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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 06:16Z

A Cappella Groups at the University of Virginia[edit]

A Cappella Groups at the University of Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An article about several groups which do not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the standards of WP:RS/WP:NOR. All the "citations" in this article to the groups personal webistes, not to secondary sources. Multiple, non-trivial secondary-sources are required to establish the notability of a group. Claims from their own website are insufficient. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, I thought we had some university a capella groups on AfD a few days ago... The RSJ 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nowhere near WP:MUSIC. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, MUSIC, & preceeding arguments regarding these groups. SkierRMH,05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Nomination says it all. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ok, I realized that I was being hypocritical in choosing to delete this one and not the other a cappella groups. Simply, those are about 1 group and are detailed. This is more or less a list. See WP:NOT. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I merged the underlying articles into this one, but yes, I agree that this can probably go too. None too notable. Hullabahoos have their own article. Ohconfucius 08:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Somitho 13:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, and as I see it, it is not notible away from the nomination so theres 2 reasons for ya. → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKS^C_RS 13:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 14:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I would delete individual articles aboout the groups, but I think it is reasonable to have an article about them collectively. I object to the absence of any independent sources (other than the choral groups and the university). The university sources are at least verifiable if not wholly independent. There must have been newspaper articles about the groups or their albums. Serious and encyclopedic music groups at least get independent reviews of their public performances at cathedrals, concert halls, etc. I expect the article and articles like it would get more support if multiple independent reliable sources were provided, because they would then be notable by traditional Wikipedia standards. If it is just a recreational group of no demonstrated artistic merit then it is as non-encyclopedic as a recreational softball or bowling team. Edison 16:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pooling 8 non-notable groups together does not result in notability. Perhaps what you're looking for can better be accomplished at the List of collegiate a cappella groups, which includes their name, school, and website without including any of the unsourced information that is so problematic in these articles. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.188.183.7 (talk • contribs) 20:17, December 18, 2006 (UTC).
• Keep I mean, I don't care for a cappella, but I believe they meet WP:MUSIC #1, "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", per a quick search on the Cavalier Daily. The article on the Sil'hooettes, for example, says they are nationally acclaimed, and have won multiple CARAs (Contemporary A cappella Recording Awards). At least some of the other groups are also covered by Cavalier articles. schi ^talk 20:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in their college newspapers are insufficient. They establish existence but not notability for anyone outside the college. For example, college newspapers often write about their BBQ clubs, whip clubs, etc. These do not all merit encyclopedic articles. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, college newspapers aren't considered reliable sources? The newspaper does assert notability, at least for the Sil'hooettes if not any of the other groups. And where in WP:N or WP:MUSIC does it say that the source that provides non-trivial colverage has to establish notability? I thought the idea was that if they're covering the subject at all (in a non-trivial manner of course), it's ipso facto notable. schi ^talk 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College newspapers are not reliable enough to establish that a group is notable beyond their campus. They tend to exaggerate the importance of their institution and cover groups that other media wouldn't. If a groups notability can be established without its college newspapers, they may be used to augment the information in that article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentCollege newspapers are independent sources which can be considered in determining notability. Edison 05:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • College newspapers intentionally promote campus activities like the arts. They should be treated skeptically at best for such activities, not assumed to be independent sources. As WP:INDY states, "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from the outside." Groups that have achieved notoriety through outside publications, like Skull and Bones, can lay claim to independent sources. I don't think Wikipedia has reached the point where any person or organization mentioned in a college newspaper deserves an article. (That will have to wait for the Final Encyclopedia, perhaps. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if were going to accept WP:INDY as an authority (which it's not), the essay specifically says "for a recording artist, an independent source would be a review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release". A college newspaper is not these a cappella groups' press releases or album notes. To be on the "inside", the source would have to be a publication of the a cappella group itself - which the Cavalier Daily is not; it's an independent student newspaper with no official links to the a cappella groups. If you contend that a college newspaper, because of the very nature of its focus, is not a sufficiently independent source, then does that mean the New York Times should likewise be treated skeptically for its coverage of Manhattan news? Or we shouldn't consider USA Today independent in its coverage of U.S. news, but should rather consider the foreign press? There is nothing in WP:RS that indicates college newspapers are not reliable sources. In terms of exaggerating the institution - I'm sure there are plenty of college newspapers/alumni publications which larger circulations than plenty of other, non-school-affiliated "reliable sources". I don't see why these sources should be treated "skeptically" just because their community of readers is based on an educational institution rather than say, a county. schi ^talk 08:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a lot of the previous post. I don't think anyone is arguing that we should assume that facts sourced to college newspapers are false. However, the existence of a college newspaper article about a college club does not establish that clubs notability, even if the article tosses around adjectives like "premier", "internationally-known," etc. It's not that we can't trust sources within the geographical jurisdiction that their name implies, it's that small sources tend to cover their local beat generously. Thus, a college club that manages to get an article in their college newspaper does not automatically warrant a wikipedia article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

