Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 1 - Wikipedia


Article Images

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Davis (musician)

Glenn Davis (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although there are some vague claims to notability, the article lacks any reliable sources WP:BLP#Sources, and thus fails to meet the notability standards set at WP:MUSIC dissolvetalk 01:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result of the discussion was Redirect Ardent†alk∈ 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger

Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub about a Wendy's product with no apparent notability beyond being on the Menu. Prod. date 8/30/07, Article was self-created, I support the deletion. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but question. I'm confused. :) Why are you nominating this for deletion? According to deletion policy, AfDs are for contested deletions. Unless the PROD is deleted, it should be sufficient. If others had not substantially edited the page, you could request speedy deletion, but others have. --Moonriddengirl 01:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moonridden, with whom I edit conflicted, is quite right about the procedural question (of course, my explanation was going to be three times longer and eight times less clear), but, since we're already here, and notwithstanding that redirection is generally an editorial decision, I wonder whether we might consider redirecting this to Wendy's#Products; Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger is, I guess, a plausible search for one seeking information about the corporation/restaurant, and redirects are cheap. Joe 01:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good point, Joe. And may I note that I'm a tad bit surprised to discover the Category:Wendy's foods relatively well populated. :) --Moonriddengirl 01:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected as per WP:BOLD. Ardent†alk∈ 01:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily Deleted by Anthony Appleyard. Non-Admin close. --Onorem♠Dil 11:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazillabyte

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

Non notable neologism. Google search returns 7 unique results. Contested Prod. --Onorem♠Dil 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Barely any content to merge but everyone is free to add a useful mention to Bi-directional text. I'll redirect in case people do actually look for this term. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of commas

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

No evidence (as far as I can tell) exists that this bizarre curio is notable. The circle of commas ( ҉ is its HTML escape) serves to reverse the direction of text that occurs after it (see Bi-directional text). You can see it in work here (it took me a while to figure out what a gnaborretni was, although I've heard of an interrobang), and also here.

While a neat (and very annoying) trick, I doubt that it is a notable topic, and the article itself borders on violating the notion that Wikipedia is not a directory of the internet. GracenotesT § 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. On a case by case basis the arguments to delete are stronger, but there are a number of reasoned keep arguments that cannot be discounted here. When you look past the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL or similar it is hard to get a consensus in either direction. I would suggest the article's contributors work toward addressing the concerns brought up here, specifically those regarding reliable sources if they do not want to see this article come up for discussion again in the future. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horcrux

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

The article fails to meet the primary notability criteria - there are no independent secondary sources. The sources listed are from the books, the author, a fansite "chat" with the author and another Wiki which does not appear to even mention Harry Potter or Horcruxes. None of these meet the criteria for reliable secondary sources. There is also no real world content as described in WP:FICT. Notability tagging and merge discussions have had no effect on the quality of the article and have not brought to light any reliable secondary sources (as required by WP:NN). Harry Potter and the the Harry Potter Universe are notable - this fictional concept does not appear to be - notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colection of information or a guide to the Harry Potter Universe and should not contain this potential fancruft Guest9999 00:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY I'm not citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason for keeping the article, I am pointing out that detailed information on specific plot devices (including fictional ones) are relevant and necessary to understand the complete story. The Horcrux is as important to the Harry Potter narrative as the One Ring is to the Lord of the Rings. The deletion arguments below seem to completely ignore the importance of the Horcrux itself and instead focus on a narrow view of the article's specific content. IFLËRNK 17:28, September 28, 2024 (UTC)
