text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles

The result was USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. This isn't going anywhere, as far too many articles were bundled together into a single AFD.

If someone wants to open a much smaller (not more than four articles at a time, please) AFD on one or some of these articles so that the individual merits of specific articles can be discussed, feel free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Warcraft character articles
I am retracting this nomination as it seems to be spiralling towards a brawl. I doubt any good faith consensus can result from this discussion. I'll approach this from another angle later. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your close. Nominators have no special rights to close an AfD after a second person has supported deletion, and this one seems to have been headed fairly close to a delete consensus when you changed your mind. --Aquillion 01:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I am then striking out all my comments as I do not support this nomination any futher. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is my parting message for this Article: I'm going the same way as Kaustuv, he knew what he was doing when he jumped ship on this one...  This list is a mess and doesn’t even begin to encompass all the good/bad character articles related to Warcraft.  The only thing this will lead to is: At best, a purging of a few bad articles.  At worst, a complete annihilation of a slew of good and bad articles.  I started some heavy research into these articles; an Excel document where I tried to at least organize this heap of articles.  Through this process I discovered at least twice again as many articles that fit into this category better than Medivh!  One didn't even exist ("Blackhand")!  Some of the propositions stated below are very intelligent and the sadly failed objective of this article (to set a standard for AfDs brought up by WP:FICT) was a noble cause, but this is not the place that that is going to happen.  My advice is to scrap this page before someone gets hurt, and try again with a more specific organized and comprehensive list.  For crying out loud, the originator of this nomination left! OrcShaman42 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 Old discussion

This is a group nomination of a series of Warcraft character pages. My deletion rationale is as follows, in bulleted form but not necessarily in order of importance. The information in these articles is freely (in the GFDL sense) available in a much more comprehensive form in WoWWiki, which I have linked using the legend "ww" for comparison purposes. Many of WP's articles are word-for-word duplicates of their WoWWiki entries (eg. Captain Placeholder), cite their counterpart on WoWWiki (eg. Hakkar the Soulflayer), or are completely unsourced (eg. Grom Hellscream). There is even a template, wowwiki, designed to help citations of WoWWiki easier. I should hardly have to point out that wikis do not qualify as reliable primary or secondary sources.
 * None of the characters are notable outside the Warcraft fandom. None of the articles provide a clue how to verify from reliable sources why the nominated characters are notable except as elements of the Warcraft plot.
 * There is already a page, List of Warcraft characters, that has encyclopedic summaries of all of these characters. One might argue that WP:FICT recommends splitting off articles on major characters to keep the list sized properly, but that does not obviate the need for individual notability of such characters.
 * Many of the character articles have long and detailed plot and biographical exposition. They skirt the boundary of game guide territory, although they are for the most part not instruction manuals (i.e., they do not say how to kill the mobs for phat loot). I think this amount of detail is wrongly placed in Wikipedia. The common epithet for such articles is gamecruft, i.e., information that is only of interest to fans of the game.

 * Aegwynn (ww)
 * Aman'thul (Warcraft) (ww)
 * Anduin Lothar (ww)
 * Antonidas (ww)
 * Anub'arak (ww)
 * Archimonde (ww)
 * Arthas Menethil (ww)
 * Azshara (ww)
 * Balnazzar (ww)
 * Blackhand (ww)
 * Cairne Bloodhoof (ww)
 * Captain Placeholder (ww)
 * Admiral Daelin Proudmoore (ww)
 * Detheroc (ww)
 * Durotan (ww)
 * Elune (ww)
 * Garona (Warcraft) (ww)

 * Grom Hellscream (ww)
 * Gul'dan (ww)
 * Hakkar the Soulflayer (ww)
 * Illidan Stormrage (ww)
 * Jaina Proudmoore (ww)
 * Kel'Thuzad (ww)
 * Khadgar (ww)
 * Kil'jaeden (ww)
 * Killrogg Deadeye (ww)
 * King Terenas Menethil (ww)
 * Maiev Shadowsong (ww)
 * Malfurion Stormrage (ww)
 * Mannoroth (ww)
 * Medivh (ww)
 * Neltharion (ww)
 * Ner'zhul (ww)
 * Nozdormu (ww)

 * Orgrim Doomhammer (ww)
 * Prince Kael'thas (ww)
 * Rexxar (ww)
 * Rhonin (ww)
 * Rokhan (ww)
 * Sargeras (ww)
 * Sen'jin (ww)
 * Shandris Feathermoon (ww)
 * Sylvanas Windrunner (ww)
 * Tichondrius (ww)
 * Tyrande Whisperwind (ww)
 * Uther the Lightbringer (ww)
 * Lady Vashj (ww)
 * Vol'jin (ww)
 * Zul'jin (ww)

For precedents, see the following concluded AfD and the precedents therefrom. Note: this AfD, if it achieves consensus either way, will become a strong precedent. Please carefully consider whether Wikipedia should contain unsourced (or improperly sourced) articles on individual NPCs, mobs, and "lore" entities of dubious notability in a MMORPG, or whether a summary article such as List of Warcraft characters suffices for our encyclopedic purposes.
 * Articles for deletion/Guild Wars articles

— Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Main Discussion
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 06:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Guess I'll be the first. First and foremost, wikipedia is not an indescriminant collection of information.  It is not a game guide.  Such things can be promoted and listed on other, more in depth websites, such as, in this case, WoWWiki.  As its already word-for-word copies.  Delete them all.  We even have an interwiki link for it, .  Add to that the nom's notes about verifiability.  Is this interpreted material?  If so its original research on wowwiki, and is not a good source for information here.  Is it paraphrased from a game manual?  Its copyvio then.  I see so much wrong with this set of articles as a result.  A list would be a much better place for this.  --Kevin_b_er 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete individual articles, an annotated list might not be bad, but this level of detail is not necessary for a general encyclopedia and the distiction between cannon/OR and fan fic makes these kind of articles especaiily problematic for wikipedia.--Peta 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Find the examples of fan fiction and OR (material that has been interpreted and not directly stated in the games, manuals, books, or comics), and feel free to remove that material. That's different than deleting the articles.  Also, AFD is not the right place to request a merge.JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of information. also per well researched nom.--Ageo020 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I am reluctant to delete so many articles that are reasonably well-written, but it is complete Craftcruft and not of interest to anyone outside players of those games. Not an indiscriminate collection of information, etc. BoojiBoy 02:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Reduce, merge all except major characters, or delete. theProject 02:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment AFD is not the right place to request a merge. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As a general principle, Strong Delete. If any of these are individually notable, I cannot possibly say, but I allow that a few could be. Applaud nominator for doing the work! - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry folks, this isn't a game guide.  Is there a Warcraft Wiki?  Maybe there should be one for stuff like this.  RedRollerskate 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please state how character articles constitute game guides.  Also, the existence of the information on other wikis is not grounds for deletion in and of itself. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete For god's sake it's just a game. You don't need to have bios on inanimate characters. --Xrblsnggt 03:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Read WP:FICT.  Wikipedia is the place to have bios on notable inanimate characters.JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Geez, that made the Satchel Cohen hoax look like a piece of cake. Yank  sox  03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Self-promoter! :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per BoojiBoy although keep important characters if any of them are significant to the game such as main characters. --דניאל talk contribs   Email 03:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. AFD is not the right place to request a merge.JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Relist separately: There are simply too many articles with too many different variables here for us to consider them all together. Some characters obviously need to be merged back to the list or another article (such as captain placeholder). Other characters are obvious keeps (such as Grom, Jaina, Uther Sargeras, etc).
 * Comment it would be better if you point out which characters are "obvious keeps" and why, so I can withdraw the nom for just them. I hardly think most, a majority, or even many of these characters are major characters. I personally have no taste for 49 separate AfDs on Warcraft characters. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Separate AfD's runs the risk of inconsistent outcomes. Propose subsections for those articles where a special argument may be made. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a list. Many of these characters are mentioned in various print publications apart from the games: Archimonde, Arthas Menethil, Balnazzar, Grom Hellscream, Gul'dan, Illidan Stormrage, Jaina Proudmoore, Kel'Thuzad, Malfurion Stormrage, Mannoroth, Medivh, Orgrim Doomhammer, Prince Kael'thas, Sargeras, Sylvanas Windrunner, Tichondrius, Tyrande Whisperwind, Uther the Lightbringer. And yes, separate AfDs do run the risk of inconsistent outcomes, but if you want to make a policy page, go make one and debate it and achieve consensus. Otherwise, you should delete an article based on its own indivudal merits, not merely because of an attempt to establish some sort of policy/precedent. --Hetar 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, below are individual subsections for each of the 18 characters in your list. Please either add the reliable sources for notability of these characters to these articles, or list these sources in this AfD, comprehensively or article-by-article. This AfD is not an attempt to create policy; my note is merely a warning that the outcome will be cited as precedent. No extra policy or guidelines are necessary for this nomination, in my opinion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely my opinion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said before, these articles deserve separate nominations so that they can be deleted or kept on their own merit, and not because someone wants to establish some sort of precedent. Also, it should be noted that we don't delete articles simply because they don't cite their sources, many articles are kept so that we can take the time and effort necessary to source them properly. --Hetar 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are misreading the nomination. That this AfD will be cited as precedent is a statement of what I expect will be the case, because of which I warn participants to carefully consider their votes. The reasons for the deletion were clearly specified in the nomination; nowhere have I listed establishing a precedent as a reason for deletion. As to unsourced articles, WP:V (from WP:RS) is a core policy here. The week long AfD process will give interested editors plenty of time to add support for the keep votes with proper sourcing, which will increase the objective quality of these articles independently of the outcome of this AfD. I suspect we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion on the means used in this AfD, so let us agree to disagree as long as you accept my reasons for what they plainly state, not as a cover for a hidden motive. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Yet another baseless attack on gaming. Why not delete every single character from every single book, movie, tv show in history as well?Macktheknifeau 06:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. The entire Warcraft storyline should be one article. --Chris Griswold 06:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Coment And while we are at it, let us delete everything on Wikipedia associated with other major books, films, games etc. I could compile a list if you want, of every universe created that has articles seperate from the main story line article. Havok (T/C/c) 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Chris, I understand that you're heavily involved in editing comic book articles here on wikipedia. Would you support reducing every Superman character and every X-man onto one page?  Because that's essentially what you're suggesting.JoshWook 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep Non notable? I have no idea what you mean by that seeing as they are well known to over 6 million people who actually play WoW, not to mention the people who play Warcraft.. merging is out of the qestion as many of the characters are big articles. And they are all good articles, stating non notability seems to be the only weapon you deltionists have against these articles. As I have stated a billion times before, even if you don't see pressidence for notability, does not make it any less notable for everyone else who have even a remotly idea what this is. And also, they are here to educate people who want to know more about the Warcraft universe. If you want to delete these, I'll go on a AfD spree and nominate every article associated with The Lord of the Rings, Marvel Universe, DC Comics, The Simpsons and so forth. This is perhaps one of the silliest AfDs I have seen in a long time. Havok (T/C/c) 06:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that this was not an indiscriminate list of all Warcraft character articles. See, for example, Thrall (Warcraft), which was not nominated because the article asserts that he is a main character, and my brief perusal of the articles in Category:Warcraft books convinced me that he was a major character. Please also note that notability is not the sole reason: amount of detail, and verifiability from reliable sources of the contents of the articles are others. If you want a good yardstick, compare Archimonde with Link (The Legend of Zelda series), a featured article on a video game character. Observe the amount of attention in the latter paid to citing a wide range of sources, and assertions of notability outside the Zelda fandom. I am willing to accept that some of the nominated (but not a majority or even a large portion of them) might meet the threshold of "major character", but short of becomming a seasoned Warcraft player overnight I have no way of verifying it. The articles certainly give me no clue how I might verify if some character is a major character or not. Of course, if you still choose to see this as an attack on gaming articles, i.e., a bad faith nom, then I am sure your opinion will be noted by the closing admin. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Umm... Archimonde is a major character.. And why do you AfD when you have no knowledge of the subject at hand? Shouldn't it be up to the editors who actually work on these articles to decide if they are verifiable or not? Deleting them won't give us any chance to state reliability, verifiability or even work with the articles. And yes, I do see it as a bad faith nomiation, because you state yourself that you have no knowledge of the subject. I have no knowledge about anything relating to LotR other then what I have seen in the movies, does that mean I can go and AfD every character bio on Wikipedia for that lore, stating "I have no knowledge of this, so therfor it must be right of me to delete them." Hiding behind WP:RS and WP:V is all good, but not if you have no chance yourself to state WHY the characters are not major. From the list you compiled I see most of them as major characters in the lore of Warcraft, which is also the reason they have their own article, and deleting them would be foolish. What you could have done instead of this AfD was to go to WikiProject Warcraft and ask us to verify them before you nominate them, you could have started a dialoge with the community behind these article, and not just outright AfD them. Havok (T/C/c) 07:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I see no problem with you going through the list of LotR character articles and nominating the unsourced (or improperly sourced) and unverifiable articles on non-notable characters of interest only to LotR fans for deletion. If your nomination is well-argued, I will support it. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind WP:POINT. Going on an "AFD spree" as you put it will likely result in it being labeled a bad-faith nom and a strong warning, maybe even a block.  Just because these articles might get deleted doesn't give you the rationle to nominate every other similar article for deletion. Hbdragon88 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If these articles are deleted on the basis that you don't find them to be anything major, it so absolutly gives me the right to do so with other "lesser known" characters, places etc. from other lores. This AfD for me will set precedence for other articles of the same type. If the nominator can state "I have no idea what this is about, but I feel myself that X, Y, Z, is not a major character and should therefor be deleted from Wikipedia." why can't I do the same? It's all in the eye of the beholder, he dosn't see this as anything major, but it is for many of us, and AfDing it in my book is just disrespectful if you have no grasp on the subject matter. Havok (T/C/c) 07:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If you think this is a bad faith nom, report it at WP:AN. If if it is a bad-faith nom, the sysops deal with it, and let them punish him. Don't get yourself in trouble if the sysops agree with him and don't believe it's a bad-faith nom or if they decide that the decision is delete. So what if he isn't familiar with the subject matter? What, is owning the game and being immersed in the whole atmosphere a requirement now to edit and make informed decisions about the status of the articles? He should, as an outsider, be able to discern from the article why the subject of the article is notable, and if he can't, then it should either be reworked to make it notable or be deleted. He has chosen the latter path. Hbdragon88 08:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note these names appear in the Warcraft 3 game, not WoW, to my knowledge.--Paraphelion 07:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of them are mentioned in WoW aswell. And I did write both WoW and Warcraft. Havok (T/C/c) 07:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep IV : The Voyage Home Years from now a space-born relative of the humpback whale will return to earth and may ask for this information or else its ceaseless cries will destory our planet. It would bode well for the human race to have this kind of information all in one place.--Paraphelion 07:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Restated I like the idea that a first time visitor to wikipedia might use the random page feature and it will bring up a bio about some obscure fantasy character that is longer than a bio for some nobel prize winners. That to me is the magic of Wikipedia and what it is all about.--Paraphelion 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete all per well-researched nom. Sure is a terrible thing that no one seems to want to believe in WP policies and guidelines.  Good luck with the whale thing.  Tychocat 08:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment : Just because the nominator withdrew his comments why must everyone here who has stated they agree with the original nomination restate their rationale for deletion? Just because someone changes their mind doesn't mean everyone else who had similar notions has to confirm theirs.--Paraphelion 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator did more than "change his mind" in this case - he was accused on multiple fronts of making a bad faith nomination. In that light, any votes that reference the nomination must qualify why they believe the articles should be deleted, aside from "per nom," when the nominator himself has expressed reservations about the AFD.JoshWook 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment However he did not admit to a bad faith nomination, as you of course know becasue as he states at the top, he removed his nomination merely because it became a brawl. Your threat to discount all votes unless they are restated is laughable.--Paraphelion 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