schi, as someone who has personally experienced the low bar of college-newspaper journalistic integrity of by having entire sentences invented by a "reporter" and attributed to me, I think it's outrageous to compare the New York Times and USA Today to them. And, anticipating the next riposte, I advise against using Jayson Blair or the like as a yardstick of NYT and its ilk. It's precisely because such incidents are outrageous scandals, not the business-as-usual of amateur student writing, that we consider professional publications reliable sources. Personally, I'd prefer to have outside sources for just about anything cited in a college paper. But savidan again reminds us that the issue here is notability, not factual accuracy. The issue of other, outside sources for college material becomes moot because the subjects are of only parochial interest. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment College newspapers typically are very critical in their reporting of the cultural efforts of on campus groups. There is no incentive for the campus reporters to slavishly praise every musical group on campus. It is purely a strawman argument to go from the statement that a campus paper counts as a source to saying "I don't think Wikipedia has reached the point where any person or organization mentioned in a college newspaper deserves an article." No one has even proposed that "any group or organization mentioned in the New York Times deserves an article." Substantial reporting of a campus group in a campus paper counts fro as much toward notability as an equivalent reporting of an off campus group in the local town newspaper. Also a strawman argument is reference to "an article" in the campus paper not being enough, since outr standard is multiple sources. But an article can certainly be one of those sources, in combination with other sources. Please do not use a sliding scale to disallow coverage in campus papers. At colleges I attended, they were not a mouthpiece to do public relations. The reviewers ridiculed lame efforts by student groups as much as they ridiculed stupid policies of campus administrators. Edison 15:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffq, for the record, I did not attribute a similarity in journalistic integrity between the apparently monolithic establishment of college newspaper journalism with such institutions as the NYT and USA Today. (Nor do I particularly appreciate your presumption that I was going to next invoke Jayson Blair, as that is obviously an irrelevant and extraordinary circumstance.) My point is that college newspapers should, generally, pass WP:INDY with flying colors, just as much as NYT or USA Today would. The assumption that just because an independent, reliable source covers a particular community makes it de facto unsuitable for determining notability seems to me to leave the door wide open for systemic cultural POV. You may call a school-affiliated publication a "small" source, or a particular-school-affiliated subject a parochial topic, but where do you draw the line/set the arbitrary level of granularity? (!Pokemon, but...) To consider notability as something that must be geographically affirmed (nationally recognized, etc.) privileges arbitrary geographic formations that aren't necessarily relevant to the scope of the topic. I'm sure you would agree that a topic doesn't have to rise to the level of being covered by a state or national newspaper to be considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, as in many, many cases that would be totally irrelevant, but that's what these arguments sound like. I guess we have a fundamental disagreement, which I think I'm sure I've seen in other Wikipedia discussions like this. schi ^talk 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Edison: Please be careful about accusing people of making straw man arguments. My statement, "I don't think Wikipedia has reached the point where any person or organization mentioned in a college newspaper deserves an article", was specifically about Wikipedia articles, not campus paper articles. I said nothing about "'an article' in the campus paper", and turning this into a denial of the "multiple sources" standard can itself be construed as a straw man. I am saying that any amount of reporting in a campus paper is not inherently reliable or notability-confirming. It must be judged on its merits and double-checked for accuracy, since the authors are not professionals, and the oversight of collegiate news is in general less rigorous than the professionals and varies widely from school to school and year to year. But this whole line of discussion is a straw man, because there are no such college-paper articles cited in A Cappella Groups at the University of Virginia. Currently, its sole "sources" are group websites, which can be useful but can't be the only means of justifying notability. It is certainly possible for student reporters to do a good job, but the proof is in the pudding, and we have no pudding at the moment. I would also like to make clear (not that you suggested otherwise!) that I do not believe that we should delete all college a cappella group articles on principle. To use your example above, the Virginia Sil'hooettes have an arguable case for notability, having won 2 CARAs — a verifiable factual tidbit from the Cavalier. My problem is with this article, which encourages the inclusion of any collection of Wahoos who know how to sing without instruments and can file a student group application. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to schi: I apologize for offending you with the Blair comparison, but I believe it was an obvious next argument for someone who is pushing the geographical-context comparison between NYT and UVA's Cavalier without acknowledging the editorial-concern argument, given my point that I have personal experience with reporters-in-training making stuff up to serve their agendas. I concede this is an extreme example, and that reporting on college music groups is probably not usually this biased. I also apologize for any implication of a "monolithic establishment of college newspaper journalism". As I mention in my above response to Edison, college papers can have useful material, but they must be double-checked because they are far more prone to favoritism and simple ineptitude by fledging reporters. (The change at Wikipedia:Notability (music) was done with far too little discussion or any meaningful consensus, and opens the door to the promotion of any local artist or group that catches the fancy of the student staff.) Finally, I don't agree that a topic need not "rise to the level of being covered by a state or national newspaper"; I think this is a useful yardstick for notability in a global encyclopedia. I take this position because Wikipedians are, in general, atrociously bad at creating proper citations for reliable sources, mostly believing that (A) "truth" is all that matters; (B) bare links to self-promotional websites, fansites, or user forums are sufficient; or (C) mentioning correspondence or a newspaper without giving specifics is more than enough for "sourcing"; when none of these are adequate for verifiability. I am not saying you are doing this; that's just the experience motivating my hard line on solid, neutral, professional sources. (My point can be easily demonstrated by observing the sore lack of proper sources in the first 10 articles one fetches through "Random article".) If we had more folks doing a thorough job of vetting sources, I'd be much more willing to accept very local sources, as I am an inclusionist at heart. Until that time, I'm a practical deletionist in order to force that vetting. But as I mention above, we currently have absolutely zero independent sources cited in this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffq, I wasn't really offended, but I do appreciate the civility. Finally, I don't agree that a topic need not "rise to the level of being covered by a state or national newspaper"; I think this is a useful yardstick for notability in a global encyclopedia. - Perhaps I shouldn't have said "rise", as my point here is that the fact that an information source is geographically-based is often irrelevant to its usefulness as a reliable source (to establish notability). Esoteric/academic/highly-technical topics that are routinely not covered in general (geographically-based) newspapers but are discussed in academic journals/conference proceedings are considered sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia, even though such sources can have very small audiences and are not geographically-based. schi ^talk 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I submit that a previous deletion nomination should be considered which happens to be one of the a cappella groups in question.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hullabahoos. In the end this article was kept... we need to maintain consistency... if we keep Hullabahoos, how can we delete a listing for the remaining a cappella groups at the same University? I know the rest are not as developed as the linked example, but you have to give it some time to grow. Seems kind of hypocritical to keep the example and delete this one if you ask me. Jazznutuva 08:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why keeping one group at a University, means we have to keep all a cappella related articles from that University. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistency" is a common but erroneous argument for inclusion. To quote Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The golden standard for verifiability is multiple reliable sources. Hullabahoos has them; many other UVA a cappella groups do not. What's more, this is not a discussion about the groups themselves, but rather whether we should have an article collecting the groups. This list article currently has no independent, reliable sources whatsoever. (Actually, after examining the Hullaboos article, I see that the use of bare links disguises the fact that most of the "sources" are either Cavalier articles or clearly not wiki-reliable sources. Only the Kennedy Center link is inarguably reliable. This will need some investigation, too.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks reliable sources, and the article is apepar to be essentially an attempt to get around notability of individual groups by lumpng them into teh same article. -- Whpq 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge into a larger University of Virginia student organizations or something. Dylan 17:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Twin Peaks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 06:12Z

Invitation to Love[edit]

Invitation to Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a fictional TV show within a TV show (Twin Peaks, one of my favorite TV series), with only a few scenes total material. There is no reasonable expectation of reliable sources for sourcing any information. Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep I remember this got a multi-page article in Wrapped In Plastic (issue 8 or 6 or something). Could probably be a keeper if anyone cares enough about it to expand and reference it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a minor but important important component of Lynch's doppelganger motif for the series. As for reliable sources, what in the article needs to be sourced beyond the confirming its existence and the names of the characters (as is done for three of them here for starters)? Additionally, Wrapped in Plastic did an ITL episode guide in issue 6, which I'm sure someone still has floating around somewhere, if additional sourcing is needed. And as always, the show itself is a reliable source. Otto4711 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, obviously, since notability isn't established. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A fictional TV show within a TV show simply is not notable enough to merit its own article. At most, this should be dealt with within the main Twin Peaks article, as any notability this "show" has is made apparent only in the context of the show in which it exists. Interestingstuffadder 01:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment then we will be running into a lot of problems with things such as Sick,_Sad_World and Tool Time. wtfunkymonkey 02:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then nominate those articles for deletion. This discussion is about the Invitation to Love article, not those other articles. Interestingstuffadder 05:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I definitely don't think there's enough here to support a separate article for Invitation to Love. The basic info that currently exists on the page doesn't support the inherent notability of the show-within-a-show, and one article in a publication directly related to the show doesn't cut it (that's only one step away from using an indie band's MySpace as a source). The Google search I performed gave no information other than characters' names and perhaps a one-sentence synopsis, and these hits were not plentiful. Simply put, ItL is not sufficiently significant by its own merits. -- Kicking222's 5,000th edit to Wikipedia! 01:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Twin Peaks article, seems pretty simple to me. wtfunkymonkey 02:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redir to Twin Peaks. Which is awesome, as are <fireworks>K222's 5000 edits</fireworks> ;) Deizio talk 02:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, first, Wrapped in Plastic was created and produced by people with no connection to the show itself, so it's incorrect to dismiss its content as "a publication directly related to the show." Second, checking through the Ghits turns up an article which apparently uses ITL as a basis for an analysis of TP. That plus the aforementioned WIP article plus the many minor mentions of the show-within-a-show peppered throughout TP online sites plus the fact that most TP scholarship isn't available online and the topic is notable. Barely notable, I will freely admit, but notable nonetheless. Otto4711 04:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: So, what does that make your vote then? I'd guess you're leaning for keep, but OK, first isn't exactly a formal position. - wtfunkymonkey 05:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I already "voted" up-article. Otto4711 05:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tickled that someone actually wrote a serious article using "Invitation to Love". I would consider changing my vote to "merge" to include a very short statement that summarizes the basic idea, with the proper citation (Charney, Mark J. (1991). "Invitation to Love: The Influence of Soap Opera on David Lynch's Twin Peaks". Studies in Popular Culture. 14 (1): 53–59. ISSN 0888-5753.). But the entire current content of the article is too trivial even to merge, IMHO. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:FICT -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep Per all the above points. It is by no means not notable enough to delete, but I am not sure it deserves its own article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Twin Peaks. A cast list is really not enough content to merge. JIP | Talk 10:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per above. Somitho 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Twin Peaks--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per Above--Slogankid 21:53, 18 December 2006 (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 Both. If someone wants to create a redirect to "Baker's dozen", feel free. ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Baker's Dozen[edit]

The Baker's Dozen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

also nominated: Vocal music at Yale.

