71.184.47.67 (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I challenge you to create articles on these promotions. If they are notable there should be an article on them. But you won't because you prefer this unencyclopaedic source. I only claimed the research had been done on the Australian promotions so don't put words into my mouth. I never said or meant that in relation to the US. Local newspaper significance depends entirely on it's circulation, publication frequency and general content. Now I can't comment on that in the US but in Australia there are local papers that are primarily advertising vehicles. You're taking this way too personally to be reliable so I suggest we wait for other opinions to see if there is a consensus either way - not that it ultimately makes a difference because AfD's aren't votes. !! Justa Punk !! 03:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow you. Would the creation of articles be a general requirement in an AFD discussion? What we're talking about is this specific list, and whether or not it's notable, not the individual entries. However, as you bring up the subject, the original author apparently created Mason-Dixon Wrestling around the time of this list. Paulie Gilmore and Cueball Carmichael, both listed as promoters, have also been created since then. A registered user created MXW Pro Wrestling four months ago. While I'm not claiming this list is "responsible" for that per se, formerly un-linked entries on this list have been fulfilled (see WP:RED). I've also demonstrated evidence of notability for other un-linked promotions on this list. I assume now that you've abandoned your original argument?
As for "putting words in your mouth", your reasons for proding the article were that it "Fails WP:NOTDIR and includes a number of promotions that fail the test under WP:N". Now I would assume at this point it is more of a concern you brought up rather than a presumption of an uncontested and uncontroversial deletion. Per the guidelines for objections, I left a reasonable question in both the edit summary and the talk page with the intention of finding out what your specific concerns were. In fact, I even offered in good faith to help improve the article until you were satisfied (or not) that these concerns were (or could be) addressed. You instead dismissed my comments without allowing me to respond and decided to take it to AFD. It is therefore reasonable to assume that you had actually checked the promotions prior to this and other nominations. Once you've done so, it is you who has the responsibility to actually check for sources before nominating an article for deletion. If you haven't done even that then it is yourself, not I, whose "reliability" is in question. From what I've gathered in your above statement, am I to understand that you've only checked the Australian list? 72.74.204.219 (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said I'm not sure I follow you. You don't. I am making myself crystal clear on this matter, and bluntly you aren't paying attention to what I say. Bottom line - if the promotion is notable, create and article for it. End of problem. This list is not notable and everything else I said in the nomination applies - especially the double handling issue. That is my last statement to you. Let's hear other thoughts. !! Justa Punk !! 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I said I didn't follow you, I was referring to your "challenge". I'm sorry but I've replied to each and every claim you've made in this discussion. You have not answered any of mine. If you disagree with my arguments, then why not respond to them? It's not that I don't understand you. I simply don't agree with your opinion that because a list contains entries, those currently without an article on Wikipedia article, then all the promotions must be "non-notable" and the entire list is "unencyclopedic" and "advertising". I've pointed out that there are a significant amount of promotions on this list that do have articles (75 by my count) and have provided reliable sources that prove notability for un-linked articles you claim are "not notable". My issue is with the notability of this list not specific entries therein. This list, if it indeed contains non-notable promotions, should be cleaned up and properly sourced. It's a notable topic and I don't feel it warrants deletion.
I apologise if you've become upset in the course of our conversation, however, I think I've been calm and perfectly civil to you. Though in my opinion, if I may be honest, is that your rush to take this (and three other articles) to AFD may have been premature. You say you've only checked the sources for the Australian list but none of the others including this article. You point to policies without specifying how they qualify. The clauses you do eventually state (e.g. #4 of WP:NOTDIR) are incorrect. I have no personal feelings towards yourself or this article. I objected to your proding the article because of your reasoning, as I would have done so for any other article, not because I have some sort of ulterior motive. I wonder if you would have spoken differently if you'd been discussing this with one of your colleagues from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. 71.184.44.253 (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete List already exists. What isn't there fails WP:IINFO because the list is clearly intended to provide all feds as there is no limitation intent within the lead paragraph. Mal Case (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm sorry but you're wrong. The list he refers to is for general wrestling promotions that only exist on Wikipedia. The scope of this list is "notable" independent promotions, a legitimate subtopic of professional wrestling in the United States, and includes 75 existing independent promotions on Wikipedia that are on this list. The policy you cite, WP:IINFO, is intended for lists that are of very limited interest or are "too specific" (e.g. list of wrestling promotions whose heavyweight champions are named Bob). Per WP:List, it is my opinion that this qualifies as a stand-alone list. The only limitation I see, according to WP:LIST and WP:RED, is that entries must require reliable sources per WP:RS. The original list contained 190+ cited references, and has since increased to over 200. Whether of not these additional promotions are notable, as proven "non-notable" promotions can be removed, this is a discussion on the notability of the list itself. But even if that were not the case, according to WP:RED, would you agree that I would be within my rights to add a "notable" promotion to List of professional wrestling promotions if I could support it though WP:RS? If you check the history of the article this may not be the case. For the record, I have never edited this list despite the similarity of the IP address.
