- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per unanimous vote among experienced/established users. -- JForget 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bayley Gap ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Disputed prod; no reliable sources, WP:FRINGE, apparently original research Accounting4Taste: talk 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
I will reamain silent on this matter. my goal is to provid usfull information wich will help others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omaga99 ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'm leaning more towards WP:NFT. 3 non-wiki ghits, none of which are about this; 0 gnews hits.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Stay A transistor is a good idea. I work with high power all the time. (im an electrition) And i have found that normal transistors are not very good swichers. Although tuning a spark transistor would be a bit hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mega volt2 ( talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Mega volt2 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete per all above. Original research of something made up one day. Reso lute 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, sources establish neither notability or factuality. Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Stay Usfull information. Anyone making a teslacoil could use this. The faster it swiches the beter it will be for a tesla coil. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willy56.5 ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Willy56.5 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Stay I to agrea with Willy. I try many gaps and the Bayley gap would make a great spark gap, and i would be happy to make and use one myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza pants ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Pizza pants ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: Mega volt2 ( talk • contribs), Willy56.5 ( talk • contribs), and Pizza pants ( talk • contribs) have all only made contributions to this page, and have all !voted "Stay"(is that like "Keep"?). ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! ♠/ ♦ 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:V, as no one at all (other than User:Omaga99) appears to have written about this. Deor ( talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - 3 ghits, none for g-news. Fails at WP:N & WP:RS. All the "keep" er "Stay" comments seem ...umm... read them yourself. Faradayplank ( talk) 05:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The source is not there. But the Bayley gap is being published in you-tube for anyone making a tesla coil. In a few years other people will be using and refering to Bayley. If the Bayley gap was not anywhere else i would vote to destroy. Here is the you-tube video i found. [11]— Mr.ZAPY! ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Youtube is not a reliable source - anyone can post anything there. JohnCD ( talk) 09:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: There is no way an invention in 2008 will have passed peer review, let alone the WP:V threshold, barring it being done by a Nobel laureate. Someone should also explain to the article creator about WP:SOCK. Ravenswing 09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - absolutely no reliable, independent source. Wikipedia is not a place for first publication. JohnCD ( talk) 09:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - the supporting editors Mega volt2 ( talk · contribs), Willy56.5 ( talk · contribs), Pizza pants ( talk · contribs) and Mr.ZAPY! ( talk · contribs) all edited for the first time on this AfD. Such other edits as they have made consist only of adding the occasional dot. Mr.ZAPY! also removed an earlier note by Wakanda's Black Panther!, which I have restored, pointing out that the first three were SPAs. I have filed a suspected sockpuppet report here. JohnCD ( talk) 10:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - This article is a hoax and passes the 'duck' test with flying colours ('This page is protected by Omaga. Vandals will be reported and the page will be reloaded with original context.'). It is obviously nothing more than pseudo-science. David873 ( talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think it's a hoax as such; rather the contributor's design of triggerable spark gap with a fan for cooling and arc extinction. Fails WP:N and WP:OR, and the sockpuppetry is a little annoying. — BillC talk 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Mmm, I'd be much more comfortable with the notion of article creator = skilled inventor if the article wasn't semi-literate. Turns of phrase like "For the Head is were the spark will occur ... The heat sink can be purchased or made with a price of sheet melt" put hoaxes in mind.
- Delete I'm not even sure this "Baylay Gap" exists. Even if it does, it obviously hasn't achieved substantial independent coverage to pass WP:N. To the author: Simply existing isn't a basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Not even for a scientific discovery or electronics product. And while, sure, this "Bayley Gap" might be known around the world in a few years, to include it in Wikipedia now would be in violation of WP:Crystal ball. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! ♠/ ♦ 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: A search on Google for 'Bayley Gap' reveals nothing relevant and Google Scholar returns no results. Furthermore, some of the terms used in the article do not seem to exist. Judging by the external links and his user page, the person who came up with the ideas for the article in the first place may even be guilty of fraud. David873 ( talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'm also dubious it even exists. Even if it does, it isn't notable. Alberon ( talk) 08:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unsourced (well, YouTube-sourced) nonsense/hoax, support votes are all from SPA/socks. NawlinWiki ( talk) 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, Smells of a hoax. PB666 yap 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect and merge to Lyme disease. This has clearly been a hard fought discussion but there does seem to be an overriding consensus on two points: firstly, there is sufficient notability for the subject to be included in Wikipedia; secondly, the article as it stands is far from ideal and it may be better to start from scratch. My decision is therefore to redirect the page to the main Lyme disease article, so that editors more knowledgeable on the subject than I can merge the good material from this article's history. This doesn't mean the Lyme disease controversy cannot be re-created at a later date - as long as the new article adheres strongly to WP:NPOV. Waggers ( talk) 21:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Lyme disease controversy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Nominated per WP:NOTE and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Article does not clearly establish what the title controversy is. A long table implies equal weight for contrasting views of a condition called chronic Lyme, but the guidelines grouped under IDSA are the views of most of medical community not just IDSA. ILADS is a relativly small advocacy organization who's membership is open to many people not just doctors, scientists so the table is undue weight. The section on CDC is not a controversy so misplaced, the long-term drug section is too detailed review of primary literature and controversy is not obvios. All relavent information covered in Lyme disease so IMO this is a POV fork to advance views which don't make it at the main article. RetroS1mone talk 22:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or, as an alternative, Stub and rewrite from scratch using reliable sources and reining in meatpuppetry: Horrible, horrible POV fork and a focus of extensive meatpuppetry. There is probably enough material for a good, encyclopedic content fork on the controversies surrounding Lyme disease, but this article isn't it. It should be stubbed and material should be added piecemeal with reference to specific reliable sources. Additionally, extensive administrative oversight is needed to address the serious problems with agenda-driven meat- and sockpuppetry which make this article and Lyme disease nearly uneditable. MastCell Talk 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, merge encyclopedic content into a short section on Lyme disease. Then keep the Lyme article semiprotected and appoint two experienced editors to guide improvement there. JFW | T@lk 06:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or redirect and merge, hasn't there been a NEJM article on this? I think there is a debate but the article is a POV fork so let's rewrite it properly, preferably in a separate article. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 07:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and place salvageable material in section within Lyme Disease, using (a) verification of all claims at the point of editing them into the article using (b) citations of reliable sources, with (c) care and attention being paid to NPOV and WP:UNDUE. If this section becomes too large (and only if this happens, given the quality of the sources that should be used) consider splitting off the section into main article of its own. DDStretch (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: POV fork. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or redirect and merge, as a patient, this Wiki is for me. I can go to the CDC site for orthodoxy. Here, I expect to find, and have a right to see, all responsible, researched, fact based recommendations, pros and cons, and not only or mainly the prevailing policy of the medical establishment (no criticism intended). There clearly are areas of uncertainty and there are suffering people who fall into those areas who have to make hard choices. We deserve full disclosure and well presented POVs from both sides. The original article presumed the CDC's POV. I needed the table in this branch to visualize how the recommendations compared. Both sides are pretty scary.