*Relist separately Someof these (like Grom Hellscream) are major characters. Some should be merged into something like List of minor Warcraft characters. This AfD has about zero chance of determining which is which. Ace of Sevens 08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) —  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: as mentioned above, I have offered to withdraw the nomination of any characters that can be shown to be "major characters" using verifiable information. An unsourced summary of the plot as written by an editor doesn't count as evidence for notability, I am afraid. 49 separate AfDs will be killed outright as WP:POINT or something similar, and I certainly don't have the energy to tend to 49 separate discussions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all A good number of these should be kept. If any need to be merged to a minor characters list, AfD isn't the place to handle it, but none should be deleted. Notability (fiction) gives no basis for a deletion, only merge. Ace of Sevens 22:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the fact that the articles are not currently sourced properly is no reason to delete them. The Warcraft universe is propably the most notable universe in computer gaming. Many published books have been written about this universe which could potentially be used as reliable sources. The nominator states that he has no knowledge of this topic and the thing to do here would have been to start a dialogue with the WikiProject, not dump everything in this AfD. This is just further evidence that there are many Wikipedians who look contemptuously at video game content and what they consider "fancruft". This is not fancruft, this is not "gameguide". If this had not been from a video game but from the Lord of the Rings or the Simpsons, this would never have been allowed to come this far: Ajaxfan 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Again, the reason is not solely verifiability. The characters have to be shown to be notable. Read WP:CRUFT. A notable character is not notable solely because of internal plot-related reasons. A fictional character must have real world notability. The character must be known outside the fandom. Currently I see no evidence of this as everything I have been able to find about a character such as Aegwynn, to take a random example, keeps revolving around the WoW fansites (or Wikipedia and mirrors). The published books you speak of are guides for the game, or novelizations of the game. Again I note the comparison to Link (The Legend of Zelda series), which I am increasingly coming to see as the ideal game character article. Is Aegwynn equally notable? Is Orgrim Doomhammer? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude... WP:CRUFT is an essay not a guideline or policy. It cannot be used as the basis for an argument for deletion. —   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and WP:CRUFT is not my sole rationale. Essays can be illuminating even if they are not policies or guidelines. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read an actual guideline like WP:FICT The first two points cover why AfD is not appropriate. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The nom has failed to assert a valid reason for deletion. I checked a dozen of the pages randomly I saw no use of WoWWiki as a reference, directly refuting a claim of the nom. The indiscriminate collection of information applies to lists, by the way. If anything should be a game guide a simple edit should suffice. In regards to sourcing video game characters, the games themselves are a source. If you wish to go as far as citation, I have created cite video game. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I provided an example of a WoWWiki citations in the nomination. Hakkar the Soulflayer. You can go through the rest by yourself, I hope. The game, being a primary source, is only usable as a source for the plot. It doesn't qualify as a source for notability, which is a critical opinion of a character and requires secondary sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your examples are non-existant: the 4 (Balnazzar, Hakkar the Soulflayer, Sylvanas Windrunner& Zul'jin) articles that have a WowWiki link do so in the external links! Not as a direct reference. And being that Wikipeida and WoWWiki are both GFDL licensed, of course there is going to be some identical text. That is the whole purpose of the license. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Does anyone even read WP:FICT before taking this route. To clarify Wikipedia guidelines specifically state "Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character)." Its the first point on WP:FICT. Its obvious the person nominating these has no knowledge of Warcraft lore to say Archimonde is not a major character or Illidan or Grom Hellscream Tichondrius, Uther or Kel'Thuzad, Arthas Menethil is so notable to lore there is a town named after him, this is obvious a bad faith nomination, and prescedence is going to lead to people nominating characters from Harry Potter and Da Vinci Code for deletion soon as the main characters there have articles written about them. How about the Sopranos? -- zero faults   ' '' 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not only do I have no knowledge of Warcraft lore, I have no way to verify them except by becoming a dedicated Warcraft player. You are free to nominate unsourced (or poorly sourced) characters from Harry Potter that are non-notable and only interesting to Harry Potter fans for deletion. If the nomination is well argued, I see no reason not to support it. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment::That's the spirit! Come see me on the Argent Dawn server when you have a few hours to spare and I will take you through a quick tour of highlights in WoW which will assure you of their importance in the game.  It would go a long way to covering my in-game expenses if you could buy a about 50 gold from a reputable outfitter such as http://www.dgamesky.com/.--Paraphelion 10:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You sir are wrong again, as per point 2 in WP:FICT, which I am asking you now to read. "Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles." So in any case this should never have been put up for deletion as it should have been put up for merging if you feel they are non notable minor cahracters. This AfD should be closed, its breaking the very first two rules that deal with Fictional characters. --  zero faults   ' '' 10:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Characters in the Sopranos routinely engage in acts of bad faith.--Paraphelion 10:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per WP:FICT. I personally think World of Warcraft is crap, but this kind of nomination is silly: deleting every article here would justify cleaning out tens of thousands of other fiction-related articles from TV series, movies, and the like simply because they "weren't notable enough in the real world."  While one has to take notability into account when keeping or deleting articles, this kind of deletionism is not going to get Wikipedia anywhere.  If you want to merge some of the less notable characters, clean out the unverified information so that the articles are short enough to merge, don't ask AfD to do it for you. —   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  10:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and condense into a single list bar any major characters. Combination 10:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment For everyone's convenience I will post the appropriate WP:FICT policies here with emphasis added:
 * Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character).
 * Fiction includes books, TV series, films, computer games and roleplaying games, and possibly other sources.
 * Major characters from major works deserve their own article.
 * Keep all. If someone wants to take on the task of merging these then they don't need to do it via afd. Otherwise these are more than notable enough to be kept, as far as fictional universes go. —Xezbeth 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If we have pages for every single Pokémon (more than 300), then we can certainly have pages for all Warcraft characters, they are far less than those cute little monsters... Shandristhe azylean 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Warcraft is not just "WoW". World of Warcraft is just a game based on the long established universe that is Warcraft.  The legacy of Warcraft is akin to many other works, such as Tolkien's Middle Earth.  Warcraft spawns books, video games, board games, clothing, and other things related to the fiction works.  To say all the character profiles should be removed is ridiculous.--Ndrfx 05:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: section on individual challenges moved to talk.
 * Keep - Should a bunch of these be merged together? Yes.  Is that something for AfD? No.  Nominating 30 articles at a time never works out well.  There's no way to go through and say this one is notable, that one isn't, etc.  Trying to set a precedent by nominating a mass of articles is almost WP:POINT.  --PresN 15:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Once Kaustav's comments are gone, I don't see how this discussion could possibly have been considered to be "heading fairly close to a delete consensus". If these articles are simply deleted, then it opens the door to deleting pretty much every fictional character from wikipedia.  This is a compilation of the major and supporting characters from an extremely notable video game series; the precedent this would set would be chilling.  We might as well say goodbye to Harry_Potter_%28character%29 and Luke_Skywalker, if fictional characters are not worthy of the attention of wikipedia.  WP:FICT is pretty clear - major characters get their own pages, and minor characters should be merged into a list.  And yes, video games fall under those guidelines, unless we want to have a discussion on if video games are an inherently inferior medium.  Even if some of the characters in this AFD are believed to be relatively minor, AFD is NOT the appropriate medium to debate their notability relative to one another in preparation for a merge.  That can be done elsewhere.  If the quality of the articles is a problem, then please, help fix them - but there's no reason to set a precedent of deleting every fictional character from wikipedia. JoshWook 17:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - many of the characters are also part of Wc3 which does not have its own wiki and therefore a delete would cause all information about these characters to be lost from people only interested in Wc3 and not WoW. eventine 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even more bleak is the prospect of people only interested in WC3 and not WoW and not Wikipedia - the information would be totally lost to them as well. If only we could somehow find this demographic and ensure they are made aware in some other way.--Paraphelion 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I, a very long time ago, worked on several Starcraft-related pages which were later deleted. I wasn't too happy about that, but I completely understand that 'Starcraft battlecruiser' (for example) is probably comfortably in that obscurity/cruft zone. I cannot say the same for the character pages nominated here. AustinZ 03:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I feel that the fiction represented by these characters and the universe in which they reside is notable enough for them to merit their own articles. I'm sure there's a legitimate reason, but I find it interesting that some people on Wikipedia strongly consider many computer game articles as 'cruft', even while other people have found the means to make Bulbasaur a featured article.
 * Keep with cleanup - currently all the articles appear to be OR. They all need to be tagged for verification, and if reliable sources can't be found, then they should be deleted. There are enough Warcraft fans here that these articles should be able to be verified (if that is possible) within 5 days. Once that is done, they'll be safe from deletion. -Mako 21:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What does OR mean? Shandristhe azylean 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OR is original research, which I do believe to be a problem in some of these articles, but one which is fixable through good editing.JoshWook 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The source for the articles are the games themselves. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Writing an article based on one's observations of a game is the very definition of original research. Kafziel 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not from observations, its fromt he story of the game itself. the story is told in the manual, in the game, and in seperate books. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then those separate books need to be cited. Kafziel 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct but since the manual is also cited, it means the content is sourced. Also what is proper cite format for a videogame? -- zero faults   ' '' 12:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's clearly a lot of information here that is not specifically covered in the game manual. I don't know about Wikipedia's format, but APA has standards for citing computer software (as is the case, I'm sure, with every other modern style guide). Kafziel 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you give me some examples of things not in the manual? -- zero faults   ' '' 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Various trivia sections, quotes, and presumed etymologies of the character names, among other details. Kafziel 12:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Most trivia sections arent sourced, as its trivia ... Please tell me you do actually have the manual and arent guessing about what is and isnt in it. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsourced trivia is still unsourced. As for the manual, anyone can see what's in it.
 * Comment So how would you propose we source this information? It's all written in the books, the RPG books, much of it is on the official site, some in the manual and most in the game itself. Havok (T/C/c) 13:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete gamecruft. Kafziel 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Coment Please define your reasoning for calling this "gamecruft". Share with me your vast knowledge on the subject. The fact that you call it gamecruft, when in reality Warcraft is just as much lore as Lord of the Rings, or Marvel Universe (both of whom are not games first and formost).
 * It's gamecruft because nobody that doesn't play the games will care. That's what cruft is. The Lord of the Rings and Marvel comics are both many decades older than Warcraft, and have a much more established place in literature and culture as a whole. Kafziel 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A fictional character from the game was featured on Jeopardy, I think your assumption that "nobody that doesn't play the games will care" is pretty incorrect. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you, you just made your entire vote void. Now go read WP:NPOV and leave the game articles alone. Stating that something is "older" does not make something less notable. The Warcraft-series of games are one of the most successful franchises in the world of gaming, and have won many awards in mainstream press. Havok (T/C/c) 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment To make the point more clear, would anyone who didn't read Marvel comics / watch Marvel movies care about the characters? Icewolf34 13:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read WP:FICT Would anyone who did not watch X movie, read X book, case for X character from that? Luckily that is not how it works here. WP:FICT will help yuo see the propsed guidelines relating to fictional characters. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm familiar with the guidelines. Particularly the one that says the articles for these minor characters could have been merged without any discussion at all. Consensus has already been reached on the importance of some other works of fiction, and this isn't the forum for discussing those. Kafziel 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good then you should be well aware that AfD is the wrong medium to seek merging of minor characters and that major characters get their own articles as per points 1 and 2 of WP:FICT. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Exactly. Hence if these are deleted because people "simply don't care" I'll start nominating Lord of the Rings articles seeing as I don't care about them. No, I'm not going to do that, because I resepct that people do find that interesting, and the whole point of an Encylopedia is to teach people new things, and if only one person learns something, or get's some re-newed knowledge about the subject, then it's all good. Simply having your attitude Kafziel would only pull Wikipedia down. This has become somewhat of a catch phrase with me, but Even if you don't see the value of it, there are people out there who do find value in it. Havok (T/C/c) 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is not a "vote". Secondly, whether or not my opinion is "void" is not at your discretion. In fact, you clearly missed my point: the examples you gave are more valid not because they are older but because they "have a much more established place in literature and culture as a whole". Yes, that established place in culture can come with age, but age was not my reason for deleting these articles. These are characters from video games, and nobody else is interested in them. Six million people (the supposed number of Warcraft players, according to your entry above) is a drop in the bucket compared to the readership of Lord of the Rings and Marvel comics. That's what makes this cruft. This is nothing personal; I vote the same way on articles about minor Star Wars characters, Dragon Ball Z characters, etc. Kafziel 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * These characters reaching 6 million people is more notable then the names of most towns we have articles on in Wikipedia oddly enough. Also you still have not shown that any of these characters are not known, some of them are main characters and as per WP:FICT specifically get their own articles when they do not fit in the main article. The minor characters get merged into one article, further making this the wrong place to seek merging and making deletion wrong all together. Again, please read the very frist two points of WP:FICT. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who nominated this for deletion. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also your treatment of some fictional works as "less then" others is quite disturbing. Do you plan to have Da Vinci Code characters deleted next? Who are they notable to outside of the readership or movie watchers? What is the circulation of X-Men comics anyway these days? -- zero faults   ' '' 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I might support deleting characters from The Da Vinci Code, yes. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity, what determines "more established" in your opinion? I'm genuinely curious, I haven't decided which way I swing on this articles yet. Icewolf34 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A simple test would be to walk up to a random stranger and say, "Have you ever heard of Spider-Man? Have you ever heard of Anub'arak?" Another simple test is to see how prevalent the given storyline is in other media. Tolkein's stories and the Marvel Comics universe have been covered in books, comics, cartoons, film, video games, and even music. None of these are strict criteria for inclusion, but there is no official policy regarding notability. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * However, wouldn't you agree that a random stranger wouldn't have heard of, say, Wizard (Marvel Comics), or a number of other minor Marvel characters...? I do appreciate the clarification, though. Icewolf34 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Being known by the general public is a pretty bad standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia. There are lots of things that I've never heard of in the Brittanica, much less some random moron on the street.  Actually, chuck the Brittanica.  Do you realize that there are more specialized encyclopedias out there, covering topics ranging from religion, science, or the occult?  Go to your library and look, and see if you've heard of everything in those. JoshWook 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Reduce Just some ideas. I think most of the characters on this list, in all actuality can be deleted.  Most are just extra information that can be found on WoWWiki (as stated above).  There are a few that, in my opinion, should be kept.  Capt. Placeholder for example is a very unique character in WoW and borders on meme status.  If only one out of the whole list was to be kept, he would be the one.  Another possible criteria for deletion could be "stub status".  Any of the above mentioned characters that are marked as stubs should be deleted, but the others left.  Seeing as most of the articles on the list are stubs, this would reduce its numbers, but keep the prevalent articles. Finally, I think all city/race leaders’ articles can be kept as they are important characters not only to WoW, but to the entire Warcraft universe.  Their individual histories are important to the canon of Warcraft.  On top of that, they are not "enemies" and therefore would not merit sections based on strategies or loot tables. OrcShaman42 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why does everyone assume it's WoW we are talking about, they are Warcraft characters, and Warcraft goes beyond WoW. Captain Placeholder could just as well be merged into the World of Warcraft article. As for your proposal; a majority of the characters are major to the lore of Warcraft, and should be kept. For this AfD to be fair, each character should be nominated individualy. Havok (T/C/c) 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the scope of this AfD entry may have been too broad. It might be tedious, but might also be helpful to list the articles separately. Some of these characters may be more notable than others. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Capt. Placeholder lies outside of Warcraft lore. He is not a part of the canon, but rather a humorous character that was spawned songs, websites, etc.  With full respect for Kafziel's comment below, merging Capt. Placeholder into the WoW article is as inappropriate as merging the Leroy Jenkins article into it (WoW).  As such, I firmly believe that Capt. P should be removed from this list entirely (without an AfD decision being made) and, possibly, posted as a separate AfD. OrcShaman42 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Reduce per above. --Peephole 14:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep many of these characters are important to the warcraft universe. When i say warcraft universe i dont only mean WoW. People like Sargeras,Jaina Proudmore,Arthas,Thrall,Medivh are main characters in the story of warcraft III not to mention they also appear in world of warcraft or at least mentioned. If your gonna delete those entries then you might as well delete the entries for the characters of Harry Potter or Lord of the rings. If you consider 6 million people as "a drop in the bucket" then i should go ahead and delete many articles about anime characters who have far less viewership — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs)
 * User's first post. Kafziel 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make it any less true. Illidan Stormrage is about as important to the Warcraft series as Severus Snape is to Harry Potter.  Furthermore, Snape's article does *not* currently cite its sources.  Now, would the best option be to a) tag the article for cleanup, b) cite the article yourself if you're able, or c)  AFD it because you don't like Harry Potter?  I choose a or b. JoshWook 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Man, if I had a nickel for every AfD where somebody used a different crappy article as a reason why the crappy article in question should be kept, I'd be a rich man. Why can't anyone ever argue for an article based on its own merits, rather than calling out the myriad other examples of cruft they find? This AfD is not about X-Men, or Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, or anime, or The Da Vinci Code, or anything else. If those categories contain equally unsourced and non-notable subjects, feel free to nominate them for AfD (without being disruptive, of course). The simple fact that these other articles exist does not imply tacit acceptance on my part. If you feel other articles are equally insignificant or poorly written, feel free to nominate them. Kafziel 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, that's how votes go about. The outcome of this AfD will sett precedence for others like it. We have given you lots of reason for it's inclusion and reason to stay, but you ignore them and follow your own aggenda, you even state that you don't care, and yet you continue to argue. Please read WP:CIVIL. Havok (T/C/c) 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, the old CIVIL card. The last refuge of every editor who can't win a discussion any other way. Funny how it never seems to apply to the person who ends up using it. I continue to reply to your questions because this is not a vote. Some Warcraft fans evidently feel that they can bully other users into quitting, but that won't work on me. I will defend myself all day if need be. I shouldn't have to, because I gave clear reasons for my position, but if you are intent on making snide comments to every user who argues for deletion, then I'll be compelled to reply. Kafziel 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not given clear reasons. All you've done above is describe the articles as "cruft" and then claimed non-notability, without saying what standards of notability are appropriate, except that every random stranger should have knowledge of the subject (not a widely held view of what should be inclusive in a good encyclopedia).  You're not being bullied - all that's being asked for is specifically citing valid policy for deletion.  WP:CRUFT is not, and never has been, and never will be, grounds for deletion. JoshWook 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not being bullied. You don't have the capacity to bully me. But other editors have been bullied (the nominator, most obviously), and I won't stand for it. Kafziel 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not. That would blatant bad faith on my part - if you feel that these articles are bad, it is *your* responsibility to AFD those articles. Your attempt to get me to do it was an attempt to catch me making a WP:POINT and be chastised for it. My reason for the comparison is that while I think that these articles and the Snape article contain some OR and need cleanup, the existence of a Snape article is not a problem in and of itself. But, AFD is not the place to say that articles need cleanup or merging - it's a judgement on whether wikipedia should cover certain subjects. Did you even read WP:FICT? JoshWook 16:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Josh, I specifically told you not to violate POINT, and even put in the link to it. You're all giving me other examples of crappy articles and saying, "Well, if we have that one, we should have this one". Your logic is flawed, though, because I never said I thought we should have those other ones. You're making the assumption that I think Snape is worthy of an article, when I never said I did. Kafziel 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your opinion then? Should fictional characters be covered at all on wikipedia?  If the answer is no, then I think you'll find that your opinion is supported nowhere in wikipedia policy or precedent. JoshWook 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Some should, yes. It largely depends on WP:V and WP:NOR, both of which this article fails. I think you will find that your opinion is supported nowhere in policy either, as there is no official policy regarding notability. There are guidelines, but not policies. As for precedents, those are set here. Kafziel 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FICT The first two points are most relevant here, thank you. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I've read it. I've done a lot of work on fiction articles (and videogame articles, for that matter) and I'm well aware of the guideline. But it's a guideline, not a policy, and any user may choose to disregard it if he or she feels an exception may be made. Kafziel 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the policy that states fictional characters need to meet WP:V and notability independently from their own main article, even though they are being split because they size of the article not their own notability. See what you fail to understand is that WP:FICT states to give them their own articles, not because they are notable characters to the world, or that they deserve their own articles without an article on the main story but, because there is no room in the main article and we work with article size contraints. So notability and WP:V are not applicable here, these arent really articles on their own because they meet policy, they are articles on their own cause they do not fit in the main article. Which is why I keep telling you to read WP:FICT. Because it states you can off shoot articles for main characters when the main article gets too big, and states nothing of them needing to be article worthy on their own, because then there would be really no point to stating you can create seperate articles for them, cause that would be common sense if they were already notable to the world and verifiable outside of the media in which the fictional character exists. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will say again, there is no policy on notability. There are guidelines. And what the guideline actually says is that characters can be broken off into their own articles if the information is encyclopedic. I contend that this is not encyclopedic, because in order for information to be encyclopedic at Wikipedia it must be notable, verifiable, and obtained from a trustworthy source. What the guideline recommends is combining them on one page, such as List of characters from The Sopranos in the DiMeo Crime Family. Kafziel 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is for minor characters, again read WP:FICT, this is my last reply to you as it seems you are just refusing to acknowledge WP:FICT at all which is odd since your example is a list of minor characters being put on a page as per WP:FICT. Again they are minor characters, which is point 2 of WP:FICT, now just acknowledge point 1 and we are all done. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And I will say to you again that WP:FICT is not a policy. It's a suggestion. There are no hard and fast criteria to decide which characters are major and which are minor. Who decides that? Fans of the genre? Fans of that particular universe? Fans of that specific character? The Sopranos list came to mind because the Sopranos community had a problem with a fan who absolutely insisted that a certain character was "major". The line is not black and white as you are trying to make it seem. In cases such as that (and such as this), whether or not a character is "major" is subject to consensus, which is what we are trying to reach here. Kafziel 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you have everything mixed up then, this is not the appropriate venue for you to find out who is a major character, and putting them all up for deletion in an attempt to is completely against the purpose of AfD. Perhaps you should read up what AfD is used for, but its not for merging, or for finding out what characters are major and which are not. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be mixed up, because I didn't put any of these up for deletion. You managed to bully that poor guy into silence. I just happened to agree with him, and I was willing to put up with many kilobytes more bullshit than he was. AfD is actually used for merging quite often. You'll know that after you spend a bit more time here. I do agree with you, though, that it's not for determining whether characters are minor or major. I think they're minor, therefore cruft, and that's really the end of it as far as my stance is concerned. Kafziel 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not address me again since you seem to be resorting to baseless accusations after failing to prove via the appropriate guidelines that this AfD is appropriate. Have a good day and please be more civil in the future. -- zero faults   ' '' 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As for your comment "AfD is actually used for merging quite often" I leave you with a wonderful quote "To which I responded that that doesn't mean it's okay." -- zero faults   ' '' 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have given no evidence to show that every sentence of these (not this, there are several being considered here) articles (which would be required for a deletion instead of a merge) is original research. Provide that. JoshWook 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe not to you (I don't have to repeat myself to every editor who disagrees with me) but I did give examples to Zer0faults in an earlier thread. I didn't say every sentence was original research, but combined with WP:V they are pretty weak. Kafziel 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You didnt really provide evidence other then to say the trivia sections were OR, which I responded by telling you they usually are. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To which I responded that that doesn't mean it's okay. Kafziel 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I hate to have to be the nanny, but can we keep stop the flaming/trolling and get back to the real issue please? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are not debating definitions of article types or WP essays, we are debating specific articles on the AfD list.  There is no reason to drag this page on and on with selfish and wasteful personal attacks.  Let's just get this over with, I know there are other things we would all like to be doing (maybe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:OrcShaman42 (talk • contribs)

