Disputatio:Curdy

replies: text: [The above speedy-deletion formula was added by Usor:Orland ]
Observa Orland nostrum amicum tres argumenta supra fecisse: tertium est obsoletum, secundum est falsum, et primum est nugatorium. IacobusAmor 13:50, 10 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, to be fair, Iacobe, you haven't given any argument at all. You've quoted (below) a template from the en:wiki Novels project, which is irrelevant since (a) this is not en:wiki, (b) the article is not about a novel but a fictional character, {c) the template says nothing about reasons for keeping or deleting an article. And you've quoted princeps Wales, but haven't explained the relevance of the quotation. So you and Orland seem to me, as yet, roughly equal :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:36, 10 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :One hates to "spell out" explanations that should be unnecessary. ¶ (1) Orland's third argument is obsolete because it objects to something that's not there ("Libri Harrii Potteris" is no longer "mentioned" in the article). (2) Orland's second argument is false because it's untrue, our respected colleague Fabullus having assured us that the novels are not "only published in Spanish." (3) Orland's first argument is trifling, not only if we accept our founder's celebrated dictum, but if we recognize that all published matter (especially, of course, self-published matter, like the first editions of Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass and Edward Fitzgerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam) can be regarded as spam: it's a bid for the attention of our synapses, no more, no less. ¶ As to the new argument (b): I quoted the template from en:wiki's discussion page about the fictional character under discussion here, not the novel, so there goes that problem. As for the new argument (a): far more minds have worked on en:wiki than on any other, so we should always respect—though not necessarily accept—what en:wiki does. Many of our articles, especially the stubs, could be improved if their authors would merely translate the text already in en:wiki (or one of the other major wikis), rather than offer their own (often jejune) texts. ¶ The fundamental observation we may draw from this discussion and similar ones is that the world really does seem to sort people into two groups: conservatives & liberals, or perhaps fascists & socialists (or here in America, Republicans & Democrats). In the context of the wikis, the former are exclusionary, and the latter are inclusionary: the former prefer to prohibit what cannot be proved, and the latter prefer to allow what cannot be disproved. This distinction corresponds exactly with a contrast memorably phrased by Fowler: the former feel a need for meticulousness, "the negative accuracy that admits no error"; the latter feel a need for punctilousness, "the positive accuracy that omits no detail." The tension between these poles of irrationality may always be with us. Let's use it to improve our projects! IacobusAmor 16:36, 10 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::This is a strange kind of argumentation, or rather attribution of characteristica by prejudice: Because I act as an anti-spamming agent in this case (which is my third after Ildan and Serrano), I am, by definition a "conservative", a "fascist", a "Republican" and "exclusionary". In my country that kind of accusations are taken must seriously and offensive, and I expect IacobusAmor to apolgize, as he probably knows nothing about me, nor about my contributions to free speech in my professional life. --Orland 17:48, 10 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::O care amice ignotissime, quippe quod vis verbi uniuscuiusque quod supra scripsimus est aperta, quemquam unum vocavit in dubium nemo, nosmetipsi enim res per se, non singulares disserimus mortales. IacobusAmor 15:11, 11 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::[Written at the same moment as AlexTiefling's comment:] I agree: I don't like it either. The political labels are potentially offensive and have no possible link with the question whether Curdy should or should not have an article on Vicipaedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:57, 11 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

text: :::I agree that IacobusAmor's line of argument would not look credible in en.wikipedia's AfD discussions, and I'm not sure his division of people into two kinds does anything to illustrate the facts in this case. I've tried to find out if this character is notable, but my web research has mostly shown that the character has suspiciously similar wiki pages on dozens of wikis, to the extent that any more reliable coverage is drowned out. This suggests, though does not prove, that the more reliable coverage is insufficient in scope to support the contention that the article passes WP:N. So I still !vote to delete. AlexTiefling 10:37, 11 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::You and others have ignored multiplex lines of argument so as to focus on something else—an aside, a historical question, which you didn't recognize as an echo of W. S. Gilbert's wittily pertinent comment (in the voice of Private Willis in Iolanthe):
replies: text: :::::When all night long a chap remains

text: :::::On sentry-go, to chase monotony

text: :::::He exercises of his brains,

text: :::::That is, assuming that he's got any.

text: :::::Though never nurtured in the lap

text: :::::Of luxury, yet I admonish you,

text: :::::I am an intellectual chap,

text: :::::And think of things that would astonish you.

text: :::::I often think it's comical – Fal, lal, la!

text: :::::How Nature always does contrive – Fal, lal, la!