LeoBellew (
talk) 2008 07 08Jul 04:58Tue (UTC) —
LeoBellew (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Editor's first post, and there has been off-Wiki recruiting on Lyme advocacy websites.
[12],
[13],
[14]
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
05:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Wikipedia is not written for patients. See WP:MEDMOS#Audience and the medical disclaimer. The mere fact that some patients find this information convenient is not proof of topic notability or its appropriateness for an encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Editor's first post, and there has been off-Wiki recruiting on Lyme advocacy websites.
[12],
[13],
[14]
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
05:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, POV fork giving undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. Tim Vickers ( talk) 04:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- But it doesn't necessarily have to be so. --
Steven Fruitsmaak (
Reply)
07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think giving this "controversy" its own article overestimates its notability. It can certainly be mentioned in the main article, but this isn't something like the creation-evolution controversy where the debate itself is notable. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- But it doesn't necessarily have to be so. --
Steven Fruitsmaak (
Reply)
07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep, but cover the social and political impacts and history, not the fringe claims except as necessary background. Lyme disease says that there are enough people barking about this to reduce the pool of researchers, which would seem to be sufficient for WP:Notability. I am not a doctor - does anybody not associated with ILADS promote this idea? If not, it might be appropriate to treat the idea there instead. - Eldereft ( cont.) 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)- Delete, or merge and redirect if necessary. This is nowhere near as notable as, for instance, researchers shying away from animal testing. The conjecture and its social consequences are adequately treated in Lyme disease. Kudos to Tim Vickers. - Eldereft ( cont.) 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for several reasons:
- Content forking. We don't want two articles, Orthodox scientific views of Lyme disease and Alternative interpretations of Lyme disease. That, BTW, is what the article really is about, in its current form: it's not actually about the various political actions and, well, controversies. The article is not accurately titled. The two views should be represented in the same article with due weight (= less attention on the widely rejected "alternative" idea).
- Notability. The alternative view of Lyme disease is not particularly notable. Important enough to mention in the article? Yes. Important enough to merit an entire article, with a careful comparison of the POV of each side? No. As Tim pointed out, this isn't like creationism vs. evolution; this is much more like Multiple chemical sensitivity spinning off an entire article for the sake of a point-by-point comparison of the differences between the mainstream and alternative views. Although I know a bit about the alternative interpretation of Lyme disease for professional reasons, I've never heard a regular news story about "chronic Lyme". (I see that exactly two are cited in the article; both are entirely critical of the "chronic Lyme" idea.) I have, however heard and read many stories on the mainstream view of Lyme disease. I therefore conclude that readers are not going to come looking for information about the controversy itself.
- Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. This article feels like it was created by someone with the specific agenda of drawing additional attention to this idea, with the hope of giving it additional credibility or at least raising awareness.
- Undue emphasis on an idea that is rejected by mainstream researchers. I realize that this is inconvenient for agenda accounts that want to push minority viewpoints, but all Wikipedia articles, taken individually and in aggregate, must reflect the mainstream view -- the "orthodoxy", as one patient put it in comments above. This is the meaning of NPOV. If you consider these articles together, the aggregate attention dedicated to the rejected viewpoint and a few political actions is really not appropriate.
- Wikipedia is WP:NOT your webhost. If a pro-chronic-Lymer wants to make this information available somewhere, that's fine. Grab a copy right now. There are no copyright restrictions to stop you. But put it up on your own website, not here. The fact that you want this information to be somewhere on the web does not oblige Wikipedia to be that place.