 * Comment I'd recommend closing this AfD and relisting the less notable ones for deletion. Consensus seems to be that we can't categorically delete each of these entries, so far as I can tell. Especially since the relevant deletion arguments are "WP:V and WP:NOR," which certainly can't be covered for every article at once. Icewolf34 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A little more support for this stance: "In cases such as that (and such as this), whether or not a character is "major" is subject to consensus, which is what we are trying to reach here" is Kafziel's (very reasonable) position, which is again better served through discussion on individual pages. Icewolf34 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment Completely agreed. Kaustauv was right in predicting a drawn-out, uncivil no consensus that would lead to nowhere.  Any time more than a dozen articles of varying quality is put up for AFD, we're going to end up with nothing more than shouting matches.  The reason for that is that trying to delete big portions of wikipedia en masse is an attempt to circumvent the policy-making procedure.  If policy is to be changed, do it, because right now there is no policy that justifies deleting every one of these all at once simply because they are game characters.  Otherwise look at each article one at a time and decide on its own merits. JoshWook 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Leave it alone until someone decides they have time to merge it or care enough to merge the "minor" characters in to the main article they should be in. That entire "these other things have cultural importance, warcraft doesn't" seems a little weak. It's probably just that people have different levels of exposure to different sections of "culture". I think its better to leave this "cruft" if some people find it useful. Cackalacky is an example of this where Wikipedia having something minor was useful to me, even though some people on the discussion had never heard of it.Justbobdanish 21:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 September 15