College a cappella group which does not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the verifiability requirements of WP:RS/WP:NOR. Claims to notability are having performed in front of various people (which can only be sourced to the group's webiste) and having alumni who went on to join the U.S. Navy or become a Junior Analyst at Merrill Lynch. Multiple, non-trivial secondary-sources are required to establish the notability of a group. Claims from their own website are insufficient. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I also question the utility of the related article Vocal music at Yale. Wikipedia is not a data mirror for Yale's websites. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to nom insince no one else has voted. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete student group at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 60 year history makes it notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of that being a criteria at WP:MUSIC. Certainly not everyone who is 60 years old is notable. There are tons of college clubs that have been around a long time but haven't become notable outside of their college. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Some of the trees in my garden are 70 years old, pretty damn notable trees we grow round these parts. Deizio talk 02:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And do the 70 year old trees in your garden sing and go on tours? I would worry if you answer yes. Edison 05:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they did they would be notable on account of the reams of direct media coverage the "All Singing, All Dancing Trees of Scotland" phenomenon recieved, not how long they had been around. Deizio talk 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Birnam Wood perhaps. Edison 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:MUSIC however old it is- still not notable. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of reliable sources, fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 04:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:RS[2], and WP:MUSIC on any of the criteria required and age is not one of them.--Dakota 05:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above & prior arguments. SkierRMH,05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:Notability. Although the article might not be up to snuff now, we can improve it. After all, isn't the point of Wikipedia to collect information? S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of my nomination concerns the article's quality, but rather that it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Which criteria do you think it meets exactly? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a cappella groups are notable. They're just as notable as political organizations. Why don't you nominate the Skull and Bones Society for deletion? It's a college organization. And the page has lots of original research and speculation. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been books, newspaper and magazine articles, etc. written about the Skull and Bones society. Perhaps the same is true for some college a cappella groups—not the ones I nominated. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are most certainly notable a cappella groups, like The Bobs, Da Vinci's Notebook, and Take 6 to name a few. But just like college political organizations, college music groups rarely make the notability cut. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. MER-C 06:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Terence Ong 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Baker's dozen--Ioannes Pragensis 11:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not redirect as the two are only tangentially related. dcandeto 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  "Redirect" recommendation often means there's no merge, so only titles should be considered. If you just look at the titles, The Baker's Dozen is a plausible redirect to Baker's dozen. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to Baker's dozen --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per above. Somitho 13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a silly redirect. In this case it would be permissible (GFDL-wise) to delete and redirect since the redirect would be to an article unrelated to the group. Not a very worthwhile redirect though. People don't often use the definite article when talking about bakers' dozens. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added two references to New York Times and one to Fortune magazine which mention the group. They of course had numerous mentions in Yale papers and alumni mags. Seem more notable than most college a capella groups. Edison 17:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No way the group qualifies as the primary subject of any of the cited references. We already know they exist. Deizio talk 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the group is noted by prominent mention in the New York Times or Fortune in more than a directory listing or a passing reference, that should count some towards notability. "Noted" implies "notability." Edison 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Edison's conditional statement is misleading. The Holland citation explicitly states "mentioned as one of several newer glee clubs at Yale". The Freedman citation doesn't even state whether the article mentioned TBD, saying instead "The Baker's Dozen sang the Louis Jordan song "Ain't nobody here but us chickens" as part of the recruiting of highschool students" (clearly not a quote from the article, given the use of the non-existent compound word "highschool"). The Fisher article is about Keith Ferrazzi (himself a subject of arguable notability), saying only, "Ferrazzi loves singing, so 'I do piano-bar parties, where I have Lionel Richie and the Yale Baker's Dozen come and hang out,' he says." The actual quote doesn't even specifically say that Richie and the Baker's Dozen were there at the same time for a single party, while the citation implies a much stronger connection: "they performed along with Lionel Richie at a piano-bar party". (Such expansive interpretations of cited material are exactly why proper citations and quotes are necessary, to avoid reading too much into trivial items.) These are clearly passing references, not "prominent mention". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, reply to Edison's self-deleted comment}

• Comment Please remind me which guideline says something has to be the "primary subject" of an article for the article to work toward extablishing notability. Thanks. Edison 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The "press coverage" criteria at WP:BIO states "primary subject". The corresponding criteria at WP:MUSIC states "subject". If you're suggesting either of these can be interpreted as being fulfilled with "(mentioned as one of several newer glee clubs at Yale)" or either of the other references you cited, you're missing the point. As a self-proclaimed BLP patroller you should really know about these guidelines. You're welcome. Deizio talk 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect exact of trivial references in non-trivial sources; not a basis for notability. If they're writting an article about college marching bands and mention one person to get a quote from them, that person doesn't get an article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Group is, in fact, notable. If this is deleted, The Whiffenpoofs needs to be brought up for deletion as well. dcandeto 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one's stopping you from nominating that article. It's an inclusionist fallacy that the existence of other non-notables justifies the existence of more non-notables. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - calls to delete The Whiffenpoofs and Skull and Bones are rather petulant, as they are world-renowned organizations that have been subject to oodles of press, coverage, third-party sources, etc. Yale has 1145436 a cappella groups. So does Harvard. A lot of other colleges aren't far behind. They do NOT need their own articles.--Dmz5 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regarding the vocal music page, can it be renamed and improved? Like, "music at yale" that could also feature historical info and real sources, as well as lists of present and past organizations? That seems doable. --Dmz5 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - do not seem notable and are the "references" any more than trivial mentions? They do not seem focused on this group. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They are at least notable for being the subject of a neighborhood attempt to evict them. There are many other hits when I searched for Baker's Dozen on the Yale Daily News, some of which probably contain non-trivial discussion of the subject - even more so for the general subject of vocal music at Yale. schi ^talk 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Daily News articles given prove existence, not notability. Many non-notable school clubs get covered in their school newspapers. If that attempt to evict them got national (or perhaps even state) coverage that'd be a start. If only their college newspaper picked up on it, no dice. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My same comments as above, in the AfD for A cappella groups of UVA, apply here too. Also, this blog reproduces part of (and provides an apparently broken link to) a New Haven Advocate article on the eviction story. I can pull this article from Lexis (hopefully) later, but the point is that even if college newspapers with editorial oversight are, for some reason unbeknownst to me, not considered reliable sources, then the Advocate coverage should be enough. Would you say that alumni magazines also aren't considered reliable sources? schi ^talk 23:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an argument about what is and isn't a valid source for notability, but this does seem like a rather backdoor way to confer notability on the group -Dmz5 04:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do blogs make things more reliable? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, when? I know I didn't make that assertion. I said that a blog referenced a relevant article in a newspaper which I was trying to find a copy of. schi ^talk 08:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. Bigtop 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A college newspaper is an independent sources for determining notability. Edison 05:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • College newspapers intentionally promote campus activities like the arts. They should be treated skeptically at best for such activities, not assumed to be independent sources. As WP:INDY states, "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from the outside." Groups that have achieved notoriety through outside publications, like Skull and Bones, can lay claim to independent sources. I don't think Wikipedia has reached the point where any person or organization mentioned in a college newspaper deserves an article. (That will have to wait for the Final Encyclopedia, perhaps. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment about this point, college newspapers (despite Edison's assertions below) do have a vested interest in promoting campus life, and while they are usually not just arms of the administration, they are still far more likely than, say, the New York Times to be full of fluff pieces exhorting students to check out this or that performance. As such, it is proper to scrutinize them in this regard.--Dmz5 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I agree with JeffQ - this statement, without any caveats, means that every college organization of every stripe can get an article on wikipedia, from the SUNY-Purchase Lawn Bowling Society to the Dordt College Flea Circus Appreciation Club. While articles in college papers support findings of fact (i.e. "this club exists") they do not confer notability. --Dmz5 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where in WP:N (or WP:MUSIC) does it exclude college newspapers from the notability-determining criteria? The idea that we should not consider college newspapers reliable sources seems to defy policy and guidelines. schi ^talk 08:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little investigating and it looks like school newspapers were explicitly prohibited from the WP:MUSIC guidelines until very recently [3] when they were changed with the approval of approximately 2 editors on the talk page, and then later rewritten to not mention school newspapers. However, the intent of the policy is clear: the published source is supposed to demonstrate that the groups notability extends beyond their immediate sphere; a write-up in their college paper does not automatically establish such notability. However, facts from a college newspaper article could perhaps establish that some of the other criteria have been met. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no one is saying they are not reliable sources; the phone book is a reliable source if you wanted to publish someone's address, but it doesn't make that person notable. I know it's not the same thing but you see my point.--Dmz5 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (with a feeling of deja vu) At the colleges I attended, the campus paper had an independent editorial board and was often critical of administration policies, the sports teams, and campus arts groups. Maybe at some college, the President hires reporters and tells them to praise the chorus. I think that is the exception rather than the rule. They had as large a circulation as the town paper, and operated at perhaps a higher journalistic level. It is unreasonable to claim that an article in such a paper does not count as one of the multiple, verifiable, independent sources for notability. Otherwise a Cleveland paper could not be a source for notability in Cleveland. And it is a straweman argument to start talking about the impossibility of having an article for "everything mentioned " in a campus paper, since we are judging by the standard of multiple coverage. The campus paper is an independent source; the chorus newsletter would not be. Edison