- IMO the existing summary in the main article is perfectly adequate to describe this controversy. I think therefore that deletion is a reasonable action. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I've been uncertain about whether or not to maintain this subarticle. On balance, the controversy is by itself sufficiently notable, and sufficiently virulent, that it would probably be agood idea to have this as a separate article, keeping the main one for the scientific aspects. DGG ( talk) 02:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The controversy itself, as a separate entity from the disease, is notable. It must be addressed, since it has significant media coverage; so if this page were deleted, it would bloat the main article. The controversy has two aspects - the media/cultural issues, and the actual medical controversy. I'm not familiar enough with the scientific issues to know whether the alternative ideas about it are a fringe theory or not, but there is no doubt that whatever those issues are, there has been significant debate about it, too much to simply ignore. From a purely policy standpoint, the controversy as a topic meets WP:N and WP:V. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 05:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The controversy is notable enough to have an article of its own. As it stands, it contains far too much technical detail for an encyclopedia – for example listing the ten specific serologic bands in the CDC Western Blot IgG surveillance criteria tells you nothing about the controversy – I would have said something like "delete all except the first four paragraphs" but this is not an option in AfD. Jll ( talk) 09:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment/plea: Would it be possible to get a commitment from participants here, if this article is kept, to watchlist it to help deal with serious and ongoing agenda-based meatpuppetry surrounding this article? MastCell Talk 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've radically shortened the article by removing sections that were either unrelated to the controversy, or gave undue weight to fringe claims. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to
Lyme disease and
deleteRedirect; with Tim Vickers tightening of the article, and accounting for duplicate text in the two articles, I believe the main article can now incorporate a merge (in terms of WP:SIZE as measured by Dr pda's page size script). The controversy does need to be mentioned somewhere on Wiki, but the coordinated meatpuppetry, fringe theory, and sockpuppetry issues can be more effectively dealt with by having all of the content in one article. Per Mastcell's plea, I see no evidence that some of the "keep" declarers will help maintain the separate article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)- I'm afraid we can't merge and delete, Sandy, as that would violate the terms of the GDFL by failing to credit the contributors of the merged text. You'll have to pick one :)
Skomorokh
03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Arrrrgh, this is why I rarely come this way :-) The correct term, I believe, is Merge and Redirect. Thanks, Skomorokh. 04:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid we can't merge and delete, Sandy, as that would violate the terms of the GDFL by failing to credit the contributors of the merged text. You'll have to pick one :)
Skomorokh
03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete POV fork. B.Wind ( talk) 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - POV fork, deserves a line or two in Lyme disease but that is all -- T- rex 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - POV fork, subject adequately covered by Lyme disease#Controversy and politics.-- PhilKnight ( talk) 13:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Numerous arguments by new editors who did not address the pertinent issue of notability as defined on Wikipedia, or who made assorted weak arguments, were discounted. Sandstein 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because your vote was solicited by
this blog post, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- ThatGuyWithTheGlasses ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Non-notable Internet producer. No independent sources and no news sources found (none in article and not found in Google search). Fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Natl1 ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Almost no YouTube "producers" are notable, and I see no evidence that this one is. Beeblbrox ( talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. no claim to be notable -- T- rex 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, not notable, I edit on here and I'm no way notable! Bevo74 ( talk) 23:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This YouTube producer is very notable, he has his own site, and is in a "war" with the Angry Video Game Nerd...besides, I just added some new sections and cited some references and sources. 75.62.124.115 ( talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — 75.62.124.115 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- comment Your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is somewhat lacking. You can't use postings from the guy's own website to establish notability. Beeblbrox ( talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Links to the person's own entries on his website and a non-notable site isn't enough to meet the criteria.-- Natl1 ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence whatsoever of notability. --
Orange Mike |
Talk
13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Here are places that know who he is:
http://allwhogainpowerareafraidtoloseit.blogspot.com/2008/01/nostalgia-critic-is-back.html
http://pokgai.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/nostalgia-critic-does-pokemon-the-movie/
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=223028
http://digg.com/music/The_Nostalgia_Critic_reviews_the_movie_The_Wizard
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html;jsessionid=0C1C55227203DBC1C66E521B11F9F654.app05_06?topicId=7116276547&sid=1 Also, Cinemassacre is notable. It's the Angry Video Game Nerd's own website...he's notable, so it is too. Happy now?
75.62.124.115 (
talk)
17:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, that should go as well 192.28.2.6 ( talk) 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - Let's see: two blogs, two webforums, and a post at digg.com. Nope; that's nothing (and just because the AVGN has a website, doesn't make his website a reliable source (or notable, incidentally). -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Here are places that know who he is:
http://allwhogainpowerareafraidtoloseit.blogspot.com/2008/01/nostalgia-critic-is-back.html
http://pokgai.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/nostalgia-critic-does-pokemon-the-movie/
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=223028
http://digg.com/music/The_Nostalgia_Critic_reviews_the_movie_The_Wizard
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html;jsessionid=0C1C55227203DBC1C66E521B11F9F654.app05_06?topicId=7116276547&sid=1 Also, Cinemassacre is notable. It's the Angry Video Game Nerd's own website...he's notable, so it is too. Happy now?
75.62.124.115 (
talk)
17:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Even though I am a fan of TGWTG, I would probably agree with deleting an article about him if he was still on Youtube. However he is no longer a Youtube producer and is independent. Not only that but he was the one who created the "5 Second Movies" meme. That Guy has also done sketches and interviews with other internet notables. 70.53.123.207 ( talk) 01:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — 70.53.123.207 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- KeepThere's also the fact that the Angry Video Game Nerd, another YouTube celebrity and somebody with a Wikipedia page has acknowledged him and the "fued" between the two has already become a popular Internet phenomenon. If 2 Girls 1 Cup can get a Wikipedia page, so can somebody like ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, who has produced more than just disgust on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estefan ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Estefan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That may be perfectly true, and I hate to keep repeating myself, but without reliable sources it can't be verified, and verifiability is so important to an encyclopedic article that it is right in the five pillars, which are Wikipedia's most important policies. Beeblbrox ( talk) 03:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep That Guy With The Glasses is just as important as The Angry Video Game Nerd and deleting this page would mean that, to be fair, every single article on Wikipedia about a YouTube producer would also have to be deleted. -King SweaterHead ( talk) 04:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - blogs, forum posts and Digg links do not convey notability at this time. Also, just because other stuff is on Wikipedia doesn't mean this gets to be as well. MikeWazowski ( talk) 04:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Once again: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/226338/ http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-nostalgia-critic/984176898 http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/800736 http://digg.com/comedy/Nostalgia_Critic_Captain_Planet http://allwhogainpowerareafraidtoloseit.blogspot.com/2008/03/nostalgia-critic-speaks-truth.html http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=435691 http://www.tv.com/the-nerd/avgn-responds-to-the-nostalgia-critic!