= September 15 =

19:54:16, 15 September 2019 review of submission by 2401:4900:43AF:7B15:0:2F:D3AE:2A01
2401:4900:43AF:7B15:0:2F:D3AE:2A01 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:David Lang (composer)

Contributor to Requiem for a Dream?
Reading through the credits Requiem for a Dream (soundtrack), I don't see any mention of him. Which article is in error? --Sstrader (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He is credited as arranger in the making of —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on David Lang (composer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150213043819/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/arts/2008Pulitzer.html2008 to http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/arts/2008Pulitzer.html2008

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on David Lang (composer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CrNMCA0g?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.criticschoice.com%2Fmovie-awards%2F to http://www.criticschoice.com/movie-awards/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Lang (composer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219022539/http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=16446&highlight=1&highlightterms=&lstKeywords= to http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=16446&highlight=1&highlightterms=&lstKeywords=

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Lang (composer)


text:
1806 United States gubernatorial elections

United States gubernatorial elections were held in 1806, in 10 states, concurrent with the House and Senate elections.

Five governors were elected by popular vote and five were elected by state legislatures.


text:
Larry Pegram

Larry Pegram (born September 5, 1973 in Columbus, Ohio) is an American motorcycle racer.

AMA Superbike
Pegram has been in the AMA Superbike scene for over a decade, first entering the championship in 1996.

In 2009 he had his best season finishing 4th overall with 3 wins and 5 podiums.

Superbike World Championship
Pegram made an appearance as a wildcard at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca on July 13, 2014. After retiring in race one, he managed to score the 2 points in the second race, becoming the first rider in history to take an American machine into the points.

For 2015 Pegram was the manager and a team rider for Team Hero EBR alongside Niccolò Canepa.

America Flat Track
Pegram has been racing Flat Track since age 5. He has 3 Grand National Flat Track wins. 2 half-mile, and 1 mile victory.

As an amateur he had over 33 national championship wins, an AMA record.

Superbike Family Television Show
Pegram and his Family were featured in a television show for three seasons called "Superbike Family". The show centers around family life at the races.

Races by year
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position, races in italics indicate fastest lap)

title: Larry Pegram


text:
Douglas Latchford

Douglas Arthur Joseph Latchford (15 October 1931 – 2 August 2020), "Dynamite" Doug Latchford, was a British art dealer and smuggler.

Biography
Latchford was born on 15 October 1931 in Mumbai, India, which was at the time under the British Raj. He was educated at Brighton College in England before returning to India shortly before Independence.

Latchford initially worked in the pharmaceutical industry in Mumbai. He moved to Bangkok in 1956, and in 1963 established a drug distribution company. Latchford also invested profitably in Thailand land development and became a Thai citizen in 1968. He was briefly married to a Thai woman and took a Thai name, Pakpong Kriangsak.

A long-time devotee of the sport of bodybuilding, Latchford became a patron of the sport in Thailand and was the honorary president of the Thai Bodybuilding Association from 2016 until his death.

Antiquities trade
A controversial figure, Latchford was best known as a collector of Cambodian antiquities. According to his obituary in The New York Times, Latchford was "a cultured accumulator of museum-quality Khmer sculptures and jewels", whilst The Diplomat reported that, due to his leading position in the illegal antiquities trade of the Khmer Rouge, "no single figure looms as large over a nation’s wholesale pillage." Nonetheless, the Cambodian government awarded Latchford a Grand Cross of the Royal Order of Monisaraphon in 2008. He co-authored three books on Khmer antiquities with academic Emma Bunker.

In the 1970s, Latchford became one of the leading suppliers of Cambodian art, selling to museums and private collections in Europe and North America, including the Metropolitan. He kept the best pieces for himself and his personal collection is rumored to rival that of the National Museum of Cambodia. When his daughter inherited the collection and donated it in full to Cambodia, it contained 125 pieces and was valued at $50m.

Latchford liked to see himself as saving works of art that had been abandoned and were at risk during Cambodia's turbulent civil wars, although this viewpoint was contrasted by academics who alleged that several of Latchford's antiquities lacked a clear provenance. Latchford denied any wrongdoing, and gathered his collection long before legislation barring Latchford's practice of buying directly from farmers and dealers in Thailand. He also insisted that if the antiquities were not removed from Cambodia, “they would likely have been shot up for target practice by the Khmer Rouge.” In November 2019, Latchford, by then comatose, was charged by prosecutors in New York with falsifying the provenance of Khmer works of art, but the case ended with his death.

In October 2021, a large investigation by media from the UK, USA, and Australia, working with the ICIJ, explored the prevalence of artworks that Latchford had traded to public museums and galleries. The media consortium focused on the books published by Latchford, sale records, museum records, and corporate documents from trust structures established by Latchford for inheritance purposes to identify 27 pieces linked to Latchford in prominent collections. It highlighted at least a dozen works of art linked to Latchford held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and another fifteen relics among the Denver Art Museum, the British Museum, Cleveland Museum of Art, and the National Gallery of Australia. In December 2023, following additional investigations, the Metropolitan Museum agreed to return another 13 Cambodian antiquitites that Latchford had trafficked.

The reporting also investigated donations and sales by collectors and dealers associated with Latchford, identifying works of art in, amongst others, the Brooklyn Museum, Asian Art Museum, National Gallery of Australia, and Art Gallery of NSW. Many of the museums and galleries responded to the journalists and provided statements in relation to the allegations, although none made any commitment to return works associated with Latchford. The National Gallery of Australia claimed that a piece tied to Latchford was the subject of a live investigation, whilst the Los Angeles County Museum of Art refused to engage with the journalists.

James H. Clark will forfeit artifacts, bought for over $35 million.

Repatriation of collection
Two years before Latchford's death, his daughter Nawapan Kriangsak had initiated discussions to return the whole collection, valued at over $50m, to be exhibited at the National Museum of Cambodia as the Latchford Collection. The transfer of ownership was completed on 18 September 2020: however, progress in returning the collection stalled following the release of the Pandora Papers, which revealed that the family had attempted to avoid paying UK Inheritance Tax.

In November 2021, after rising pressure from the United States federal government, the Denver Art Museum agreed to voluntarily repatriate four Cambodian antiquities in their possession, which included three Khmer sandstone sculptures dating back to the 7th and 12th centuries, respectively, and an Iron Age Dong Son bronze bell.

In August 2023, the National Gallery of Australia said it would return three statues to Cambodia which had been bought from Latchford in 2011. The gallery paid US$1.5 million for the bronze statues of Avalokiteshvara Padmapani and attendants which were dug up by looters in 1994. Latchford insisted on a non-disclosure agreement before handing over provenance information. Also in 2023 Latchford's daughter agreed in forfeiting 12 millions dollars and returning 125 statues and other stolen relics to Cambodia.

Selected works

 * Adoration and Glory: The Golden Age of Khmer Art (2003) ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>705
 * Khmer Gold Gifts for the Gods (2008) ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>972
 * Khmer Bronzes: New Interpretations of the Past (2011) ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>115

title: Douglas Latchford


text:
User:Djfc

My academic background is (English) Law, International Conflict Analysis, and Public International Law. In the latter case, specifically, the concept of 'state failure' within international law, using the case-studies of Somalia and Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.

I would be interested to host / lead general topics on public international law within the Law school, and be happy to develop basic materials on these areas. I've created the shell of such a Department (also linked to from Social Sciences > Political Science > International Relations), and have created departments that are necessarily delimited by it, i.e. Private International Law and EU Law.

I'm entirely new to Wikiversity, but find the idea fascinating, and as a professional educator and trainer, with a particular interest in virtual learning, I hope I have something to offer. I am just now beginning to get myself familiar with how I might do that.

DJFC, 7 Sept 2006.

title: User:Djfc


text:
Talk:Dave Abbruzzese

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Dave Abbruzzese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930041009/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/fea/life/trueromance/stories/DN-NSL_romance_1022liv.ART.State.Edition1.4ead508.html to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/fea/life/trueromance/stories/DN-NSL_romance_1022liv.ART.State.Edition1.4ead508.html

 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071020234953/http://www.promark.com/products/view.cfm?product_id=f7d59146-88ac-4a03-bc93-b5d04d31d6f5 to http://www.promark.com/products/view.cfm?product_id=f7d59146-88ac-4a03-bc93-b5d04d31d6f5

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dave Abbruzzese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5wWenLoyj?url=http://pearljamhistory.no.sapo.pt/PJArticles_Interviews_12-xx-93_-_modern_drummer.htm to http://pearljamhistory.no.sapo.pt/PJArticles_Interviews_12-xx-93_-_modern_drummer.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,308749,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://theenvelope.latimes.com/factsheets/awardsdb/env-awards-db-search,0,7169155.htmlstory?searchtype=all&query=pearl+jam
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519152229/http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Dave_Abbruzzese.html to http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Dave_Abbruzzese.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dave Abbruzzese


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ring-tailed lemur

Ring-tailed lemur
Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2020  at 10:16:30 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality large image. FP on Commons. Illustrates article well.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Ring-tailed lemur
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
 * Creator:Charlesjsharp

 * Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Don't entirely like the intervening leaves, but it's a minorish flaw. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 15:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Good choice of lead image for well-known species. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - DreamSparrow  Chat   09:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Pity about the leaves, though... --Janke | Talk 11:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 15:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


text:
Zhongjiacun station

Zhongjiacun Station is a transfer station on Line 4 and Line 6 of the Wuhan Metro. It entered revenue service on December 28, 2014. It is located between Hanyang Avenue (汉阳大道) and Yingwu Avenue (鹦鹉大道; literally "Parrot Avenue") in Hanyang District.