COMMENT-- your reasons for keeping are actually reasons that the article should be deleted. "This article contains detailed information that cannot (and should not) be found elsewhere." That's the same as saying that the article is chock full of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This is not information that is coming from referenced, reliable sources. This is the original work of the Wikipedia member. The articles cited do not contain any of the information that the Wikipedia member has originally researched, rather they only contain reports of the popularity of the books. There is no detailed study of the significance and use of the horcrux as symbol in the Harry Potter works among the referenced sources. The only detailed study is the ORIGINAL RESEARCH. That means that Wikipedia was the wrong place to publish the article. It's interesting, but it's original research, and it belongs elsewhere. OfficeGirl 20:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You keep saying over and over again that the article is primarily OR, and even though you have been asked to, you have yet to back that statement up. The information in the article is directly from the books and from the author. Where is this OR you keep bringing up, because I don't see it. V-train 21:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY Perhaps you just don't understand what original research IS, then. Maybe I should let "Jimbo Wales explain Original Research to you". The editor who crafted this original research article on horcruxes has relied on primary sources and has drawn his own conclusions therefrom. There is a time and a place for very nice examples of original research. Wikipedia is not the place for original research at any time. OfficeGirl 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply No, I understand what OR is just fine, thanks. You still have not given any examples from the article. I have read the article, and read the books, and the conclusions in the article (with minor exceptions that need pruning) are from the books themselves, not OR. V-train 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY Another very concisely written definition of Original Research would be: "The information in the article is directly from the books and from the author." Or another one would be: "the conclusions in the article (with minor exceptions that need pruning) are from the books themselves" The books themselves are PRIMARY SOURCES, and there hasn't been time for reliable THIRD PARTY SOURCES to be developed and published. So that means this article belongs someplace else, like a Harry Potter wiki or something.OfficeGirl 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY Your other "definitions" of Original Research simply do not meet the literal guidelines established here: ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Besides, The Horcrux article cites only the books and the author as sources, so your entire argument here is invalid. IFLËRNK 17:28, September 28, 2024 (UTC)
REPLYFlernk, you may have missed my point. the other "definitions" I quoted were directly quoted from V-train's flawed arguments for keeping this article on Wikipedia. The vast majority of the horcrux article relies only on primary sources and draws conclusions therefrom. V-train is trying to argue that the biggest problem presented by Original Researchers posting on Wikipedia is actually the definition of Original Research-- unpopular theories presented as accepted fact in an encyclopedic forum. It is not. In the horcrux article we have an example of a POPULAR TOPIC and theories and conclusions of the Wikipedia editor drawn from the primary sources, but there are no reliable secondary sources that reflect the same conclusions out there in the published world....YET. This is Original Research that is very, very likeable. I in fact agree that it's quite neato and a whole lot of work. It just needs to be published elsewhere. It needs to be published in a magazine that Wikipedians can rely on as a reliable secondary source. We shouldn't abandon a principle of Wikipedia just because a number of people think it's fun to break the rules this time.OfficeGirl 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply As I keep saying and you seem to keep ignoring, the theories and conclusions in the article are directly from the book. They are NOT theories and conclusions thought up by the editor, they are extracted directly from the book. That means they are NOT OR. V-train 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I think maybe you need to read the link about OR that you supplied above. Info and conclusions taken directly from the books that has not had someone else's conclusions and/or ideas added to it is not OR. OR is when someone injects their own ideas and beliefs into an article. V-train 23:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY Ah, but if we removed the personal conclusions and original analysis in the horcrux article there would be little left. And this Original Research is actually quite good,and fun, and genuinely neato. It just needs to be published elsewhere. Like a perfectly good Harry Potter Wiki. Or even a mainstream paper magazine. OfficeGirl 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There are very few personal conclusions and little original analysis in the article. I assume you are not familiar with the source material, because you keep saying the information is OR when it is not: the vast majority of the information in the article is extracted directly from the book, which means it is not OR. V-train 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment V-train is correct. This article simply does not contain OR. In fact, a few of the contributors have been painstakingly and consistently removing personal speculation and OR, especially since the final book was released. Please see all History references to Lily Potter for an example. IFLËRNK 17:28, September 28, 2024 (UTC)
REPLYFlernk, I think your reasoning is flawed. It's sooooo tempting to re-invent the meaning of words like "original research" when the originally researched article is as undeniably neato as this horcrux article is. And that's what you are doing. But this needs to be published elsewhere.OfficeGirl 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not accuse other editors of doing that again.