/episode/1208886/summary.html http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lPZdFWC6D38&feature=related http://forums.gamernode.com/showthread.php?t=19175 http://my.spill.com/video/video/show?id=947994%3AVideo%3A316772 http://forums.earth-2.net/index.php?showtopic=4026&mode=threaded http://www.xomba.com/user/thatguywiththeglasses (site where he had bum reviews for a short time) Come on! This guy IS NOTABLE. 75.62.124.115 ( talk) 05:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — 75.62.124.115 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep More and more "YouTube producers" are notable, citing G4's list of "Who's on youtube" and Spike recent signing of the AVGN, a "YouTube producer". The person in question has a long standing feud between a notable producer, James Rolfe, and has claim to be notable himself via Cinemassacre.com, and TheGameHeroes.com websites. Cparsley ( talk) 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Cparsley ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete none of the links provided do anything to assert notability. AVGN has enough sources to get by with an article. Getting in a flame war with a notable person doesn't make someone notable. JuJube ( talk) 09:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What about these links? http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece http://www.lepost.fr/article/2008/06/20/1211673_voir-un-film-en-5-secondes.html The 'feud' with the AVGN is not a flame war; it's nothing more than a fake created rivalry by two people who respect each other work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemvs ( talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Mikemvs ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Strong Keep* As per the reasons above. ThunderPower ( talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion everything deserves a goddamn page in wikipedia, nc is not that bad except his annoying slogan - I will remeber it so you dont have to - that's awful even though its kinda coll and it reminds you of him......damnit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd90022 ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Sd90022 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep per sources and reasons provided above. Blacklist ( talk) 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - He is the origin of the "Five Second Movie" trend. This is to the extent of even having The Times UK newspaper write an article on him: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece 82.69.9.61 ( talk) 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep WHAT ARE YOU DOING! Seriously Keep this article, deleting this article is just wrong. Should we remove articles of other celbrities, as TGWTG is to some extent a celebrity. not to the level of george clooney or edward norton, but still pretty famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.133.139 ( talk) 02:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC) — 216.118.133.139 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - If AVGN and has his own wikipedia entry, why not this guy?... if "ThatGuy" is removed, maybe AVGN should too.
Nubita (
talk)
18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Nubita
- That's
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, a notably invalid argument for retention of an article. --
Orange Mike |
Talk
20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your WP:JNN vote was equally worthless. SashaNein ( talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, a notably invalid argument for retention of an article. --
Orange Mike |
Talk
20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Is the subject of secondary reliable independent sources as cited above, the core criterion of
WP:NOTABILITY. Once again, some WP users have it in for Youtube celebs. --
Oakshade (
talk)
19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- comment - once again: blogs, online forums and the like do not constitute reliable sources; nor does mention in such places constitute notability. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Times isn't a blog and the coverage is more than a "passing mention".-- 76.79.244.92 ( talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't the website Kotaku a blog? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotaku) yet it has it's own wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.89.89 ( talk) 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment- Users responding based on the request at
ThatGuyWithTheGlasses website please note:
The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.- Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#cite_note-4
-
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece may be considered a trivial source. The article subject is Hyperediting (editing films (or entire tv series) into bite-sized chunks). It only mentions the subject of the article as one of the pioneers of doing this on the editing. However, this is commonly known as a trailer and just because of its shortness is an internet fad and is correctly listed as a "Microtrends". --
Natl1 (
Talk Page) (
Contribs)
22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Five Second Movies are not trailers. Very different. 82.69.9.61 ( talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- That Guy With the Glasses is an internet celebrity. If Chris Crocker can have an article, it's only fair if other internet celebrities get the right to have articles. Lightman2 ( talk) 08:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) — Lightman2 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete, nothing but spam if people want to use YouTube why should they clog up Wikipedia. Youtube celebs a contradicition in terms I was amazed to see there's a template. It looks like the bloggers have talking to each other. 86.163.86.6 ( talk) 21:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC) - 86.163.86.6 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Deleted comment pasted back in by Bevo74 ( talk) 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keeeeeeeep Please I think Wiki can handle this article. That guys is becoming more and more popular and you'll be re-adding him if you delee him now! 217.226.239.26 ( talk) 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Internet celebrities DO exist. Think about it: What is Paris Hilton famous for? Being rich...and other things I won't mention...but she hasn't showed any real TALENT. ThatGuy, on the other hand makes videos that people like. He and his brother write the scripts for them. This shows TALENT. ThatGuy, while not as a famous as Paris Hilton, is still online and is notable. He's going to get even bigger, so you might as well just keep the page we have now.
75.62.124.115 (
talk)
20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Talent does not equal notability. Sure, ThatGuy and company might be more talented than (insert tabloid celebrity here) but that doesn't necessarily mean that there are enough reliable sources to prove anything. The only way Wikipedia can maintain a high level of accuracy and quality is if every statement written in the encyclopedia can be proven with some sort of evidence, be it unbiased media coverage, a book, or a web site that fits the notability guidelines. If standards like these weren't regulated anyone could write anything and it would stick as long as it sounded plausible. That's the biggest issue when it comes to Internet celebrities -- you or I might know that something is true, but we can't necessarily back that up with a source. - Spectere ( talk) 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- comment - there is no more useless argument for retention than, "He's up-and-coming/They're gonna get bigger/If you delete her now, you'll have to create a new article when she becomes more famous." All of these are really just different ways of saying, "I tacitly admit this subject is not yet notable; but I believe the subject will become notable." -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, The article obviously needs some work, but then again no article in this category is initially well written. But of course that's not the issue.
- Keep, Let his site grow and their will be more need for a Wikipedia page.
At the moment, I think it's a bit of a balanced arguement as to whether the article has significant importance to remain on wikipedia. Several websites have written articles about or mentioned Thatguywiththeglasses' work, and of course there was the interview with Handome Tom on Video Game heroes. But at the same time it's still very underground and most 'casual net users' only know him as 'that guy who makes 5 second movies'. Thatguy and the other writers/admins on his site have talked about turning the website into an actual internet company, getting the investment to secure a location to film what is touted to be 90 different shows, each with lengthy running seasons. Maybe when that actually gets underway, and these numerous projects gain popularity around the internet (in a fashion similar to 'The Whitest Kids you Know'), then there will be no arguement that the site deserves a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigis ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
 | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Paul Diamond (lawyer). Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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. |
Colin Power is not a Lord / Viscount or whatever he calls himself these days he is a compulsive liar. I was aware of him and ever since I knew him things did not add up. He constantly 'lords' it about making these false claims. He even had the audacity to set up a facebook name Colin Power and using the email address: lordbelmont@hotmail.com.