When Line 6 opened, it became the third station in the Wuhan Metro to allow cross-platform interchange.

title: Zhongjiacun station


text:
The Wine of Astonishment

The Wine of Astonishment is a 1982 novel written by Trinidadian author Earl Lovelace. The story depicts the struggles of a Spiritual Baptist community from the passing of the Prohibition Ordinance to repealing of the ban, portraying a 20-year struggle from 1932 to 1951. Themes such as racism, women in society, religion, change, oppression, power and authority are featured throughout the book.

Plot summary
This story is narrated by Eva Dorcas. She and her husband, Bee Dorcas are a religious couple who are both members of the Spiritual Baptist Church in a small Trinidadian community known as Bonasse. They all share their experiences about being persecuted due to their direct affiliation with their religion. They also share how they were betrayed by someone to whom they entrusted their faith for a change. Trust became an issue for the fellow characters since Ivan Morton betrayed them when he entered into the political life and evacuated the house his father built on his own to live in a colonial-era mansion, located on top of the Bonasse hill, that was once occupied by an English family known as the Richardsons. The community praised Bolo for his masculinity in defending his fellow neighbours until he was taken to prison. After his release he was no longer the person he once was, of which the community now fear.

Main characters

 * Bee Dorcas: Eva Dorcas' husband, a father to five children, installed as Shouter Baptist church's pastor and believed to be a strong Christian. The entire community admired Bee, and considered him as the pillar of the community due to his wisdom and patience. He loved being appreciated and knew how manage his responsibilities in a professionalized manner without converting it into a burden. Bee eventually becomes aware of that repression occurring upon losing the respect of his children and the disintegration of the church. Bee shows his anger when he breaks the law and deals with the consequences.
 * Eva Dorcas: Bee's wife and mother of his five children. Eva is characterized as an emotional supporter for her husband and believed to be a strong Christian follower just as her husband. Known to be the narrator and explained every aspect of everyone's life in details.
 * Ivan Morton: once a teacher before he became affiliated with politics. He was known as the new individual within the country's legislative council, but brought disappointment when he broke his promise to help lift the ban. He was known to be the "bright" person in the community even though he had failed his college examination not only once but twice.
 * Bolo: known as the best of all stick fighters in the community and was crowned as champion. With such emphasis, the community viewed him as a hero and a warrior figure. He was later imprisoned for defending both his mother and the church. The imprisonment had changed his well-being from the most loved individual to the terror of the community after a year.

Major themes and symbolism
Shouter Baptists or Spiritual Baptists observe a combination of Christianity and African traditional practices. Conflict arose between the British colonial government and citizens of Trinidad because Christianity has a direct link with the British authorities and Shouter Baptist was a form of rivalry in the eyes of the colonial government, since Trinidad was then a colony of the British Empire. This conflict resulted in the passing of Shouter Prohibition Ordinance in 1917.

The betrayal of Ivan Morton results in a dramatic change within the lives and faith of the community, emphasizing the toll that power and authority takes on someone's personality. Ivan Morton became the main disappointment when he decided not to support the Shouter Baptist religion and followed the colonizers' orders. Politics in this community is a depiction of the various characteristics of Caribbean political leadership. Members of the community connected their faith with their daily lives by reciting Bible verses throughout the novel depicting religion as a major theme.

The Shouter Baptist Church symbolizes unity and a form of identity. Members of the community adore the church and claim it is the foundation of their tradition, a connection with their ancestors who were slaves.

title: The Wine of Astonishment


text:
Lynne Murray

Lynne Murray, FBA is a British psychopathologist and academic, specialising in child development. She is Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of Reading. She has authored The Social Baby (2000) and The Psychology of Babies (2014), in addition to more than 200 academic papers.

Honours
In July 2017, Murray was elected a Fellow of the British Academy (FBA), the United Kingdom's national academy for the humanities and social sciences.

title: Lynne Murray


text:
Boncourt, Switzerland

Boncourt is a municipality in the district of Porrentruy in the canton of Jura in Switzerland.

History
Boncourt is first mentioned in 1140 as Bononis Curia. The municipality was formerly known by its German name Bubendorf, however, that name is no longer used. During the Second World War Boncourt was a vital staging post for French speaking Switzerland, and the resistance.

Geography
Boncourt has an area of. Of this area, 3.74 km2 or 41.5% is used for agricultural purposes, while 3.42 km2 or 38.0% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 1.81 km2 or 20.1% is settled (buildings or roads), 0.05 km2 or 0.6% is either rivers or lakes.

Of the built up area, housing and buildings made up 9.3% and transportation infrastructure made up 3.7%. Power and water infrastructure as well as other special developed areas made up 5.1% of the area Out of the forested land, 36.7% of the total land area is heavily forested and 1.2% is covered with orchards or small clusters of trees. Of the agricultural land, 20.8% is used for growing crops and 15.8% is pastures, while 2.2% is used for orchards or vine crops and 2.8% is used for alpine pastures. All the water in the municipality is flowing water.

The municipality is located in the Porrentruy district, on the border with France. The large industrial village is the most important border crossing between the Canton of Jura and France.

Coat of arms
The blazon of the municipal coat of arms is Gules, a Fleur de lis Or in base between two Halberds Argent in saltire.

Demographics
Boncourt has a population of. , 6.5% of the population are resident foreign nationals. Over the last 10 years (2000–2010) the population has changed at a rate of -2.6%. Migration accounted for 2%, while births and deaths accounted for -4.3%.

Most of the population speaks French (1,312 or 96.6%) as their first language, German is the second most common (29 or 2.1%) and Italian is the third (6 or 0.4%). There is 1 person who speaks Romansh.

, the population was 47.6% male and 52.4% female. The population was made up of 573 Swiss men (44.1% of the population) and 45 (3.5%) non-Swiss men. There were 639 Swiss women (49.2%) and 41 (3.2%) non-Swiss women. Of the population in the municipality, 530 or about 39.0% were born in Boncourt and lived there in 2000. There were 468 or 34.5% who were born in the same canton, while 134 or 9.9% were born somewhere else in Switzerland, and 164 or 12.1% were born outside of Switzerland.

, children and teenagers (0–19 years old) make up 19.5% of the population, while adults (20–64 years old) make up 55.8% and seniors (over 64 years old) make up 24.7%.

, there were 475 people who were single and never married in the municipality. There were 685 married individuals, 145 widows or widowers and 53 individuals who are divorced.

, there were 560 private households in the municipality, and an average of 2.3 persons per household. There were 179 households that consist of only one person and 29 households with five or more people. , a total of 549 apartments (90.9% of the total) were permanently occupied, while 27 apartments (4.5%) were seasonally occupied and 28 apartments (4.6%) were empty. , the construction rate of new housing units was 1.5 new units per 1000 residents. The vacancy rate for the municipality,, was 3.63%.

The historical population is given in the following chart:

Heritage sites of national significance
The Chavon-Dessous Farm House is listed as a Swiss heritage site of national significance.

Sights
Major attractions for visitors to Boncourt are the public swimming pool, the international railway, the Church, the schools, the shopping arcade and the famous Mont Renaud where a funicular railway is to be built.

Twin Town
Boncourt is twinned with the town of Quincieux, France.

Politics
In the 2007 federal election the most popular party was the CVP which received 48.54% of the vote. The next three most popular parties were the SPS (24.1%), the CSP (12.69%) and the SVP (8.27%). In the federal election, a total of 435 votes were cast, and the voter turnout was 41.3%.

Economy
Boncourt is on the frontier of the Jura in Switzerland and the railway has been a major employer for over 150 years. British American Tobacco is another major employer in Boncourt. They have a restaurant which is open to the public. The long-standing family business F.J. Burrus was incorporated into BAT. Upon selling his business, Charles Burrus founded Fondation Guilé, a non-profit foundation promoting corporate responsibility.