text: :::::That every boy and every gal

text: :::::That’s born into the world alive

text: :::::Is either a little Liberal

text: :::::Or else a little Conservative!
replies: text: ::::::Fal, lal, la!

text: :::::When in that House M.P.'s divide,

text: :::::If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,

text: :::::They’ve got to leave that brain outside,

text: :::::And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.

text: :::::But then the prospect of a lot

text: :::::Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity,

text: :::::All thinking for themselves, is what

text: :::::No man can face with equanimity.

text: :::::Then let’s rejoice with loud Fal la – Fal la la!

text: :::::That Nature always does contrive – Fal lal la!

text: :::::That every boy and every gal

text: :::::That’s born into the world alive

text: :::::Is either a little Liberal

text: :::::Or else a little Conservative!
replies: text: ::::::Fal lal la!

text: ::::Now briefly as to the nub of the argument: this notion of "notability": that if a topic is "notable," we should include it, and if it's not "notable," we should exclude it. In the world as we find it—reality as it is, in all its fullness, variety, and irregularity—the notion of "notability," or (more accurately) the use to which it's often put, seems so paper-based, so antique, so unpostmodern, so utterly out of step with what the internet (and by extension humanity) is becoming, that one hardly knows how to deal with it. Yes, thousands of literary figures have had a more "notable" effect on history than this obscure "Curdy" (about whom I myself couldn't care less, and about whose adventures I'm exceedingly unlikely ever to wonder), but we have the article, it's here, it's factual, and it may well be searched for by aficionados, or by others interested in the genre or the author. If, as has been alleged, it originated in an author's self-promotion (condemned as "spam" by those who protest such advertising), so what? The source of a fact has no bearing on the truth of that fact. Accordingly, it's a reasonable suggestion that observers who'd prefer that Vicipaedia include articles on those thousands of heretofore omitted "notable" figures have an obligation themselves to supply them. As Wikimedia says:
replies: text: :::::Detailed subtopics and sub-subtopics enrich Wikipedia with information. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap.

text: ::::Or, in short: "Wikipedia is not paper." IacobusAmor 14:22, 11 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Oh, yes, IacobusAmor. You use many words, and you are good at quoting poetry; but you were rude, and has not yet apologized. You are right that this is off topic, but it was still you who brought it up, and it is your responsibility to take it down in a polite way.  --Orland 09:20, 12 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Iacobus, I'm familiar with Gilbert's verse; but I think Prviate Willis was passing satirical comment on (what was then) the two-party system in British politics, not suggesting that people really are naturally divided into two camps. Wikipedia is not paper, but that's no reason to give room to an article created for promotional purposes by an insignficiant author. And as Orland correctly observes, you've been pretty rude, and not apologised. I still advocate deletion. AlexTiefling 10:07, 15 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

text: ::::::Addendum: 'Wikipedia is not paper' is not intended by Jimbo to overturn all normal notability concerns. WP:N (and WP:GNG in particular) still stand. You can't just wave 'not paper' around until you get your own way. An individual character in a comparatively unimportant series of books by a pretty much unknown author is not notable. If it's determined that Senor Balder is notable, this content could be merged into his article. It can't, in my opinion, stand on its own. This has nothing to do with spurious space concerns, and everything to do with how unimportant the subject matter is. Go and have a look at the AfD debates on English Wikipedia to see how these things can pan out. AlexTiefling 12:01, 16 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::He's been quoted somewhere as having said that every human who ever lived might well have his/her own page. (So much for the criterion of notability.) Perhaps the most pertinent definition here is that given by Aneurin Bevan: "Fascism is . . . the future refusing to be born." In our electronic future, notions of encyclopedic notability, tied (as they must be) to authoritarianism, the power of the few over the many, may rightly belong to the past. ¶ We're in total agreement that this page is "unimportant"—and I'd add that it's extremely unimportant. IacobusAmor 13:14, 12 Septembris 2009 (UTC)

message: It certainly is, Orland. I'm surprised it has taken the spam police so long to get to this one! Unless there is some proof of Curdy's notability, I think maybe the little fellow should go. Can anyone prove him notable? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:10, 9 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide quod nobis dicit en:
replies: text: :From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

text: :Novels portal

text: :This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.

text: :Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class.