He also has recently been on BBC4 Money Box after his employment as a Para Legal at Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors aka Cartel Client Review: He was terminated because he was incompetent and then went whistle blowing against him former company. He also has been spotted stumbling out of 'fetish' gay clubs in Manchester in the early hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings looking as if he were under the influence of drugs.
If you ever meet this person be careful he tells people as well he has 100K worth of shares due to pay out and that he needs to borrow some money....... Guess what borrow money, never see it again.
WARNING PEOPLE: Do not borrow money (more like giving), to this person he has no intention of paying it back. He probably uses it to feed his heavy lifestyle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.160.164 ( talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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 its a complex issue I'll give as detailed an explanation as possible. This discussion centered around
notability based on being
verified by
reliable sources, what these three policies say is that for a subject to be notable the information must verifiable from multiple independent sources. The sourcing that was used in the article in its current form(at deletion) were MTV sources including a blog, MTV has a financial stake in the series and therefore its fails as being independent. The other alternative source Vevmo was discussed at
Wikipedia:V/N#Vevmo where the discussion was clear that because there isnt editorial oversight the site does meet our policies on verfiablility and reliability.
Noting that in closing this afd I reviewed the discussions at
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_10,
Wikipedia:V/N#Vevmo,
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_The_Duel_II and the article talk page, content of each of these discussions where raised in the course of this discussion.
Gnan
garra
12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
AfDs for this article:
- Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
This article is at Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16), it may not show up correctly here due to the slash in the title. This article is basically a recreation of Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II, which was deleted ( see AfD here) for lack of reliable sources. I attempted to get it speedily deleted based on that criterion but an admin declined it on the basis that it "cites sources". Another editor attempted WP:PROD saying the "Entire thing seems to be sourced from rumors on blogs and the like" but that was contested. This article needs to be deleted because there are no reliable sources to support the information in it i.e. there is nothing about this season from the web sites of MTV, Bunim/Murray, IMDb, etc., and there is no acceptable version in the history to revert to as the information comes solely from sources that have not been established to be reliable Latish redone (formerly All in) ( talk) 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Article has been moved to Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Island -- l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 03:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep All Real World/Road Rules Challenges are considered noteworthy and this one is not an exception. Today,
July 5th on MTV during
The Real World: Hollywood marathon it was mentioned that
Paula Meronek would be heading to a challenge after filming her side commentary for the show. If it is stated on MTV that there is going to be a challenge, then there is going to be a challenge (which would be the 16th in the series, and logically where the name of this article is derived.) This is in support of the sources provided that do state there is a challenge currently filming in Panama. There is also a photograph of the cast from an MTV talent coordinator in Panama that makes it easy to verify who is attending the challenge. We can also see Paula which lends credence to the photograph, being we know she is on the challenge from the previously mentioned broadcast. Each cast member in the picture is recognizable and can be matched to their iamonmtv.com profiles (an
MTV Networks web property) if needed for verifiability. The fact that MTV makes mention of the challenge in a "Coralvision" episode (which is what the marathon was called) in collaboration with the cast picture and the historical track record of the source Vevmo in this genre is reason enough to keep the article while it is expanded and improved. The cast returns from Panama on July 11th which means that more information will be forthcoming. Are we really in that much of a hurry? I don't think that there is an argument to be made here about the notability, so deletion would not be the right step no matter the consensus. A template requesting better sourcing would probably be the correct route to take, which Latish redone did place on this article (along with making a variety of copy edits) before things got
personal and he nominated the article for deletion. The previous AFD discussion was not much of a discussion at all and at that time there was not a photograph, the mention of the challenge on MTV or the mention of the challenge from the casting agency (MM Agency) who represents the people attending. Putting all these factors together lays a clear path in my opinion for keeping and the article and making it better.
Zredsox (
talk)
02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have not suggested that the new season is not notable. Deletion would be inappropriate if there were reliable sources to cite. But there aren't any. There aren't any now, and if there are reliable sources later, then the article can be recreated later. --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk)
03:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you are in agreement that the season is notable then I think that we are on our way to arriving at a consensus to Keep. No matter what was arrived at in the past, if everyone here can agree the article meets the requirement for notability then it is a "no-brainer" that we should move forward with making every available attempt to improve the article within a reasonable time frame.
Zredsox (
talk)
03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- You have not addressed the reliability of the sources. I have attempted to find reliable sources and have not found any, and other editors have probably done the same. If you would like for the article to satisfy the
Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria, the article needs to cite those sources. Articles about past seasons were not deleted despite the lack of citations, because there are reliable sources available to cite. That is not the case with this season. --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk)
05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how much more verifiable we need to get than
color photography, but we have already gone 12 rounds on this on another page so obviously we are not going to reach a consensus. However, for those without a personal stake in the outcome of this AFD discussion, I think that a photo of the cast is an excellent point of verifiable documentation as to the participants of this challenge and in combination with the mention on MTV gives us enough material to at least have a page about the challenge with the cast members in the photo.
Zredsox (
talk)
13:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please refrain from making personal attacks at other contributors. Comment on content, not the contributor. -- Latish redone (formerly All in) ( talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how much more verifiable we need to get than
color photography, but we have already gone 12 rounds on this on another page so obviously we are not going to reach a consensus. However, for those without a personal stake in the outcome of this AFD discussion, I think that a photo of the cast is an excellent point of verifiable documentation as to the participants of this challenge and in combination with the mention on MTV gives us enough material to at least have a page about the challenge with the cast members in the photo.