I'm with Flernk and V-train here - the article is careful to avoid any original conclusions, analysis or any other sort of OR. Forbidding simple uncontroversial statements about what happens in a work is not in the spirit or the letter, not least because if it were, we would have to make haste to destroy our entire coverage of the plots of literature, plays, opera and all that, and rebuild them taking care that we use only third party-descriptions without actually opening the books or watching the things. And at that point, it's tempting to just drop an EMP to the servers and start over with Nupedia again. Oh, and KEEP. --Kizor 08:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REQUEST OfficeGirl, please cite specific examples within the Horcrux article that you think qualify as Original Research.IFLËRNK 3 September 2007
  • I was just thinking that, since I have never read the books, if someone mentioned the concept in conversation (and they have), I would try to find it in wiki. I suppose a merge and redirect to Deathly Hallows would be enough, but the article's quality seems good enough to keep it. Unfortunately, Hocrux seem to fall somewhere between KITT and the Ectomobile in terms of notability. Burzmali 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article contains much information, which can be useful for (Harry Potter) readers. I think that as the horcruxes are very complex and hard to understand, people should be able to look them up. The horcruxes are crucial to the plot of the story, and I really think that they should have their own article.Shmooshkums 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT It may be useful and informative, but there's probably a much more appropriate place to put this article, since it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Isn't there a perfectly good Harry Potter Wiki out there somewhere that we could move this to? OfficeGirl 07:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We may prefer larger arguments, but it's not without merit to show support for a side. This is about determining consensus, after all, and there's not always more to add to others' arguments. --Kizor 08:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable topic, and is a well-organized source of information that combines content from more than one book and the author. As noted above by others, it is a complicated concept, and central to the plot in the last 2 novels. The nominator seems to have a penchant for mass Afd noms. A few weeks ago it was LOTR articles, and now HP. V-train 02:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes of course Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It seems a little condescending of you to trot that out as an argument, as if your opinion of what an encyclopedia is or is not trumps everyone else's. What you seems to be saying is merely that YOU don't think that THIS particular topic is encyclopedic -- or in other words, WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. When the subject clearly has some level of notability, then I suggest that the fact that you have not described any detriment caused by having the article is a fair consideration for discounting the nomination as invalid. Simply because you don't like something is not a reason to delete. You invoke "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", but that does not mean that anything that you don't like necessarily qualifies as an indiscriminate collection of information. older ≠ wiser 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry if you felt I was being condesending - I feel the detriment caused is that the content of the article is not notable per WP:NN as it does not have secondary sources - without these sources it isn't really an encylopaedia article - more of an essay on a topic - having bad articles like this is to the detriment of Wikipedia as it stops it being taken seriously as an information resources. You say the subject clearly has some level of notability - the notability guidelie says "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." - I do not feel that anyone has provided this evidence - a lot of people saying that it's notable without giving any justification or evidence should not really be relevant to the debate. [[Guest9999 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • It is unfortunate that some people are taking such a narrow interpretation of notability and extending that to restrict the definition of what an encyclopedia article is or is not. While WP:NN is occasionally helpful, it is not policy and it is not all-encompassing. Persistently invoking it as if it were policy is not helpful. There continue to be differing interpretations of what is and is not encyclopedic and WP:NN is by no means the final word on the matter. You want some objective evidence of notability -- how about half a million Google hits[1]? Or looking a a more refined sampling, the term comes up in a dozen news articles in the last month [2] alone and over 80 from the news archives&um=1&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8. Notably, the term is starting to get used in contexts outside of the Harry Potter universe. In short, IMO, there is nothing at all UNencyclopedic about a well-written article concerning a major plot device in one of the most popular series of books ever written (and for the record, I'm not even a that much of Potter fan--I've read through book five and will probably read the others someday, but I do recognize the immense popularity of the books and consider it an asset for Wikipedia to be able to present clear descriptions of significant features in the books). older ≠ wiser 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Though it is an interesting and timely subject. It's really just fancruft. And its biggest problem is that it seems to consist primarily of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Fun article. Just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. But there are other nice places to publish original research like this. Take it to one of those places. This AfD must not be a popularity vote on the Harry Potter books. Goodness knows they're well established as popular. That doesn't make this article appropriate for an encyclopedia which relies primarily on secondary sources.OfficeGirl 05:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is saying that this is a popularity vote, and could you please point out which part of the article is original research, so that it can be fixed? Regards, PeaceNT 05:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As one of the sole voices for deletion I would like to note the following.