15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally see your point, however - I have seen debates (such as the one surrounding Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves) in which the use of a small-town newspaper as a source was criticized for the same reason (i.e. providing trivial coverage of every conceivable organization in the town). This may be splitting hairs, but the Cleveland metro area has a million people; there are about 5,000 undergrads at Yale. Furthermore, college newspapers indisputably and rightly give coverage to all kinds of trivial things; the Cleveland Plain Dealer generally does not write articles about local knitting societies and community choruses unless they are involved in something that meets a higher standard of notability. Please do not interpret our responses as being a jab at college newspapers or a claim they are invalid sources or journalistically incompetant, because I don't think that's what anyone is claiming. --Dmz5 16:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I went to very "good" schools for ugrad and grad school and they both did, in fact, have papers of very low journalistic quality, one of which frequently instates and then removes an editorial policy not to provide critical coverage of performing organizations. So I do not think it is totally off base to question them a little more closely, just as we should question the Small Town Times a little more closely. This sort of contradicts what I said about jabs at college papers but it's a point that's worth making.-Dmz5 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly agree that college newspapers, regardless of the quality of journalism or stature of the college, report on a very closed sphere of interest and necessarily give coverage to elements of campus life that would not feature in even a local, let alone a regional or national publication. Reports in college papers and glancing / trivial mentions in mainstream media do not satisfy the spirit or the letter of our notability criteria. Deizio talk 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N and WP:MUSIC indicate that multiple, non-trivial discussions in reliable sources establish notability; editors here contend that multiple, non-trivial discussions in college newspapers do not establish notability. That sounds to me like you don't accept college newspapers as reliable sources, at least for the purpose of establishing notability. If that's the case, you need to raise it at WP:N or WP:MUSIC, not here. Also on the topic of splitting hairs, while there are about 5,000 undergrads at Yale, there are 120,000+ living alumni who could be interested in topics covered by the Yale newspaper. Further, the article in the New Haven Advocate about the attempt at evicting The Baker's Dozen's is not glancing nor trivial - they're the subject of the article. As for the policy's intent concerning a topic's notability extending beyond its "immediate sphere" - again, I question that "immediate sphere" extends to the entire communities of, in this case, Yale, New Haven, and/or a cappella-affiliated/interested people. schi ^talk 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sidenote, but as I mentioned above, it seems to me that an article about a real estate conflict the group had might not propel it to notability unless the article is called The Baker's Dozen Eviction Case. Just my opinion. Also, I posted a comment about this discussion on the WP:N talk page, so feel free to continue this there.--Dmz5 19:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A notable music act will be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (WP:MUSIC) on account of its music, not being evicted, being "new this year" or anything else. I don't accept that being reported in a publication which exists to report the affairs of one university and does not have to compete in the free market can be judged as "reliable" as it pertains to establishing notability. The downpour of cruft such a definition keeps out is frankly huge. I appreciate not everyone shares this view. Deizio talk 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete vocal music article as in my opinion it can be the basis for a substantial article, although I agree that it is useless in its present state. I commented on this above but I wanted to !vote here for emphasis.--Dmz5 09:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, as this debate has not really focussed on Vocal music at Yale at all. Deizio talk 16:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:RS -- Whpq 17:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dylan 17:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete individual group articles without evidence of wide notability. I think reworking the "Vocal music at Yale" to include brief descriptions of the various groups might be acceptable. -- Infrogmation 00:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 06:11Z

Terra Soft Solutions[edit]

Terra Soft Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. Speedy deletion tag removed, no real assertion of meeting WP:CORP or indeed any external sourcing at all.

• Delete per nom - nn corporation, SkierRMH,05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Failure of WP:CORP.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to importance in the Power Architecture community being the only Linux-vendor soley concentrating on this segment and being first to market for PowerMac G5 and PlayStation 3. Please read Talk:Terra_Soft_Solutions. -- Henriok 08:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 500,000 ghits, plenty of independent write-ups online though nothing in print by the looks of things, article could quite easily be referenced by the looks of things. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. Somitho 13:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Heligoland. The article is not much, but the company appears to be notable. - Justin (Authalic) 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - major distributor in the PPC field. Plenty of room for expansion. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge links to Criticism of Wikipedia. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 06:08Z

The Shiny Diamonds controversy[edit]