Zredsox (
talk)
13:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- You have not addressed the reliability of the sources. I have attempted to find reliable sources and have not found any, and other editors have probably done the same. If you would like for the article to satisfy the
Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria, the article needs to cite those sources. Articles about past seasons were not deleted despite the lack of citations, because there are reliable sources available to cite. That is not the case with this season. --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk)
05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- BTW: As soon as MTV puts up the "Coralvision" marathon videos on MTV.com I will be sure to cite the appropriate one within the article that makes mention of the challenge, which I think will be a big step in the right direction to alleviating your concerns about sourcing. MTV would seem to be unimpeachable when it comes to its own content (as a source.)
Zredsox (
talk)
03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- And until MTV puts up that video then this article needs to be deleted. Also, even if MTV does put up that video this article can only have content that is supported by the video or another reliable source, i.e. if the video does not tell who the cast members are then you cannot have a cast list in the article, etc. --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk) 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC
- Just because MTV has not yet posted the marathon online does not mean it did not occur. We could use TV Guide to prove that and I am sure a few hundred thousand people could vouch. A mainstream cable television show's content doesn't have to be online for it to be considered verifiable. As for your second point, I agree. No matter what, the article should be kept in some capacity, even if that is a much diminished one.
Zredsox (
talk)
13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- You don't have to argue about whether a TV show said something or not; that is not the issue here. If you would like to use the TV show as a source then please cite it in the article. -- Latish redone (formerly All in) ( talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just because MTV has not yet posted the marathon online does not mean it did not occur. We could use TV Guide to prove that and I am sure a few hundred thousand people could vouch. A mainstream cable television show's content doesn't have to be online for it to be considered verifiable. As for your second point, I agree. No matter what, the article should be kept in some capacity, even if that is a much diminished one.
Zredsox (
talk)
13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- And until MTV puts up that video then this article needs to be deleted. Also, even if MTV does put up that video this article can only have content that is supported by the video or another reliable source, i.e. if the video does not tell who the cast members are then you cannot have a cast list in the article, etc. --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk) 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC
- If you are in agreement that the season is notable then I think that we are on our way to arriving at a consensus to Keep. No matter what was arrived at in the past, if everyone here can agree the article meets the requirement for notability then it is a "no-brainer" that we should move forward with making every available attempt to improve the article within a reasonable time frame.
Zredsox (
talk)
03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have not suggested that the new season is not notable. Deletion would be inappropriate if there were reliable sources to cite. But there aren't any. There aren't any now, and if there are reliable sources later, then the article can be recreated later. --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk)
03:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- As the editor who proposed deletion before, I support this listing for deletion. The article lacks
reliable sources. --
Jenny
01:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Although the sources do need to be expanded, the article is
noteworthy like the
Fifteen Challenges that preceded it, which from what I understand would supersede the need for immediate deletion, but rather require that the article be improved by the community.
Zredsox (
talk)
03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- To write an article, we would need some verifiable information. --
Jenny
09:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)\
- Unless we are trying to be so haughty with the rules that we are forgetting common sense, the picture of the cast (as I have mentioned a number of times) is clear verification as to the participants in this challenge, and MTV's mention of the challenge is clear verification of its existence. If you do not feel comfortable with the other information on the page, feel free to delete that information - but these two facts (cast members present and existence of 16th challenge) would seem quite apparent to anyone looking at this in an unbiased fashion. If we want to go as far as to strip the article down to: MTV is having a 16th challenge (the end.) - so be it - but this article is notable as we all agree, and it should not be deleted.
Zredsox (
talk)
13:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is the provenance of this purported cast picture? What does it verify? --
Jenny
15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have completed my vigorous defense of Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) and don't suspect that going in circles here is going to change your well established opinion on the matter. I think we should stick to the areas of consensus, which is that the article is notable and that the challenge exists - and build the sources and context from the ground up rather then delete this article of cultural significance. I know you are being coy with the photo and that is your prerogative, but I don't think it is going to help us work toward a solution and make this a better article (which I think we can all agree is the goal.)
Zredsox (
talk)
15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I must have missed something. Where did we establish that season 16 exists? --
Jenny
16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The airing of the 11th Episode of
The Real World: Hollywood yesterday. It airs again on Wednesday afternoon. The challenge was brought up by Host
Coral Smith, along with Paula Meronek's participation in it. I expect that MTV will archive the episode online, but I am not 100% sure as I do not see it of yet. I tried my best to state that in the article, but I am not sure as to the best way to source what occurred on a cable television show. Any help would be appreciated.
Zredsox (
talk)
16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's some progress. Now is anything concrete known, from reliable sources, about this proposed new series? -- Jenny 17:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The airing of the 11th Episode of
The Real World: Hollywood yesterday. It airs again on Wednesday afternoon. The challenge was brought up by Host
Coral Smith, along with Paula Meronek's participation in it. I expect that MTV will archive the episode online, but I am not 100% sure as I do not see it of yet. I tried my best to state that in the article, but I am not sure as to the best way to source what occurred on a cable television show. Any help would be appreciated.
Zredsox (
talk)
16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I must have missed something. Where did we establish that season 16 exists? --
Jenny
16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have completed my vigorous defense of Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) and don't suspect that going in circles here is going to change your well established opinion on the matter. I think we should stick to the areas of consensus, which is that the article is notable and that the challenge exists - and build the sources and context from the ground up rather then delete this article of cultural significance. I know you are being coy with the photo and that is your prerogative, but I don't think it is going to help us work toward a solution and make this a better article (which I think we can all agree is the goal.)
Zredsox (
talk)
15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is the provenance of this purported cast picture? What does it verify? --
Jenny
15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Unless we are trying to be so haughty with the rules that we are forgetting common sense, the picture of the cast (as I have mentioned a number of times) is clear verification as to the participants in this challenge, and MTV's mention of the challenge is clear verification of its existence. If you do not feel comfortable with the other information on the page, feel free to delete that information - but these two facts (cast members present and existence of 16th challenge) would seem quite apparent to anyone looking at this in an unbiased fashion. If we want to go as far as to strip the article down to: MTV is having a 16th challenge (the end.) - so be it - but this article is notable as we all agree, and it should not be deleted.