1) I do not wish to question how well written the article is as I feel it is irrelevant.
2) I agree the subject is an important part of a popular and notable series of books.
3) I agree that people seeking information of the subject may find the article useful.
4) I agree the information should be freely available on the internet for those who wish to use it.
However none of those things really relate in any way to WP:NN which is (in my opinion) a pretty important guideline. Despite all the keep votes not one reliable secondary source has been suggested in this debate so far. To quote the guideline page: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability.". To sum up Wikipedia is an encylopaedia; not everything useful, interesting or popular is meant to be in it.[[Guest9999 05:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
COMMENT Notability is not the only issue that we must deal with. Just because something is notable doesn't mean that there are enough secondary sources about the topic that we can use to write a Wikipedia article. This is a really nice piece of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. But not a good article for Wikipedia.OfficeGirl 06:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you please elaborate on why you see the article as primarily OR? Most of the information is sourced. It could certainly do with some editing, but I don't see why you call it a piece of OR. V-train 07:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED - the sources mentioned are not about the horcruxes - they are about the hype surrounding the seventh Harry Potter book and mention the horcruxes - the content could be used as a reliable source for information within the article but I do not think they establish the notability of the topic.[[Guest9999 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
The aforementioned references make it clear that horcrux is at the core of the final book, thus they assert notability of the subject. Regards, PeaceNT 07:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ust because something is notable doesn't mean that there are enough secondary sources about the topic that we can use to write a Wikipedia article
Yes it does, that is what notability is. IvoShandor 09:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Please see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NN articles have to meet the notability criteria in their own right. [[Guest9999 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Strong Delete
  1. WP:N - Notability is not inherited. Harry Potter? Sure. Some fictional construct within Harry Potter? No way. This is only notable within the H.P. universe. This is an actual encyclopedia, about actual stuff in the real world.
  2. WP:RS - There are no reliable secondary sources. If the topic actually had an impact on the REAL world, there would be reliable sources about that impact (and thus the topic would be notable for inclusion).
  3. WP:ILIKEIT and/or WP:IGREWUPREADINGIT is not a reason for inclusion.
  4. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for inclusion.
  5. WP:ITSREALLYWELLWRITTEN is not a reason for inclusion.
Summary: Notability is not inherited. There is no real-world significance or impact. There are no reliable secondary sources. Utility, personal affinity, and nostalgia are not valid reasons to argue keep. I find it disappointing that the Wiki community abandons our guidelines and rules when a favorite topic comes around. /Blaxthos 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I understand the views of both sides, but there doesn't seem to be a perfect answer to this. However, if this is deleted, perhaps other Harry Potter-related articles should no longer exist. TheInfinityZero 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - In universe information with no real notability in the real world. Transwiki to a potter wiki if found appropriate, but we're not a directory of each and everything mentioned in Harry Potter. Everything in there is sourced from a primary source, and that allows for no analysis. It may be notable IN the book, but it needs "significant coverage from reliable, independent sources" to be notable on WP Corpx 15:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep, sources can be found if someone took the time to find them. And as well this information that this article is about is very notable. Enough so to deserve its own article! **Ko2007** 20:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I disagree that the appropriate third-party non-primary reliable sources would even be published just yet. A year from now some scholarly journal may undertake just such an analysis of horcruxes in Harry Potter. Perhaps some enthusiastic professor at a progressive University has already begun to prepare a third-party analysis for the world to read. But, **Ko2007**, I really believe that it will take longer than you think for it to become available, as the lag time for publishing the type of works we need for references is annoyingly long. This is a really nice piece of original research and I would like to see it on the internet somewhere, but Wikipedia just isn't the place for this article. Isn't there a nice Harry Potter wiki somewhere where this article can be transported to? OfficeGirl 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT The problem is: if we remove all of the original research and the Wikipedia member's personal conclusions drawn from a synthesis of primary sources (the books themselves and the author), then we are left with very little. The article would no longer be comprehensive if it were forced to meet Wikipedia's