The Shiny Diamonds controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a rather strange case. It's an article about a prior AfD and a Washington Post article on AfD generally that leads with the aforementioned AfD specifically. One source doesn't quite cut it for most notability considerations, and I don't think a write-up in the Post makes it a "controversy" per se. The article is quite well written and flawlessly formatted, but it, like the band, is not notable enough to be included in wikipedia. Kchase T 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn I am now in agreement with Antepenultimate's point below that the news links, at the very least, ought to be merged into the Criticism article. There's not really a section of the Criticism article that covers the criticism the Foundation Office is getting phone calls about all the time: that Wikipedia's notability guidelines disallow a compendium of all human knowledge. Though we usually hear about this criticism here in deletion discussions on Wikipedia, the media has started covering it enough that a general mention at the article is appropriate. I don't agree with this criticism, but that doesn't matter. Please note that, per WP:SK a withdrawn nomination doesn't close a discussion.--Kchase T 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One Washington Post article does not a controversy make. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for now - This article is approximately one day old and has a single editor with a brief edit history. If this is an actual controversy, we should wait and see if the article develops. I suspect that, since the original band article was deleted, nobody will come looking for an article about the deletion of another article. But, we should give it 2 weeks and see what happens. The story could get picked up by more media outlets which might increase attention. - Justin (Authalic) 04:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If other newspapers were going to pick the story up, they would have in two weeks. Nobody will care now, even if anyone cared then. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be crystal ballism and is covered under WP:NOT. If it does become notable then an article may be warranted but I don't think we should keep it just in case. --67.68.152.133 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a non-notable "controversy" about a non-notable band. Otto4711 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-referential, original research (all that guff about import of WP guidelines) and an obvious back-door attempt to get mention of the deleted group back into WP. Just kill it. --Calton | Talk 05:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a non-notable "controversy" about a non-notable band and back-door attempt to get mention... into WP pretty much sums it up. In the end, one article in the paper does not meet the "multiple, non-trivial" aspect of WP:RS... indeed, it is just one example provided, and is not the subject of the article. In the end, it is self-referential and unencyclopedic. And the solution for a deleted article is WP:DRV, not to create another article that is indirectly about it. Rather than generating a stink about it in the Post (was it even in the print version, or just online?), might I suggest the band focus its energy on meeting WP:RS? --Kinu ^t/_c 06:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Why didn't they quote me? :( MER-C 06:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The band's AFD is provided as an example, not as the focus of the article. There is no "controversy" to speak of. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Survey says: Drop dead! Sorry Tim the Mute, this Internet-snob wiki-geek deems your band, and your whinging to the Post, non-notable. FiggyBee, who isn't notable either but is quite okay with that. 07:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as attempt to "bootstrap" an article on the band onto Wikipedia on the grounds that they were mentioned in a newspaper article about Wikipedia's deletion process. (I believe that the article was syndicated to various newspapers, but that does not justify this article.) The "controversy" does not seem to exist outside the band itself. Article violates the guideline of avoiding self-reference. Note that if the band manages to satisfy one or more WP:MUSIC criteria, they can have an article, but I would support blocking anyone who tries to take this self-reference any further by creating The Shiny Diamonds controversy controversy or anything like that. --Metropolitan90 07:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, if this article manages to get kept, move it to The Shiny Diamonds instead. --Metropolitan90 06:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utterly non-notable, bunch of unverifiable piece of work with no reliable sources. No encyclopedic at all, total original research, nothing more or less. Terence Ong 07:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OR, V, etc. SkierRMH 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some day, when the band itself is notable, might be of interest, but right now, as noted, clear "bootstrapping." Robertissimo 09:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "cut it"! "flawless"! anybody? anybody? oh well :) Deizio talk 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Boooooo... :P. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, don't boo me.. Kchase wins "Best subtle AfD nomination punnery / gaggery insertion" for December 06 :) Deizio talk 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, the best puns are unintended.--Kchase T 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, modesty? :) I'd be claiming it even if it was coincidental. Deizio talk 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Ironically, this desperate attempt to circumnavigate a page protected from re-creation didn't get speedied. I see the thought process that went into this one going something like this: "Hmm, how else can I get a link to my band's MySpace page on Wikipedia?" -- Antepenultimate 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources = change in vote, see below. -- Antepenultimate 10:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for more responses. As I know the author is in no way promoting the band, but rather providing a discourse on the development of Wikipedia, I believe that we need to give the post more time to develop. Jusher99 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't keep articles on the grounds that more sources for them might be created eventually. If they don't exist now, it gets deleted now, and can be recreated when the sources are created. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The WashPo article is duly listed under Wikipedia:Press coverage; the Shiny Diamonds article is only his lead example in a long article on notability. If the particular example is used elsewhere, a new WP article can be written. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Criticisms of Wikipedia. Just H 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why is some random guy complaining about how we're not sharing our webspace with any subject a notable criticism? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. You're a random guy, you're complaining about me not sharing your opinion, why is what you are saying notable? Just H 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't. Note how it isn't in an article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're saying that what you're saying to me isn't notable? Please clarify. In my comment, The article on this article was deleted and protected already, which was why the Post newspaper article was created. thus putting it in criticisms of wikipedia works for me if it isn't enough for an article on its own, because this would help that article. Just H 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I'm saying that wouldn't help the article, because including criticisms by just some guy who happens to have a non-notable band is bad. It's not our obligation to provide as much criticism as the database will hold on a "Criticism of X" article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's your perogative. You're entitled to yours and i'm entitled to mine. It appears we will not convince each other, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just H 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator has added a few more sources: [8], [9].--Kchase T 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a "controversy," just one article in the Post. Apparently this was also mentioned in a blog. This and $1.25 gets you a cup of coffee. JChap2007 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Help. Hi everyone, thank you for helping me improve the article by providing information here on this delete page. Thank you in particular to Amarkov, Justin (Authalic), Metropolitan90, Robertissimo, PMAnderson, and Just H. I just got out of an interview with CBC Radio One. They did a segment on "The Shiny Diamonds Controversy" after they read the Washington Post article. Just so you know, I have never met anyone in the Shiny Diamonds band before... in fact I just heard their music for the first time today (on myspace). I live in Paris, they live in Vancouver. You can google me if you don't believe me. I'm just very passionate about keeping this type of information in wikipedia. It makes me sad to think of wikipedia as the sum of SOME human knowledge. Can someone help me out with improving the page so that it is less likely to be deleted. I don't even know how to reference a radio broadcast. I could really use some help. Thank you in advance. Leigh8959 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if I thought that a rewrite could possibly make this good enough to keep, I wouldn't have said to delete, and I probably would have rewritten it enough to establish notability. But there is no controversy, therefore there aren't sources, therefore no rewrite could make it better. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation template for radio broadcasts can be found at Template:Cite episode if that will help. --Metropolitan90 05:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think if there's a radio interview on this issue (raising the number of sources to three) that would probably be enough to keep it. Even if it gets deleted this round, there's always deletion review after the show airs. We'll see what happens; I'm waiting to hear more.--Kchase T 05:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heard about this whole thing on the radio this afternoon and thought it was interesting enough to start up a Wiki page for. It's not even really an issue or news but if these guys were talked about on CBC Radio 1, which is as relevant as it gets for Canadian broadcast, it warrants a mention either in their own page or a 'Shiny Diamonds Controversy' page. I looked on Google and there are dozens of articles quoting or elaborating on the whole thing. I liked what the guy in Paris said about the sum of all knowledge. If the internet has fairly limitless potential, why should Wikipedia users be waging some sort of battle against this very Wikipedia-related issue being mentioned on the site? It's all very strange and I expect to see more news articles popping up daily about this, as they seem to have been doing for weeks now.--Mercury0T 07:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC) — Mercury0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Changing vote to Merge news article links with Criticism of Wikipedia, under "dated links." Let's not lose our sense of perspective here: To call this a true controversy, or to even say that Shiny Diamonds is the main focus of these articles, is misleading. They are being used as a current example (one of many, it should be noted) for an opinion article, and they are then mentioned (very briefly) in another editorial (about the original opinion article). -- Antepenultimate 10:41, 19 December 2006 (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 06:04Z

List of LGBT Jews[edit]