Zredsox (
talk)
13:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- To write an article, we would need some verifiable information. --
Jenny
09:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)\
- Although the sources do need to be expanded, the article is
noteworthy like the
Fifteen Challenges that preceded it, which from what I understand would supersede the need for immediate deletion, but rather require that the article be improved by the community.
Zredsox (
talk)
03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete Article fails
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:RS.
L0b0t (
talk)
17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- But it passes this test: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This challenge is to take place. It was announced on MTV that there would be another challenge. I am relatively new, but isn't it considered uncouth to post links as reasons for deletion without a substantive argument to go along with those links?
Zredsox (
talk)
17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The argument is that the "Article fails
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:RS". That is the argument. Also, if the event is "almost certain to take place" then why is there no citation of a reliable source saying so? --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk)
18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Like I said, I am not sure how to cite a cable television show as it is not like I can direct a hyperlink to it. I have pointed out the name, when it aired,the content of what was said and when it will air again (above.) If you could assist me in adding it to the article in an appropriate manner, I would appreciate it. Thanks!.
Zredsox (
talk)
20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody said that a citation had to include a hyperlink. Not all sources are Internet sources. See
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources. Note that the page says "If you don't know how to format a citation, provide as much information as you can, and others will help to write it correctly." As for how to cite a TV episode, you can use the template {{
cite episode}} for example. There are citations of TV episodes on
The Gauntlet 3 page if you need examples of usage. --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk)
20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. That should do it. I appreciate the help. Zredsox ( talk) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody said that a citation had to include a hyperlink. Not all sources are Internet sources. See
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources. Note that the page says "If you don't know how to format a citation, provide as much information as you can, and others will help to write it correctly." As for how to cite a TV episode, you can use the template {{
cite episode}} for example. There are citations of TV episodes on
The Gauntlet 3 page if you need examples of usage. --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk)
20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Like I said, I am not sure how to cite a cable television show as it is not like I can direct a hyperlink to it. I have pointed out the name, when it aired,the content of what was said and when it will air again (above.) If you could assist me in adding it to the article in an appropriate manner, I would appreciate it. Thanks!.
Zredsox (
talk)
20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- The argument is that the "Article fails
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:RS". That is the argument. Also, if the event is "almost certain to take place" then why is there no citation of a reliable source saying so? --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk)
18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- But it passes this test: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This challenge is to take place. It was announced on MTV that there would be another challenge. I am relatively new, but isn't it considered uncouth to post links as reasons for deletion without a substantive argument to go along with those links?
Zredsox (
talk)
17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Procedural note: Zredsox ( talk · contribs) and Latish redone ( talk · contribs), major participants in this discussion, are currently both blocked due to an edit war on the page under discussion. – Luna Santin ( talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a recreation and give Zredsox a final warning for disrupting Wikipedia. Not only has this been deleted before in the AfD listed above, he then recreated it as
Real World/Road Rules Challenge: 2008 (with the same sources as the current one), which was G4 speedied. The DRV for that one (
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 10) supported the deletion, upon which zredsox went on to nominate the other Road Rules Challenge articles as a
WP:POINT violation. He now recreated this article again, with again a different title but the same sources as before... Since we can't salt it (he uses different titles each time), we should just block this editor if he or she continues like this.
Fram (
talk)
09:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Procedural note:
Zredsox (
talk ·
contribs) did not create this article.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.163.43.13 (
talk) —
24.163.43.13 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment This article was created by a SPA, which has not posted since Zredsox started working on the article, at least raising a reasonable question.
Townlake (
talk)
16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- At first glance Sims2man2008 ( talk · contribs) may seem like an SPA, but if you look closer at the user talk page you can see they have been involved in other articles previous to creating this one. An administrator should be able to compare the IP addresses and put to rest any innuendo. It doesn't make sense to taint a discussion about verifiability with accusations that are not verified. 24.163.43.13 ( talk) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — 24.163.43.13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- All I'm saying is it's a reasonable question.
Townlake (
talk)
16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, I did not create this article. No, I did not create the first article that was deleted either. Yes, I took the time to make major improvements to both articles including adding tables, content and copy editing. Both were initially listed as stubs when I ran into them with the first already in AFD and without a single source before I started rewriting it. As for this one, I assumed when I saw Latish redone add a "verify" template to the article that he was requesting community action to make the article better, so I became involved. Yes, this article has more sourcing than the first incarnation including a photograph of the cast, a link to a casting agency statement that covers the topic and a citation from an episode of The Real World (that were not present in the original.) Zredsox ( talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Even though User:Zredsox did not create this article, I think that the point User:Fram is trying to make is that User:Zredsox's revisions to the article brought the article to essentially the same state as the article deleted at AfD. When I put the "verify" template in the original stub article I was expecting verification by reliable sources. Zredsox simply added the same Vevmo reference from the last article, which is why this article really should have been speedy-deleted under G4. --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk)
01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article history does not support your argument as Vevmo was listed as source previous to zredsox becoming involved.
24.163.43.13 (
talk)
12:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) —
24.163.43.13 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Prior to Zredsox's involvement this article was a stub with a single Vevmo reference. Zredsox's edits significantly expanded the article to non-stub status, but added further Vevmo references and a few other references that cite Vevmo themselves or are otherwise unreliable. So actually the article history does support my argument - that Zredsox brought the article into the same state as the previously deleted article. -- l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 01:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article history does not support your argument as Vevmo was listed as source previous to zredsox becoming involved.
24.163.43.13 (
talk)
12:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) —
24.163.43.13 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment This article was created by a SPA, which has not posted since Zredsox started working on the article, at least raising a reasonable question.