standards. There would only be enough for an inclusion on a list of Harry Potter objects. The solution would be to move it to some other medium, off Wikipedia, where original research is appropriate. Like a Harry Potter wiki or something. OfficeGirl 23:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me, that as the horcruxes are entirely fictional, most, if not all, of the information about them would come from primary sources (the books and the author). I know not of anywhere else we could get information on them, (that would not be considered original research) as any information found would be the third-party's conlusions derived from the primary sources.Shmooshkums 02:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Because I can't think of an appropriate place to merge it to. It is introduced in book 6, but is the main plot of the seventh. I don't think it belongs in either one, and it does not belong in both. I see why this should be deleted, because the Horcrux by itself is not a notable thing. So, by default, keep it unless there is a good place to merge this to. As an aside, there is a much larger issue here: what things in movies, books etc. should be their own subarticle. It should not be resolved at AfD. There needs to be community consensus for this problem as a whole, because at AfD it will be the same arguments over and over again, and community wide consensus needs to determine which way policy leans. i said 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. If that were the case, then every single cruft article would have been deleted, which I can assure you has not happened. People interpret policy in different ways. The community as a whole needs to determine what policy says about these. Individual AfDs cannot do that, because only people who comment on AfD's or have the article watchlisted will see them. The resulting AfD will have the same old "No independant sources" argument, and the "It is notable" arguments. Because both are valid by how you interpret policy, nothing can be decided. i said 02:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if this is really the place for this discussion... but anyway. These articles clearly do not meet with several policies and guidelines - you yourself say "Horcrux itself is not a notable thing". WP:NN, WP:RS, WP:NOT have been created by community consensus - the particular guideline relating to fiction (and this type of article) - WP:FICT - was recently changed to reflect this (following discussion and consensus by the community). The fact that a lot of articles violate the guidelines and policies despite the consensus does not mean they should exist or should be immune from an AfD debate. If people really think these articles belong on Wikipedia then they should try and change the guidelines and policies that exclude them. However when people do this and community consensus disagrees (hence the policies still exist) they still defend the articles in AfD with arguemnts based on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL or WP:INTERESTING. [[Guest9999 03:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Believe me, I agree with you. However, that is our interpretation of policy. It is very bitterly divided as to how the notability guidelines apply to things about fiction. The policies were created by consensus, yes. But the interpretation that articles like these violate them currently is not based in consensus, if the myraid AfDs are anything to go by. This AfD shows that. There needs to be a community consensus that these violate policy that we can call on; otherwise it is just the same old argument. i said 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point but I still think that the consensus has been established by major guideline such as WP:NN. A lot of people want Wikipedia to be something other than an encyclopaedia; that is to provide a comprehensive guide to something they are interested in - in this case the Harry Potter Universe. If the article is kept it will be cleaned up and most of the information will likely be removed - this can be a better more useful resource on a Harry Potter wiki or fansite which does not have requirements such as notability, no original research and verifiyability. [[Guest9999 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • I know I know I know. I'm saying that WP:N is not clear cut. There is not consensus that it applies here, as evidenced by this and many other AfDs. The only way to fix that is not here, but at a discussion elsewhere where there is a larger audience, and they can decide whether or not it applies here, and how it does. Until then, there will be a large amount of redundant AfDs that rehash the same dead end arguments over and over and over again. But we're getting off topic. This is about this AfD, which is almost certainly going to be kept. i said 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm at the beginning of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I didn't remember quite well what a Horcrux was and solved my doubt in about two minutes by searching in the Wikipedia. I could have also skimmed trough the six hundred pages of Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince but I consider the Wikipedia, much more than an encyclopaedia, as a place where one can find any needed information: from the real world, fictional, or even weird. How could you think of a secondary source when we're talking about something comming from a writer's imagination? Of course there's no work on the topic apart from J.K.Rowling's but "the original motivation for No original research policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas", nothing to do with this issue. "It's not notable" has been another argument; maybe the article could be moved under a major section about Harry Potter's Universe (sure this is notable) specifying that it's fiction. And if people pro deletion don't change their mind by any means, maybe they should start to consider removing every article that has to do with science fiction, shouldn't they?--[[User:|Bukran]] 11:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