- As I earlier explained, this is not a listing of "every" independent promotion in the US. There is a decidedly "limited" amount of promotions from a "limited" number of US states (32 of 50 states to be precise). There have been literally thousands of independent promotions that have been active in the United States since the 1990s. The original listed 190+ promotions, both defect and active, in the past 20 years. The fact that every entry was supported by two or more cited references (per WP:RS) shows that each promotion was notable. The fact that many of the promotions did not have articles at the time of its creation is irrelevant (per WP:RED). However, I have demonstrated that several of the non-existing promotions were notable via "significant coverage" by major newspapers (per WP:N and WP:CORP). The nominator has even admitted that he did not check if they were prior to nominating the article (as per AFD: Before nominating an article for deletion). Of course, we should remember that this is a discussion on the notability of the list itself not its content. It is a perfectly acceptable reason to create a more specific list (per WP:LIST) and, in point of fact, has a clearly defined scope (i.e. "notable" independent promotions in the United States which can be proven though WP:N and WP:CORP). Have I misinterpreted any of the policies I've pointed to? I think this argument on the List of professional wrestling promotions in Mexico, another article this editor has nominated for similar reasons, applies perfectly. Do you disagree? 71.184.42.165 (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also according to WP:LIST, it's recommended to use {{Stand-alone list}} instead of leaving a "message of intent" on the article itself. 71.184.60.112 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Close and Relist The same thing has happened here as what has happened on the Mexico list AfD. Both the nominator and the objector have destroyed this AfD with their antics in violation of WP:SNOW. AinslieL (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but I don't understand why my arguments for keeping this article are being described as "antics". I think I've argued my point in good faith and in keeping with Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions. May I ask how have I been disruptive or have otherwise engaged in "pointy, bureaucratic behavior"? 72.74.199.238 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You certainly seem to have a fixation with this. See what I said on the Afd about promotions in Mexico. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A "fixation"? That doesn't really sound like an assumtion of good faith. Your statement also presumes that this is this first AFD I've participated in and that I've taken an unexplained and "sudden" interest in this specific article. I simply feel the nominator is misapplying Wikipedia policy (in good faith of course). If you'll read though this discussion, he has cited general policy yes. He has even refered to Section 4 of WP:NOTDIR (i.e. being used as a business directory and/or as a resource to conduct business). But he has not once actually specified how it applies to this article. Nor has he responded to "any" of my arguments (e.g. what information is on this list that is not on, for example, List of NWA territories of Template:Infobox Wrestling promotion?). His only replies to me have been to claim I have a conflict of interest and the assertion that "promotions aren't notable if they don't already have an article". Now if I point out his argument is irrelevent to the discussion at hand (see arguments to the person) or ignores a basic policy (see WP:RED), who is acting appropriately in this discussion? 71.184.38.152 (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but I don't understand why my arguments for keeping this article are being described as "antics". I think I've argued my point in good faith and in keeping with Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions. May I ask how have I been disruptive or have otherwise engaged in "pointy, bureaucratic behavior"? 72.74.199.238 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy keep: generally a very well sourced article, obviously passes WP:N.194.80.52.158 (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and merge Rename to Professional wrestling in the United States, prosify, and merge with the existing History of professional wrestling in the United States -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If I undertand you correctly, ALL the notable promotions on the list may be merged to History of professional wrestling in the United States and/or List of professional wrestling promotions#United States of America? Regardless if they do not have an article yet? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the actually noteworthy ones (there are several in the list which do not have enough reliable sources (reliable being the key), to make them worth mentioning. I'm proposing making a proper Professional wrestling in the United States article, similar to the other similar ones for Mexico, Japan, etc, under the appropriate name, that blends in elements from the list and the history. The list does have sources, so once the entries that are only sourced to reliable or insigificant coverage are weeded out, I see no reason why the rest can't be rewritten into prose as part of a article covering the entire topic. As Starblind also notes, those that are not noteworthy (versus purely notable) should not be included and many of those in this list are not noteworthy. Alternately, the list, when culled down, chould be merged to List of professional wrestling promotions#United States of America, though as they are "independent" I'm not entirely sure they would fit with the list' current topic. Also, while we all understand you are passionate about this topic, you really are not aiding the discussion by making lengthy replies to anyone who does not simply say keep. You've already made your views clear, so repeating them over and over is really not necessary. You may wish to review WP:AFDEQ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing to "anyone who doesn't vote keep". If I reply to someone with a valid question, say, why does this particular list not meet WP:LIST isn't resonable for this point to be acknowledged? You say the majority of the entries fail WP:N or do not contain reliable sources. Are you saying that none of them meet WP:RS? I think I've already proved they have. As for my "lengthy" replies, I don't think my particular writing style should the the focus of discussion. 