List of LGBT Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Categorize - There is no need to list LGBT Jews by their occupation, which seems to be the only reason this list is even maintained. This should be converted into a category to better organize its contents per Category:LGBT Christians. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A list allows for a brief, one-line bio, which can help readers find the person they're looking for. A list also allows for the inclusion of red links to be filled in later, while a category does not. I do not have a vote one way or the other. — coelacan talk — 04:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - list is better than a category because such a compilation requires sourcing. That should happen in the individual articles but people looking at the cat cant see sources. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The number of additions which are sourced is less than half and with a category the relevant citations would be in the articles in the category anyway. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With lists such as these, there are always thorny issues about categorization. For example, I was very surprised to discover that H.L.A. Hart was a homosexual, until I made the further discovery that he was married with four children and that it is some unnamed, unsourced "biographers" who claim that he's gay. I'm not going to do anything about it because doing that would involve a revert war and most likely some nasty attacks on my own motives. I would like it if someone would properly source this list and indeed leave out the ones whose sexuality is based on conjecture, or by a claims made by a minority of their biographers (who after all often make such claims to generate attention; if you don't believe me think of Albert Goldman's scandalous biography of John Lennon [which ironically enough accused him of homosexuality-- add Lennon to the list of LGBT Britons!]), but this is wikipedia after all and it is expecting too much for people to follow historical methods. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • After looking further at the list, I'm changing my vote to Delete because many of these people are not sourced (Jonathan Taylor Thomas, etc.). Sourcing should be mandatory in this situation because of the markedly personal nature of claims about people's sexuality. And to be frank, how would you react if your sexuality were unfairly miscategorized like this? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
    • Indeed. WP:LIVING applies here. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 07:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well, it can be expanded and cleaned up. There have been far less notable lists that are still here on Wikipedia after passing AFD. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, such lists do have encyclopedic value. Terence Ong 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator asks for this to become a category, however it does not meet the criteria mentioned in our guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories which says that Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid. I don't think there is anything distinct and unique about being LGBT and Jewish, and I speak from personal experience. Categories have entries without citations, and categorization policy general guideline (#8) says, "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." This guideline was written for examples such as this case. -- Samuel Wantman 08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you can't think of anything distinct and unique about being LGBT and Jewish. Have you seen Trembling Before G-d? There are gay synagogues, such as Beth Chayim Chadashim. In recent decades there has been a lot of controversy within Judaism about LGBT issues. While some of this is similar to the controversy in Christianity, there are also substantial differences. Dfeuer 07:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ditto Rearden Metal 08:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at least substantially prune because most of the list is unsourced and in the same time it is about biographies of living persons (WP:LIVING !). Therefore for every person in the list we need a proof (=reliable reference) that he/she identifies as 1) Jew and 2) LGBT - otherwies it is libel and WP:OR.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As people can see from the page history, there has been an effort to work the source problem for this list. If someone wants to prune the names for whom there are no sources while references are found, fine. I'm focused on sorting ref problems on other similarly unsourced lists and just haven't got round to it. But I think a list is more useful than a category- a category would simply give each person's name. This list provides brief information about each person (and hopefully a quickly checked reference), without having to visit each person's article in turn.- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I tried it for the first three paragraphs. More than 50% deleted because of WP:LIVING (I checked also their WP articles for sources and references and found no relevant ones for at least one of the two claims). And most of the rest are dead persons, very often still with WP:V issues (I added the cn tags). My conclusion is that the list in this form is very bad and should be quicly pruned or deleted - WP:LIVING is really an important issue.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so would you have a problem if I simply went through and delete all the unsourced ones? Because right now only about five of them are sourced. This is crazy; the list will never be sourced properly. Also, I am concerned that Wikipedia should not be a forum for outing people: the risk of error in such assessments (esp. by activists who are not disinterested observers) is much too high. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

• Keep. Source better. Haiduc 12:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LIST WilyD 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Terence Ong - Nico2001 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This kind of list-making is too easily abused by those who wish to promote, vilify, or "out" people — depending on one's agenda — regardless of unbiased evidence of this socially powerful categorization. One major benefit of using Wikimedia categories instead of lists is that the claim for inclusion or exclusion is made in the subject's article (with the cat tag), not an external list. This means that the people most likely to have sourced information to confirm or refute this categorization will see the claim as it is made or removed. The usefulness of this approach renders the "list can include source info" argument, which is already largely bogus, superfluous as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who hangs out at CFD, this amuses me because CFD has been moving in the direction of getting rid of categories like this because they cannot be sourced. Jeffq wants to get rid of the lists because people who edit the articles won't see the information posted in the list. So nobody really wants to deal with this problem. I see a few possible ways to solve it:

• Avoid having lists OR categories for controversial subjects that require verification. This option probably has no possibility of garnering community approval (I wouldn't support it either).
• Change the WikiMedia software so that lists can be created dynamically from database entries, and those entries would come from any article. So in effect the list entry for a person would be maintained in their article, and anyone looking at the article would see all the information that is posted about that person in lists.
• Keep the info in lists.
• Keep the info in categories.

Since the first option is unlikely and we'll have to wait for the second, that means either lists or categories. The big advantage of lists is that there is a history, you can see the citations, and the history shows who was added and who was removed. While it is possible to dig and find who added someone to a category, it is near impossible to find out who has been removed from a category and by whom. The relevant citations might be buried in the article or talk page. For these reason, I'd say, keep this info as a list and not a category. Require citations and remove anything that is uncited. This is how Films considered the greatest ever has worked for over a year without any major problems. -- Samuel Wantman 23:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists seem to me the way to go. They allow for a brief reason for inclusion and a reference backing it up. The problem here isn't the topic or the list, its the fact that people have been added without references. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you assume good faith, Jeff? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, yes. But I am highly skeptical of the agendas of folks so very interested in categorization by sexual preference, especially since much of the vandalism I revert at Wikiquote appears to be from people who perceive homosexuality as a slur on a person's character. I've done a lot of research on people for articles on WP and WQ, and while I find their professions, their nationalities, and sometimes their ethnicity and gender important, the only people for whom this tidbit seems important are people on the forefront, voluntarily or not, of the pro-homosexuality/anti-homosexuality melee. Is there some encyclopedic purpose for identifying the sexual preferences of all Jews covered in Wikipedia?
If so, I think a category would be easier to maintain (and prevent vandalism or unsourced rumor-mongering), because the people who know the subject best will see the addition, deletion, and alteration of this information.
Samuel Wantman's point of the source of this information being "buried" in the article actually bolsters my argument, as the cat tag would be in the place where the sourced data is, rather than having to duplicate the source in both the article and the list for each and every person. His no-history point is only valid if you assume the people maintaining this information are list watchers, not subject watchers. It's like assuming that you need a list for trumpet players because the editors working on each trumpet-player article can't be trusted to categorize their subject, when the reverse is actually more accurate: subject editors are far more likely to command accurate information than list editors. But I appear to be in the minority on this opinion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per smauel wantman & list also allows redlinks, (there are a few there as it is) also people sometimes 'randomly' remove certain categories from articles, less likely to do so from a list? obviously has to be sourced & verified (this is policy, remember?)  ⇒ bsnowball  09:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this list is too difficult to source because the classification of so many on the list rests on usually unverifiable claims made by biographers of homosexual liasons. Also, I find the definition of Jewish POV: is it an ethnic or religious definition? I think this list, finally, forces Wikipedia to take a position on Outing. Is it morally justifiable to "out" people who don't want to be perceived as gay? How much should we respect the decision to "stay in the closet." When Wikipedia lists men and women as "gay" (without the context and qualification provided by a full biographical article) who wished to keep their sexuality a guarded secret, I think WP is sending a message that sexuality is inevitably a public affair and that it is okay to "out" people. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Goldman[edit]