text: :Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

text: :Assessment comments[show]

text: :This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

text: "Wikipedia is not paper," says our founder. IacobusAmor 22:48, 9 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
Balder's books can be found on the shelves of the major book stores in Holland, in Dutch translation. I think his major fictional character merits a reference in wikipedia. --Fabullus 06:27, 10 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is true that one of the Curdy books are translated into dutch, see url to publisher (and this seem to be a notable and medium size publishing house as well, judged by the structure of the ISBN: 90 is Netherlands; 261 is the publisher. Large publishers have 1-2-digit codes, while small ones have 4-5 digit codes). But I've found no evidence to any english or german language editions, as the different articles claim. And still my main argument is of proportinal nature: This article is distributed far beyond significance. --Orland 17:48, 10 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
* Hic res delenda est. Balder clarus non est. Librum primum ipse publicavit, et paginas vicipediarum nuntiandas creavit. {Corrections to my Latin are welcomed!) AlexTiefling 13:37, 10 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

text: I must admit I do not entirely understand this debate. Balder is a published writer. His books appear in Spanish and, as our esteemed friend Orland has now established, one title at least is available in Dutch. A bookseller in Holland has assured me that this book sells, not extremely, but reasonably well. I would say therefore that Balder deserves to be included in Wikipedia. Whether someone started these articles as propaganda, is hard to prove, and irrelevant as long as the article meets our criteria. I myself first learned of Balder's existence in an Amsterdam bookshop and only afterwards googled him out of curiosity, which pointed me to a number of Wikipedia-articles. Isn't this precisely what Wikipedia is for? However, whether the main character of one of Balder's series, Curdy, deserves a separate article is another matter. Personally I don't mind to have an article on Curdy, nor would it miss it if it were deleted. --Fabullus 11:56, 11 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I completely agree. I have always argued for retaining articles about published authors (even if they were originally spammed across many wikis). I feel less enthusiastic about an article like this one, which concerns a detail, a fictional character: I feel the notability of such a topic would be more difficult to demonstrate. If Curdy develops, as it were, a life beyond his creator, then he's notable; until then, perhaps he should become a paragraph in the Arthurus Balder article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 11 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::OK, I had been going to repeat here the comparison I drew in email to Mehmet Murat Ildan, which faced similar accusations, and got a very different reaction, but now I see the distinction you are drawing. Perhaps it would be more logical to make this into an article on the series as a while, rather than to fold it into the article on the author? --Iustinus 21:04, 12 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Spamming campaign"

message: Can anyone prove X notable? Can anyone prove X not notable? I'm sure some things are notable, some not. But when it comes to implementing this clear and distinct conceptual distinction in the real world, I for one am at a loss. Of course, I could point to several things in our Vici that, in my mind, are not notable, yet I'm well aware of the political problematicity of universalising my opinions. Or anyone else's. I'm afraid, if we begin to wield the notability guillotine, we're thereby entering a slippery slope. --Neander 13:30, 12 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. For modern authors and books, the en:wiki notability barrier is not set very high (e.g. two newspaper/magazine reviews). How we would interpret such a requirement in the case of obscure ancient and medieval authors, I'm not sure ... but I guess a few discussions in the academic literature would amount to the same thing. And, between the editiones principes and the present day, most ancient/medieval topics could claim at least that small amount of notoriety.

text: However low we set the notability barrier, I think we probably have an idea, when we write, that someone will find our topic noteworthy. And I think it's best to retain that approach: somehow, for the reader's sake, one has to judge what is worth saying and what isn't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:48, 13 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :The main practical effect of an exclusionary policy is to limit the usefulness of the result: if a person searches for topic X but a wiki has excluded topic X from its approved mix, that person won't find that wiki, but will go elsewhere. In an age when search engines turn up whatever exists, the consequence of excluding topics is to exclude people. IacobusAmor 14:28, 13 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On notability 

message: Both :es:Curdy and :es:Artur Balder are now deleted, actually to my surprise. My interpretation of this is that it might be a possible embarassment to the hosting / home language wp to be the homeground of a spamming campaign. And the neighbouring language, portugese, are now discussing at :pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Curdy.  Bw --Orland 22:39, 14 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is strange. His latest book has a solid Spanish publisher, and rights have been sold for four language editions: Italy, France, Holland (Fabullus observes that he is already known there) and Romania. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:27, 15 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

[Formula added to page by Descíclope] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:53, 17 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: : Quis est Desciclope? Qua auctoritate nos iubet? Cur "confestim"? Si causa vere est sui promotio, quin alias quoque paginas sui promotionis causa scriptas deleamus. Equidem nonnulla scio, sed Pandorae pyxidem aperire nolim. --Neander 21:38, 17 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I conclude that there's no consensus for deleting Curdy. He is reprieved. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:39, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted on es:wp