, Boncourt had an unemployment rate of 3.6%. , there were 61 people employed in the primary economic sector and about 13 businesses involved in this sector. 937 people were employed in the secondary sector and there were 19 businesses in this sector. 415 people were employed in the tertiary sector, with 66 businesses in this sector. There were 596 residents of the municipality who were employed in some capacity, of which females made up 41.4% of the workforce.

the total number of full-time equivalent jobs was 1,105. The number of jobs in the primary sector was 32, of which 29 were in agriculture and 3 were in forestry or lumber production. The number of jobs in the secondary sector was 747 of which 652 or (87.3%) were in manufacturing and 95 (12.7%) were in construction. The number of jobs in the tertiary sector was 326. In the tertiary sector; 36 or 11.0% were in wholesale or retail sales or the repair of motor vehicles, 20 or 6.1% were in the movement and storage of goods, 11 or 3.4% were in a hotel or restaurant, 1 was in the information industry, 16 or 4.9% were the insurance or financial industry, 24 or 7.4% were technical professionals or scientists, 9 or 2.8% were in education and 117 or 35.9% were in health care.

, there were 554 workers who commuted into the municipality and 198 workers who commuted away. The municipality is a net importer of workers, with about 2.8 workers entering the municipality for every one leaving. About 19.3% of the workforce coming into Boncourt are coming from outside Switzerland. Of the working population, 5.5% used public transportation to get to work, and 60.1% used a private car.

Religion
From the, 1,184 or 87.2% were Roman Catholic, while 82 or 6.0% belonged to the Swiss Reformed Church. Of the rest of the population, there were 8 individuals (or about 0.59% of the population) who belonged to another Christian church. There were 4 individuals (or about 0.29% of the population) who were Jewish, and 4 (or about 0.29% of the population) who were Islamic. There was 1 person who was Hindu and 1 individual who belonged to another church. 37 (or about 2.72% of the population) belonged to no church, are agnostic or atheist, and 40 individuals (or about 2.95% of the population) did not answer the question.

Education
In Boncourt about 428 or (31.5%) of the population have completed non-mandatory upper secondary education, and 94 or (6.9%) have completed additional higher education (either university or a Fachhochschule). Of the 94 who completed tertiary schooling, 67.0% were Swiss men, 21.3% were Swiss women, 9.6% were non-Swiss men.

The Canton of Jura school system provides two year of non-obligatory Kindergarten, followed by six years of Primary school. This is followed by three years of obligatory lower Secondary school where the students are separated according to ability and aptitude. Following the lower Secondary students may attend a three or four year optional upper Secondary school followed by some form of Tertiary school or they may enter an apprenticeship.

During the 2009-10 school year, there were a total of 96 students attending 5 classes in Boncourt. There was one kindergarten class with a total of 22 students in the municipality. The municipality had 4 primary classes and 74 students. There are only nine Secondary schools in the canton, so all the students from Boncourt attend their secondary school in another municipality.

, there was one student in Boncourt who came from another municipality, while 72 residents attended schools outside the municipality.

Transportation
Boncourt is connected to the SNCF network by a single track rail, which reopened in 2009. Boncourt is the first town on the Swiss border when traveling from Paris to Bern via Belfort. The SBB-CFF-FFS train runs from Delle at 33 minutes past each hour to Boncourt where it arrives at 36 minutes past the hour before continuing to the lake at Biel/Bienne.

title: Boncourt, Switzerland


text:
Eefing

Eefing (also written eeephing, eephing, eeefing, eefin, or eefn '  ) is an Appalachian (United States) vocal technique similar to beatboxing, but nearly a century older. NPR's Jennifer Sharpe describes it as "a kind of hiccupping, rhythmic wheeze that started in rural Tennessee more than 100 years ago."

An eefing piece called "Swamp Root" was one of the first singles recorded and released by Sam Phillips. Singer Joe Perkins had a minor 1963 hit, "Little Eeefin' Annie" (#76 on the Billboard chart), featuring eefer Jimmy Riddle, whom Sharpe calls "the acknowledged master of the genre". Riddle later brought eefing to national visibility on the television series Hee Haw.

In fall 1963, the same time as Perkins' "Little Eefin' Annie" was released, a group called the Ardells issued a single on Epic called "Eefenanny", a sort of bluegrass/hillbilly spoof on the folk hootenanny movement. It was not as big a hit. Also in 1963, Alvin and the Chipmunks released an original song entitled "Eefin' Alvin" where the boys attempt eefing.

Another early eefing record was released in 1963 on the Philadelphia label Guyden Records #2096 by the Goodlettsville Five: "Eef" b/w "Bailey's Gone Eefin" - a version of "Won't You Come Home Bill Bailey". The group appears to have been session musicians assembled by the credited composer/producer Jerry Kennedy.

The song "Hillbilly Beatbox" by The Evolution Control Committee prominently features eefing recordings.

In 1971, the Dutch rock group Focus released the song "Hocus Pocus". The song prominently features eefing and became a hit in 1973, peaking at #9 on the Billboard 100.

title: Eefing


text:
Portal:Physics

This is the home page for the Physics Department of the school of physics and astronomy. The department organizes and develops Physics content on Wikiversity.

If you are knowledgeable in any area of physics, feel free to improve upon what you see, we would greatly appreciate your contributions.

Divisions
The learning resources and divisions are grouped by level of difficulty, and each one roughly corresponds to an academic year at degree level. Normally you should not study a subject at a higher level until you have completed, or are at least familiar, with the previous level.

Introduction to Physics

 * Basics of Physics
 * High School Physics
 * First year college physics
 * AP Physics

Level 1

 * Introductory Classical Mechanics
 * Vibrations and Waves
 * Thermodynamics
 * Atomic Structure and Electromagnetic Radiation
 * Introduction to the Photoelectric effect

Level 2

 * Calculus II
 * Advanced classical mechanics
 * Linear algebra
 * Quantum mechanics I
 * Electromagnetism
 * Statistics for science
 * Nuclear physics
 * Special relativity

Level 3

 * Statistical mechanics
 * Statistical Thermodynamics
 * Particle Physics
 * Fluid Dynamics
 * Statistical Mechanics
 * Fourier Analysis
 * Applied Physics
 * Geophysics
 * Solid State Physics

Postgraduate & Research

 * Biophysics
 * General relativity
 * History of Physics
 * Quantum Chromodynamics
 * Plasma Physics
 * String Theory
 * Study Guide:Mathematical Mesoscopic Physics
 * Nonstandard physics ... pages that may represent non-standard understandings or original research

School of Mathematics

 * Introductory Algebra and Geometry
 * Calculus
 * Euclidean Geometry
 * Group Theory
 * Linear Algebra
 * Topology
 * Trigonometry
 * Vector Calculus
 * Theoretical Physics

School of Computer Science
(work in progress)

School of Engineering

 * Aeronautical engineering
 * Aerospace engineering
 * Nuclear engineering

Learning projects and resources

 * Physics
 * Search for Physics at Wikiversity

Atomic, Nuclear and particle physics

 * Alpha decay
 * Atomic structure
 * Beta decay
 * Electroweak interaction
 * Gamma decay
 * Nuclear physics
 * Particle physics
 * Strong force
 * Weak force

Quantum mechanics

 * Schrödinger equation
 * Heisenberg uncertainty principle
 * Quantum electrodynamics
 * Quantum chromodynamics

Relativity

 * Special relativity
 * General relativity

Cosmology

 * Cosmology
 * Dark matter

Classical mechanics

 * Tables of Physics Formulae
 * Classical mechanics
 * Conservation of energy
 * Basic kinematics   // *** may subsume 3 laws of motion; if so, put in link
 * Newton's Laws of Motion
 * Lagrangian mechanics

Thermodynamics

 * Thermodynamics
 * Statistical mechanics
 * Entropy
 * Carnot engine

Electromagnetism

 * Coulomb's Law
 * Biot-Savart Law
 * Maxwell's equations
 * Capacitors
 * Electrical current

Mathematics
Since the time of Newton, mathematics has played a major role in physics. Some of the mathematical techniques are objects of study in their own right. These can be found in the mathematics resources template below.

Essays
The subpage hosts essays and explorations. Some of these may represent nonstandard physics.

Learning groups

 * Physics - Physics in simple English.

Sub departments
Sub-departments along with courses, activities, articles, lectures and quizzes can be found under External links in the Physics resources template labeled Topics.

title: Portal:Physics