Townlake (
talk)
16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Procedural note:
Zredsox (
talk ·
contribs) did not create this article.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.163.43.13 (
talk) —
24.163.43.13 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Apologies to Zredsox, he did not create this article. The rest of my arguments stay the same though. Fram ( talk) 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak keepI for one see no reason not to accept Vevmo as a reliable source. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL doesn't mean "don't write about future stuff." Mango juice talk 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)- Comment
The Vevmo issue is under discussion here, if you or anyone else is interested.
Townlake (
talk)
01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, the folks at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard said that Vevmo is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. -- Latish redone (formerly All in) ( talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Vevmo is a web forum, a
WP:SPS - not a reliable source. --
Latish redone (formerly All in) (
talk)
01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone knows how you feel about this Latish. No need to keep posting it.
Zredsox (
talk)
01:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- like i said in the talk page vevmo is not a reliable source but the page itself should stay no matter what we know who is on the challange an where it will be held i think that is enough to keep it and than should be fine-- Spiderman2351 ( talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Spiderman2351
- Everyone knows how you feel about this Latish. No need to keep posting it.
Zredsox (
talk)
01:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
The Vevmo issue is under discussion here, if you or anyone else is interested.
Townlake (
talk)
01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment We Have turned this articale into an Edit War could we just come to a compramise-- Spiderman2351 ( talk) 01:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Spiderman2351
- Yes. Only recreate the article when reliable independent sources, like newspapers or print magazines, have discussed this season at some length. Until that happens, you (plural) don't create the article. After this has happened, we don't delete it again.
Fram (
talk)
06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- No that is not a comprimise we dont want it deleted. We know that who is going to be on the challenge and who is on the challenge and where it will be held and what it will be like so i now think we got enough for a weak keep
- Delete. I've changed my mind. I think the Vevmo material is probably accurate based on their general reputation, which I've learned a bit about by digging around some. However, all the material here is either from Vevmo or attributes its information to Vevmo, and I really don't feel comfortable with that. It's good enough to back up other sources but not good enough on its own: it's an anonymous-posting site with no editorial oversight, and authors don't even use their real names. In other words, Vevmo publishes rumors and tip-offs: they may usually be correct, but nonetheless Wikipedia should not be in the business of writing encyclopedia articles based only on such things. Re-create the article when material from a greater variety of sources becomes available: it will eventually. I would not be sad if Wikipedia had to wait until the show actually airs. Mango juice talk 14:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep as stubNeutralUpdated belowThe only reliable source used in this article is the Coralvision citation in the lead, which I think is enough to avoid deletion. Everything else is Vevmo or a source that freely states it mixes its information with Vevmo's. That reporting can easily be restored once reliable sources report that information. In the meantime, keep the lead, but remove everything else for now - bearing in mind that within the next couple weeks, there should be sources that've picked up accurate AND reliable casting info and such if I understand the timeline correctly. Townlake ( talk) 14:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)- i would be fine with that a stub would be fine--
Spiderman2351 (
talk)
20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Spidermn2351
- Townlake: You mean the "existence of the upcoming season confirmed by..." reference? There's no content in it. It doesn't even confirm the correct title. I don't see how that can be a basis for an article, even temporarily.
Mango
juice
talk
18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Point well taken. I just went to the MTV site trying to find the Coralvision ep, and came up empty. Then I figured there must be chatter about the announcement online... but the only search engine returns were Vevmo and Vevmo-related. Changing opinion to Neutral pending potential citation of verifiable info by others. Townlake ( talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Townlake: You mean the "existence of the upcoming season confirmed by..." reference? There's no content in it. It doesn't even confirm the correct title. I don't see how that can be a basis for an article, even temporarily.
Mango
juice
talk
18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- i would be fine with that a stub would be fine--
Spiderman2351 (
talk)
20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Spidermn2351
Show announced on MTV at the end of Real World Hollywood Finale. AFD discussion should done. It is called 'The Island' and I am sure it will be everywhere in a few hours. Zredsox ( talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - At the end of the
Real World: Hollywood, official promo for
The Island aired. The main site should be up soon. -
theblueflamingo
Squawk
03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment While the new information certainly makes a keep in some format probable, none of the speedy keep criteria are met at this time. AfD is due to close in a day anyway. Townlake ( talk) 04:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No sources except a blog post which references another blog. When it airs, or when reliable sources start talking about it, then it will make a reasonable article, but until then
WP:CRYSTAL needs to apply.
Orpheus (
talk)
11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Additional comment It seems to me that those who are (over?)involved with this issue would be happier if they spent their time on improving less ... speculative articles. Eventually the air date will roll around, sources will become available, and this article can be recreated with accurate content and a lack of tags like TBA, TBD, TBcorrected, and TBwhoops, that was completely wrong". Not personal criticism of anyone, just a general observation. Orpheus ( talk) 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as stub This is good enough for me. But I do think the cast information and other specifics need to be truncated until there's more official information available. Townlake ( talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as stub WOW! These "discussions" never fail to get heated! This article can stay because MTV posted the trailer on their website! It confirms the name, The Island, the location, Panama, and that its airing this fall. Some cast members are seen in the video, but I think that the cast list can be deleted until MTV puts up the official webpage for this TV show. I am not so savy with citations so I'll leave it up to you more experienced users to include this citation and hopefully everyone can now just get along. EliRykellm ( talk) 02:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Even though an obviously reliable source has been introduced during this AfD discussion period, I don't think that reliable sources give us enough info to write an article, just to add this season to the list at Real World/Road Rules Challenge. If someone wants to write this article, I still think it would be easier to just delete this article and start over, just to make sure we're only using the reliable sources to write the article. Though I would accept keeping the article and removing all the unsourced content. -- l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 02:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- LATISH we no that you want the article deleted but its mot going to happen we have a reliable source and thats all wee will need–– Spiderman2351 ( talk) 11:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Spiderman2351
- 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.