COMMENT: [[User:|Bukran]], you say:"How could you think of a secondary source when we're talking about something comming (sic) from a writer's imagination? Of course there's no work on the topic apart from J.K.Rowling's" In fact I fully expect that there will be plenty of secondary sources in the FUTURE, giving analysis on different symbols and characters in the Harry Potter series, and even how the works have impacted the writing of authors who are now writing novels and will write them in the future. But those won't exist for a while, yet. And there's nothing we can do about that but wait. The Wikipedia editor who did all of the ORIGINAL RESEARCH in this article wants to publish it somewhere. I've said all along that it's actually a QUITE GOOD example of original research. He should have published it on some other website, like a perfectly good Harry Potter wiki. I would be completely in keeping with Wikipedia policies to provide and external link to the new place where this original research gets moved to and just have a small encyclopedic reference on Wikipedia, perhaps a small paragraph in the Wikipedia article about the Deathly Hallows book.OfficeGirl 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: First of all, I want to apologize for having misspellt "coming". I rereaded my previous comment twice before publishing it as English is not my mother language but I didn't notice the mistake, I'm sorry. Now, if I haven't misunderstood, everyone does agree that we're before a good and wide article but due to several policies it isn't suitable for the Wikipedia. I know rules are necessary to keep a minimal control but I also believe that rules are to be changed. Don't you think it is a bit absurd to admit that maybe in the future there will be place for it (because of the secondary sources) but at the momment it's better to have a small reference? What's wrong with having more information in the Wikipedia? Yes, the best here is the ignore all rules that faithless mentions below (I also like the word "deletionist"). Bukran 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is, unfortunately, a weak part of Wikipedia. This really is an "all or nothing" issue. We are dealing with an integral construct within the most popular book series of all time. Despite it's popularity, how many HP related articles truly pass WP notability guidelines? Three, maybe four characters? I don't think anyone would argue that Hermione and Ron don't deserve their own articles; they are immensely important characters in (not to sound like a broken record) the most popular book series ever written. But technically speaking, do they pass notability more than the other HP articles which are constantly being nominated for deletion by deletionist editors who simply don't like it? The two policies that I cite as relevant to my "keep" !vote are Wikipedia is not paper and ignore all rules. There is simply no good reason to delete this article, the encyclopedia would not benefit from its removal. The importance of the topic is fairly obvious, even if it might not pass WP:N. Given this, I believe this to be a prime example of when we should ignore the rules. faithless (speak) 12:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nicely put - I completely agree. Also imho it is worth to keep in mind when discussing technical aspect of OR,notability or other criteria, that wikipedia has developed in many regards into a special subject encycopledia as well, i.e. aside from it's primary goal of a general purpose encyclopedia it is also increasingly being used as a special subject encyclopedia (wiki portals) such as math,science, literature and similar. And in the context of a special subject encyclopedia notability of a particular object/subject can be justified, while it might not be for the general purpose encyclopedia. --Kmhkmh 17:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Faithlessthewonderboy, though I do think that the article might be cut down a bit to avoid cruftiness. Ironically, the Harry Potter wiki equivalent is actually shorter than this one (though this is partially because each Horcrux gets its own article). -Phi*n!x 00:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and need improve Horcruxes is the reason why Voldemort could change the wizarding world. So it could not be delete because it is the most main role. But I agree the information is not enough, it need improvement. Raymond Giggs 08:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is notable enough--not that many fictional groups of objects will be, but this is adequately mentioned in the reviews, and will be indefinitely.DGG (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator agrees, that the Harry Potter series is notable. I agree, that that does not automatically make any small, detail, object or whatever from the series noteworthy. However, a Horcrux is not simply one of many magical objects in the series. It is crucial to the plot of the series. The climax of book 7 (and therefore the whole series) roots in the fact, that Harry Potter himself is a Horcrux and that another one is hidden at Hogwarts. Without the Horcruxes, the climax of the entire series wouldn't