Eric Goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Law professor who predicted Wikipedia's imminent demise in his blog. Seems to be the only reason he has an article. NTK 04:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep, there wasn't even a source for the statement that someone has noted him, but now there is. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've added a link to a Law.com article that quotes him for commentary on an internet law issue, which should provide citation of his notability. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep is notable for the claim, which was covered by InformationWeek [11]. SSRN shows activity regarding his scholarship as well [12]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep claim was covered by InformationWeek and also in a Law article: [13] Leigh8959 04:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That Law.com article makes no mention of his Wikipedia claim ... it just quotes his comments on the Google case. --Dennette 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^(тąιк) 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to criticisms of Wikipedia unless he has some other claim to fame (perhaps he has some important law publications, etc.) savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Leigh8959. frummer 06:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Terence Ong 07:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. If Wikipedia is the source of his notability (and beyond his bet, he is just another r-o-t-m prof, this should be covered elsewhere (as noted above). Is simply being mentioned in an article now grounds for establishing notability? That's ridiculous. Eusebeus 10:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Semi-merge per Savidan. While the prediction is notable because of the non-trivial coverage, all this warrants is a one-line mention in the criticism article. A full article on this person based on their blog entry and news coverage of that blog entry is not warranted, unless he is demonstrated to be notable in some other way. ("Multiple non-trivial sources" etc. etc.) Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Leigh. -Toptomcat 15:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO ... having something from a blog entry covered in a single magazine article (also note that it's the second blog that made the news, not the first prediction from a year ago), and a casual mention in another article about a completely unrelated subject (Google's anti-trust case), are hardly "notable accomplishments" worthy of an article ... if he's such an authority, then why aren't there more citations for him other than his blog? Noteriety is not the same thing as notability. Remember, he is supposed to be the subject of multiple articles, and so far, it's only his prediction that has been the subject of a single article in an industry trade journal that is not widely read by the general public (InformationWeek is a long way from New York Times or Wall Street Journal kind of exposure, right?) ... being quoted (along with others) in one Law.com article (about Google) is not sufficient. Maybe add a paragraph to Criticisms of Wikipedia#Recent media discussions with the InformationWeek citation, but what they said about some topic is not the same as what they have accomplished, and while the topic may be notable, that does not grant notability to the speaker. --Dennette 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be notable only by Self reference. TonyTheTiger 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can someone check the ref at [14]? A quick Google turned up [15]. See also WP:PROF. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-19t19:58z
  • Reply - They are the same thing ... an amicus curiae brief can be filed by anyone, even people who are neither lawyers nor academics ... there is nothing intrinsically notable about having written a "friend of the court" essay along with two other lawyers ... all this citation does is document his academic affiliation as of the date that it was filed. --Dennette 00:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in 4 years... eh... just kidding. Delete. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TonyTheTiger Alan Pascoe 12:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Cornell University Glee Club. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 06:00Z

Cornell Sherwoods[edit]

Cornell Sherwoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod was contested. College a cappella article which does not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the verifiability requirements of WP:RS/WP:NOR/WP:V. The closest they come to a claim to notability is having travelled somewhere. However, these claims can only be sourced to their website (and perhaps their school newspaper); such tours would have to be the subject of non-trivial secondary-sources, which also are required to establish the notability of a group generally. Claims from their own website are insufficient. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. It's CollegiateACapelladämmerung on Wikipedia!! Bwithh 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol. Delete per above. Eusebeus 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahahaha --Dmz5 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Josh Parris#: 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep A cappella groups have some notability. This group has had serveral albums and many Google hits. A cappella groups are not radio towers. They are established musical organizations. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste vote again. Nothing to do with this group. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why was the comment crossed out? Xiner 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral per my copying and pasting. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 86 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 06:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cornell University Glee Club. It's odd that savidan would complain about "copy and paste voting" when he just copy-paste AfD'd a series of articles with exactly the same description. For instance, he argues above about the group's "web site," but this group doesn't even have a web site as they ceased to be back in the 70's. With all that said, there's no sense in discarding this particular content when there's a logical home for it at the Glee Club article. JDoorjam Talk 07:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already resolved the copy and paste issue with sharkface. This article does have an external link to the hangover's article which I mistook for their own website. Honestly, though, that just makes their notability worse. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a second look at the gleeclub article, I'd be amicable to a merge, although, given the lack of reliable sources for most of the info in this article, I imagine that the amounnt of material in it that I think is suitable for merging is much less than you would like to merge. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is as valid to cut and paste the same comment on a series of mass produced AfDs, if it fits each one, as it is to say 'delete per nom' or to cut and paste the AfDs. Edison 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is. My main objection was that the vote claimed to be specific to the group in question (i.e. albums plus g-hits). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep They had a notable alum, toured internationally and put out numerous albums back when that was an expensive proposition of stamped out vinyl rather than knowing someone whose PC could burn CDs or putting files on a download site. I could only find 1 passing reference in a New York Times article, about an alum. Edison 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passing NYT reference is a perfect example of trivial news coverage, which does not warrant notability. Not every proper noun which recieves passing reference in the NYT should = an article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not keep introducing the same strawman argument of not wanting to create an article for "every proper noun" in a newspaper, when the topic of debate is multiple reliable, verifiable, and independent coverage in more than a passing reference or directory. And please note that I did not characterize the one mention I found as more than a passing reference.Edison 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that it was only a passing reference, and that it doesn't constitute notability, that's fine. I thought it was implied in your post (being as you voted keep) that you thought the substance of your comment justified your vote. If however, that was just an aside, I won't press the issue. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the above, and note my comment about the Chord on Blues that touring for an a cappella group might not necessarily be a guarantor of notability.--Dmz5 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's merged, none of the uncited information about the group should be merged. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a former college singer I am sort of taking it upon myself to fix a lot of these articles (various glee clubs and the like) and I'm trying to drum up other people to help find citations, remove promo material, etc. If/when this article ends up getting absorbed back into the Cornell Glee Club page it will be in a well-cited form, I promise.--Dmz5 03:10, 19 December 2006 (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, and the article has been rewritten since nomination - no prejudice against renomination if the article still has not addressed concerns. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 05:56Z

Retrocausality[edit]

Retrocausality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first nomination was poorly stated; here is the real nomination

This article represents original research. From Opabinia regalis 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC): This is a novel synthesis of independently published claims. The physics section is, taken on its own, muddled at best; the OR is in the connection to the psychology discussion, in which each of the individual studies mentioned is either a) widely agreed to be plagued with methodological problems (PEAR), or b) entirely unrelated to the thesis (skin conductance and heart rate studies). Seriously - the creator, User:Dicorpo, has contributed nothing outside of this type of material, in particular his linkspamming of this "open access journal" (read: some guy's website) for these ideas. Also, the sources cited in this article may appear to be legitimate, but "Physics Essays" and "NeuroQuantology" are not well-regarded journals, and those sources that are reliable, are related to the psychology experiments - which, as I mentioned, are unrelated to the quantum consciousness thesis. --ScienceApologist 05:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding the original debate is relegated to the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality (Second nomination) --ScienceApologist 05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Endless procedural discussion which was cluttering the page has been moved to the talk page. -- SCZenz 06:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

STUBIFICATION I've reworked the article as a totally revamped stub as per JzG's suggestion Bwithh 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Delete Weak keep, the sources do used to seem to kinda address the subject (in a way that they are completely irrelevant), but now they do. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources are you refering to, the reliable ones (which are not about retrocausality) or the unreliable ones (which are part of the original research)? --ScienceApologist 06:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh boy. I missed the titles of the articles. What the heck? Changed to delete. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. Sources are a mix of irrelevant and unreliable. -- SCZenz 06:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Completely rewritten. Now verifiable. -- SCZenz 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Those sources are unreliable. Perceptual and Motor Skills, for example, is not a respected peer-reviewed journal. Authors pay the journal to publish their articles. Other sources have absolutely nothing to do with the article's basic assertion.[16] The NeuroQuantology article addresses supercausality, not retrocausality. Doczilla 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This referencing of random unrelated sources along with a few unreliable sources is annoying, and seems to be happening with increasing frequency. But perhaps Retrocausality and Supercausality should have been listed together? --Philosophus ^T 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I will remain as a delete vote for now. Most of the sources given are not reliable sources for the purpose of an article on a scientific topic, and should be removed. MSNBC and the San Diego Union Tribune just aren't appropriate sources for this type of article. The only source that might be remotely considered reliable is the AAAS symposium. I'm concerned that there are no references to papers in proper peer-reviewed journals. Why is this? It also seems that Cramer might be trying to use a concept that he calls "retrocausality" as an abstract formalism for dealing with entanglement, and the popular press is presenting it as traveling back in time. But even then, some of the things don't make sense to me. Cramer's presentation says "the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present ... retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature". I would very much like to see an explanation as to how this does not violate causality, and how one can have that sort of "retrocausality" without tachyons that cause a breakdown in energy conservation. Finally, none of the sources given are suitable for a scientific article according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. --Philosophus ^T 06:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reliable sources are needed for WP:V. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for the new stub. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Mike Peel 09:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - This seems like some type of strange metaphysical ramblings that are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 10:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Neutral - I feel more ambivalent towards the stub. Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Isn't this a genuine concept, even if one that's almost universally dismissed by the scientific community? Isn't this a case of an article that needs to be corrected for NPOV rather than deleted? Isn't it comparable, as an article subject, to Action at a distance (physics)? KarlBunker 11:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be, but the current article is just a hodgepodge of OR, POV, and just general stupidness. We won't lose anthing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since unverifiable OR. The only verifiable concept in this article seems to stem from the Klein-Gordon equation, and it is then interpreted in a novel way. Awolf002 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The recent re-write now clearly shows that there is no real substance to this, that is verifiable. All possibly salvageable small amount of information should be merged into subsections of the appropriate main article. Awolf002 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to acute lack of reliable sources to back the content of the article. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep rewritten stub, hope that Bwithh has the persistence to keep it real going forward :-) Guy (Help!) 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify Unnecessary to delete the article outright. Cut out the OR, reduce it to the basic meaning in quantum physics & philosophy based on [17][18]