71.184.56.82 (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but Redirect to this list. Many of these only lasted a few years and some for a year or less, which means they really couldn't possibly have been notable in anything resembling an encyclopedic sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I respectfully disagree sir. In the interests of keeping my replies brief, I point to here and here. Can you explain by a listing of notable independent promotions does not qualify as a Stand-alone list? The many defunct promotions are, I believe, "historically significant" organizations. South Atlantic Pro Wrestling, for example, was founded by George Scott and later run by Paul Jones and Frank Dusek. The Global Wrestling Association was owned by Al Snow. Additionally, almost every entry on this list is cited with 200+ references. Does that not support that most, if not all, referenced promotions are notable? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. While George Scott is a notable person for other reasons, things do not inherit notability by association (for details, see WP:NOTINHERITED). South Atlantic Pro Wrestling is such a minor blip in George Scott's career that it's only given one sentence in his article. As far as sourcing goes, to continue to use South Atlantic Pro Wrestling as our example, the source given (http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com) doesn't appear to be reliable by encyclopedic standards, but even if we accept it as truth it only gives two tiny slivers of information, specifically that George and two other people started it in "early 1990" but by July 1990 it had already changed names and ownership, meaning that it lasted some 6 months at best. It also says that the matches were held at places like high schools and drew miniscule crowds, in one case 42 people! Now, I've been to indy wrestling shows and they're a lot of fun, but come on, 42 people is a fraction of what I had last time I had a yard sale. I'm sure it was fun and some folks have fond memories and all, but some things are simply too obscure to ever reasonably be covered in an encyclopedia, and that's one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying because George Scott founded the promotion, the promotion is notable. My point is that the promotion is notable because it is supported by reliable sources per WP:RS. ProWrestlingHistory.com is used on over 1600 wrestling articles. Of course, even if the promotion was not notable then it could still be removed from the list. I could make a case for entries that unquestionably have reliable sources. Again, for an example, see my earlier response here and here. But this is not about the notability of individual entries. It is about the list as a whole. If your point is about the sourcing of this article then it should have been discussed on the talk page.
- Is independent wrestling a notable topic? Would a list of notable promotions be appropriate for the main article? If so, then what happens if the list becomes too large? It is generally appropriate to split the article. I feel this article has enough notable independent promotions to justify such a list. Now according to WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists if a list has existing entries or can demonstrate notability then such a list is perfectly acceptable. Pointing out one or two entries is a content issue and has no bearing on whether the subject is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. I could see if there wasn't any evidence of notable promotions but there are 75 existing entries on the list alone. And WP:IDONTKNOWIT is hardly a defense if a significant number of promotions have evidence of notability. Why not check out the first cited referenced on this article? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because ProWrestlingHistory is in articles doesn't make it reliable. It needs to have a proven fact checking system to be reliable. Nikki♥311 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To Nikki, Starblind and Anma - you are seeing here why the IP is being disruptive. You make a point and he argues it without fail no matter what. I agree with the proposals made. !! Justa Punk !! 23:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because ProWrestlingHistory is in articles doesn't make it reliable. It needs to have a proven fact checking system to be reliable. Nikki♥311 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're missing the point of my reply. The editor was arguing the notability of a specific entry because the source may fail WP:RS. I've proven that there are a number of un-linked article that do meet WP:RS. But this is not about whether or not a one reference to one particular entry meets WP:RS. This is about the notability of "the list itself" and if it meets WP:LIST not individual entries. Despite Justa Punk's comment, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm making a valid point. Nikki311, for instance, has only replied that ProWrestlingHistory.com may not be a reliable source. Fine. What about the other 199 references? What about, say, the very first cited reference on this article? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, the majority of them have the same issue...such as Solie's, Wrestling Titles, etc. After looking through the references, the only good ones are the book by Royal Duncan & Gary Will and the PWI Almanac. Everything else either isn't reliable or primary. As for the first reference (1wrestling.com), my computer warned me that it was an attack site, so my guess is it probably won't pass WP:RS either. Nikki♥311 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're missing the point of my reply. The editor was arguing the notability of a specific entry because the source may fail WP:RS. I've proven that there are a number of un-linked article that do meet WP:RS. But this is not about whether or not a one reference to one particular entry meets WP:RS. This is about the notability of "the list itself" and if it meets WP:LIST not individual entries. Despite Justa Punk's comment, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm making a valid point. Nikki311, for instance, has only replied that ProWrestlingHistory.com may not be a reliable source. Fine. What about the other 199 references? What about, say, the very first cited reference on this article? 71.184.56.82 (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the subject is notable, the format is fine - editing of entries is the only issue I see, but that's an article issue, not a delete issue. MPJ -DK 18:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Can not stand alone. Needs to be put into History of professional wrestling in the United States with sources that show that the promotion is historically significant. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 02:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perfectly encyclopedic and well sourced. —fetch·comms 18:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability established through plethora of reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I can't see any issues, notable subject and generally cited. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, just like the Mexico one - seems notable/verifiable enough to me. And for the love of Jimbo, stop acting like children! Fletch the Mighty (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.