work. Therefore if the Harry Potter series is notable, an object, which is that crucial to the plot, is just as noteable as any of the major characters and deserves it's own thread. Just as a comparison, the Horcruxes are as important for the Harry Potter series, as The One Ring is for Lord of the rings. I'm therefore going with ignore all rules as well, and propose, that the Horcruxes are noteworthy not because they appear in the most popular book series of all time, but because of the major importance, they have in said book series. Neville Longbottom 14:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator Guest999 appears to be mostly using counter-arguments from WP:AADD, e.g. WP:USEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:HARMLESS, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:INTERESTING etc without elaboration, simply pointing to it, however, it should be noted that this is, as it says at the top of the page, "an essay. It is not a policy or guideline and editors are not bound by its advice". --Jac16888 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm sure that a plethora of wikipedia policies could be used by the deletionists to justify deletion but sometimes wikipedians need to use their common sense. Keep! Francium12 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis the very thing I Googled and the exact information I was after. Horcrux, what are the seven, and all about them. Thanks whoever did the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanglass (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an arguement that the information should be available on the internet - I agree with that. However it is not an arguement for the information being on Wikipedia. A better place would be a Harry Potter Wiki or fansite. [[Guest9999 06:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Wohl

Arden Wohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Not a voteIf 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}}.

Renominated: speedy deleted twice, then deleted by Afd on 6/13/2007. See here for discussion. Article re-added with no additional justification. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Subject made a minimally notable film, at best. Lots of the sources are junk. Ward3001 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC) link to original discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arden Wohl fixing re-nom, abstain Ardent†alk∈ 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, three trivial mentions in Google News Archive, one of them this fashion faux-pas, the other something fannish about the Strokes, one of whom she later dated. I suppose the film work prevents her from being a Paris Hilton, exactly, because she can't be famous for (being famous for nothing in particular), but there's no apparent WP:BIO tripwire here. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd like this girl to be notable. She certainly deserves attention. But there's no proof that she is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia yet. Best of luck to her, but she belongs on MySpace.com, not Wikipedia (for now). OfficeGirl 05:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also dont feel like her claim to notability is strong enough, considering the coverage she has received Corpx 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep Wohl was featured in the July edition of Vogue. It should be noted that "someone" deleted this item (about Vogue) from the article..nice try. establishing notability as per the review a few weeks ago which gave a concensus to relist..must we go through this every few weeks. and by the way comparing her to Paris Hilton is sort of slanderous and libelous. Arden Wohl was featured in July 2007 edition of Vogue, fulfilling notability requirments,(see http://parkavenuepeerage.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/the-hills/) she is also mentioned in movie short stub Coven (short film) She is currently working on the Playground Project with George Clooney, I think the article should at least be "unsalted", it was originally "salted", as I am new to all of this and did not know the proper protacol, regarding recreating of an article..I thought if you edited it properly you could remove the deletion tags..sorry this was originally removed because of notability requirments, but Vogue is a highly regarded publication. Tweety21 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete May one day be notable, with all the money her family apparently has and all of her famous friends, but not yet. Precious Roy 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the notability here either, maybe later. Arienh4(Talk) 09:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though she's a socialite. Bearian 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought I'd do a minimum amount of looking to see if I could find the fabled Vogue article—lo and behold, I found it here (password thru bugmenot.com or check the edit history for Wohl's talk page). The Vogue is relatively substantial, and combined with The Observer and Paper articles, has convinced me that she meets the bare minimum for WP:BIO. I edited out a lot of fluff and puffery yesterday so the article's a bit more presentable. Anyhow, as I've found with another article recently, I don't necessarily think she deserves an article yet, but I do think she meets notability, which is what this discussion is about. Precious Roy 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Speaking as the closer of the DRV, I have been repeatedly asked by Tweety21 (and her IPs) to help keep the article. That is certainly not why I am