[19]. I supported the relisting of this afd, but I'm still unhappy with the wrecking of the afd process here by both sides Bwithh 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. --- RockMFR 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Retrocausality suggests that much as the present affects the future, the reverse can also happen; the future can affect the present, and the present can affect the past. This strikes me as the Platonic ideal of original research: a neologism devised as part of a crank theory. Unless it's shown to be a noteworthy crank theory, delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Scientist published a 2,425 word article on Retrocasuality in September 2006 (as referenced in my above comment). I quote: Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and... Bwithh 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub it and start work, then I'll change my !vote. Nobody here is against a good-faith contributor making a valid fresh attempt at the article, it's the nonsense we want gone. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've stubbed and revamped it as per your suggestion Bwithh 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to satisfy WP:NOR, the proposed WP:FRINGE, etc. Barring further evidence that this is a notorious crank idea, the Heim theory defense doesn't work. (No, New Scientist doesn't count.) Anville 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Scientist may not be a peer review journal, and its reputation has come under attack, but it's still a major, respected science news and ideas publication (by the way, the retrocausality story was actually the front cover story of that edition of the New Scientist[20]. The New York Times and the BBC have had their journalistic integrity far more widely attacked - does that mean they are no longer reliable, respected sources for Wikipedia? Bwithh 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added further details on the AAAS symposium on this theme. Bwithh 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there no proper articles in peer reviewed journals? Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience - specifically, Appropriate sources. New Scientist is not to be considered a reliable source for an article that represents its subject as a scientific topic. --Philosophus ^T 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep current stub. I am convinced, at any rate, that the word "retrocausality" has sufficient currency to describe theories of this type to warrant an article on the subject. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fringe, stub, cites hype articles rather than real science. IMO, physics+philosophy for the same subject seems suspect in the first place! —Długosz December 18, 2006

Well, the new stub states that its a thought experiment concept. Anyway, take a look at Philosophy of Physics. Science and Philosophy are not opposites to each other Bwithh 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in its revamped and stubified form. The proper approach to scientifically invalid concepts is to discuss them honestly and explain why they're invalid, not to pretend that they don't exist. KarlBunker 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is an encyclopedia. Writing a tutorial on why an invalid idea is invalid is pure OR, and highly inappropriate for WP. linas 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe very thought of not having an article on something hat was a new Scientist cover story is absurd. DGG 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current references make it clear that this is a topic that has been discussed, regardless of its innate veracity (or lack thereof...). Keeping OR out of the article as it goes forward is an editorial issue, not an AFD issue. Serpent's Choice 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC) - See below for clarification[reply]
• keep as it stands, its a pretty poor stub about a just notable idea (the only valid ref is the ns article), but it appears to have legs. try to ensure it's very clear it's a thought experiment. (i had to link that)  ⇒ bsnowball  09:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the talk page and this AfD, the NS article is not an acceptable source for an article on a scientific topic. --Philosophus ^T 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Retrocausality made the 30 September 2006 cover of New Scientist, an international science magazine with a circulation of over 160,000 and a worldwide readership of over 670,000, and has also been covered by the general press. The popular media may not be a reliable source for what science says about retrocausality, but they are a reliable source for what the popular media say about retrocausality, which we can present. Additionally, philosophers have been publishing on retro-causation since at least the 1950s; see backward causation at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, particularly the extensive bibliography. Tim Smith 16:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Finally a more scholarly source for a portion of the article, and other references we can consider using. Also, I agree about having an article about what the popular media say, but I'm not sure what such an article should look like, and would appreciate it if you could help in that regard. --Philosophus ^T 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if we could get an article out of this that was of the caliber of the standford encyclopedia entry. Unfortunaely, given the experience I've had with WP, this seems unlikely.linas 01:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why my vote is still to delete, especially as it seems that the article is soon to become part of a battle over Luigi Fantappiè as well. --Philosophus ^T 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to time travel. --EMS | Talk 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The stub is better than the original, but as of this moment it still contains not a single citation to a peer-reviewed *printed* article on retrocausality. The AAAS symposium is a step in the right direction, but oral presentations aren't citable. We can't go back in time to listen to them, as it were. It seems not a coincidence that nobody can find *anything* peer-reviewed written by John Cramer on this subject. EdJohnston 04:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  But does that mean we shouldn't have an article, or just that the article should make clear that it's a vague idea and not peer-reviewed scientific work? It's also possible we already have some article on the arrow of time somewhere, that we should redirect to, but that can be considered after this AfD. -- SCZenz 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...at arrow of time, in fact. Serpent's Choice 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, despite snarkily providing that article link, I do not advocate merger. The arbcom case dictated that even patently wrong ideas that meet inclusion standards should be covered, but that we should take caution not to conflate them with established views (or, often, with science at all), and should give due weight to whatever science and established, peer-reviewed philosophy have to say that falls into the issue. That means, by the way, that we should consider rewriting this article in favor of Feynman's depricated theory of the reverse-causal positron (Physical Review 76) and its refutation by Earman, tachyon theory by lots of people (Bilaniuk was in Physics Today 22, for one) and its refutation by Recami, Price's 1996 discussion about boundary conditions, and probably de Beauregard's quantum paradox work (although I am not familiar with it, and it is mostly in Italian). Serpent's Choice 05:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? When a capable author who is knowledgable (or at least acquainted) with Feynmann's ideas shows up, and shows the interest in writing about them, then this person should be encouraged and aided. That person may show up next week, or may not show up for half a decade or more. In the meanwhile, we shall have a stub that attracts oddball, factually incorrect edits, building up a crunchy crust of cranky, crappy edits? Who shall have the energy to maintain the cruft patrol? linas 18:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

81.132.177.55 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Keep Bizarre debate. Clearly retrocausality exists as a theory whether or not we're able to find credible sources for it. Why not have an entry that informs of the concept, but emphasises how its scientific basis is at absolute very best tremendously shaky. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general interest, not a dictionary of science. It'd be highly pedantic to delete the entry altogether.[reply]

• Keep Everything in the article is either sourced or verifiable. --Oakshade 07:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Neologism, OR and whatsnot. You can't source a philosophy article from the popular press. The extensive online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't know about it. --Pjacobi 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, as someone pointed out earlier, the term is in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - "Backward causation - Sometimes known as retro-causation" Bwithh 01:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added this ref to the article Bwithh 01:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ... and please note that I've completed a fairly extensive rewrite of the article from its intermediate stub state, citing topics in both philosophy and science (and trying to preserve a bright-line distinction between the two), referring to several important existing Wikipedia articles, and offering references to (among other places) Physical Review, and Review of Modern Physics. The article bears little, if any, resemblence to its form at the start of this AFD. I have hopes this will satisfy all involved parties. Serpent's Choice 10:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep after the very nice rewrite by Serpent's Choice. HEL 23:31, 26 December 2006 (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.