here. Having closed the DRV, I am loath to !vote either way on the inclusion/deletion of the article. I would simply like to say that the article does have multiple reliable sources. The open questions are simply: Do these references confer notability? And are they trivial mentions? I urge the closing admin to consider the article and arguments closely, and the vote-stacking only insomuch as this is not a vote, and not to unduly discount the arguments for keeping because of the misbehavior in this DRV. IronGargoyle 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the articles are primarily about Wohl, so she clears the notability bar (barely). -- Whpq 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She comes from a rich family, went to college, and made a 13 minute film. That's about as non-notable as you can get. 76.3.84.10 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed the deletion review text that Tweety21 pasted here that followed the last AfD for this article. Precious Roy 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep clear bias against Wohl, because of socio-economic status (see Roys comment at the bottom where he mentions her money why is this relevant?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (this is Tweety21; one !vote per editor)[reply]
    • The mention of the money is merely because it's easier for people with money to become "notable." Besides, the article itself makes a mention of the "hefty sum" they got from selling an art collection. Not really any more relevant there than here. Precious Roy 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.2 " has been covered in an article by Vogue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (This is third time Tweety21 has tried to vote. One vote per editor.)[reply]
  • Comment update-have changed category to director-stub, I read the qualifications for this category, seems to be less stringent than for a full blown article- hope this helps, as can be expanded on later on, especially when George Clooney movie comes out. See www.clooneystudios.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Except she's not directing the movie, she's co-producing it. Her two director credits are both student films, so calling her a director is kind of pushing it. Precious Roy 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Thats fair enough Roy, but I still think co-producing a movie, with the likes of George Clooney and Soderburge is fairly notable for anybody...I mean I'm not co-producing a movie with Clooney..that sort of impresses me...socialite status aside. and check out her movie coven..it is quite interesting even for a school thesis. The narratiion is by Leelee Sobieski and listed on her wikipedia as well..:O) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I wasn't saying that producing a movie with Clooney + Soderbergh isn't impressive, I was saying she doesn't really have enough directing credits to consider her a director. Precious Roy 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although Dhartung's delete vote states 3 mentions in google, this is not the case, notable mention in Paper Magazine, a notable publication, and Vogue, as well as many notable New York publications, see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • commment at the very least with the substantial charity work involved in and contributions to the New York charity/art scene, at least worth as (I hate to use the word but...) socialite, (hey we have to remember alot of socialites were responsible for women getting the vote, alot of charities...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_11 Tweety21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I just want to say that I have never asked anybody to vote for this article, only to check it out and vote with their feeling! I mean I have nothing to gain weather it stays or goes...(seriously folkes !! I dont know the girl!) I have also asked for help to keep the article, meaning help to edit it properly to bring it to standard..I think everybody really needs to take a pill!!! seriously!! none of us are making money at this!!! I mean maybe I am on a mini crusade to promote some up and coming people ( I am kind of sick of just seeing Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie on the covers of all the mags...I mean are they the only notable people in America?? how annoying is this) I just thought I would get this off my chest because I dont think I deserve the mental abuse heaped upon my pretty little Canadian head....:O) seriously folkes ! lighten up!!! this isnt the war or anything!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment if you skim out the votes that mention her being "rich" you don't have many left...as someone who is of humble means, I would like to think that if I accomplished something nobody would hold it against me that I am just "middle-class", lets keep status out of this..and by the way I know many people who come from Rich backgrounds but who are made to make their own way and are not given any money by their parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Once again, Tweety21 sets up a false premise for an argument. Exactly one vote mentions her being rich. Also see Tweety21's previous comments: "someone" never deleted the item about the Vogue article. And comparing Wohl to Paris Hilton is not "sort of slanderous and libelous". Ward3001 14:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh my god..this debate is actually on some internet page..how embarassing is this...I'm outta here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ward3001 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]