Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaucho theory

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

The result was delete. It's snowing. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaucho theory

[edit]
Gaucho theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A meme from reddit that fails WP:N/WP:WEB. This meme was started by one guy's comment, and has not gained a wide following (yet). There are three different references: a link to a reddit.com (social media site) submission, and two references to the background story of where the comment that started this meme came from. Delete, but without prejudice to recreation if the meme becomes popular enough. Oh, and um, full disclosure: I'm a prolific redditor. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 03:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its gained the following, or at least recognition, of all of reddit. It's front paged. This definitely shouldn't go up for deletion. RyeGye24 (talk)
  • I'm Torn. While this certainly doesn't meet WP:N/WP:WEB, It might become notable later and a article will have to be created again, wasting all the hard work done on this one. Maybe we could delay the deletion by say a month when we'll have a better idea if it will expand into a fullblown internet meme, or fade into obscurity. -- Phiren (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the ...., I entered in a hangon tag in the main page, and then I was in the middle of writing a long justification on the talk page, and the article gets deleted right from under me! You can't even save the talk then, and all the work starting the page is gone. The deleter didn't even offer a valid reason, they gave vandalism, and the article is clearly not vandalism. =( I'm not saying this article needs to remain permanently but the idea that you can't even let something get started without open discussion is ridiculous authoritarian censorship. Wisehearted (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. It is an encyclopaedia, not a free web page hosting service for your discussion forum. Content here must be verifiable and not original research.
  • Clearly a worthy subject in need of its own Wiki page. None cane refute the importance of learning the Gaucho Theory, as it explains many, MANY questions. ???? Is now no longer relevant, freeing unknowing series of tube users from the misery of ignorance. Thank you Gaucho, O' mighty wise man from ye ol' towne of Reddit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.202.53 (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The status of possible deletion of this page at the time of deletion was to delay the deletion by a month, but instead the page was deleted and locked. No valid reason was given. The page may have had one or two elements that could be constructed as jokes, but the large majority of it was completely true and well cited. The best reason for deleting it would have been notability, however this was not the reason that was given. Shinynew 03:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinynew (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I restored the page on advice from User:Elonka. I don't think it's a good idea to have an article about an evolving meme, but I don't really care if other people want to keep an eye on it. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 04:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 04:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 04:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 04:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Phiren and also too to keep the article for 1 month. The ??? - Profit! meme is well-established and documented elsewhere; however, Gaucho theory is still evolving and it might be quite notable now since it is a recent development that has been uncovered by the David Thorne phenomenon, but the theory could provide to be unsubstantiated after extensive peer-review. As a mildly prolific redditor, I would say it is better to keep it for the time that the pros and cons of the theory itself is debated. 142.157.122.237 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — 142.157.122.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It isn't the place to document the previously undocumented. New theories do not belong here until they have been documented by named people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy outside of Wikipedia, first. Things do not belong here until after peer review has occurred. Unless you show that that has actually happened in this case, you do not make a case for keeping that actually holds water. By asserting that it isn't the case, you make a good case for deletion, in contrast. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to disagree with the assertion that the topic has not been documented. A simple google search shows many pages referring to the meme. This entry may seem to be in a grey area in the article guidelines, but isn't the ultimate guidline to Ignore All Rules for the betterment of Wikipedia? Mydodger (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — Mydodger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • Playing the IAR card rarely washes, in part because it's usually used as an excuse, as here. The betterment of Wikipedia involves making a verifiable encyclopaedia that is free from original research. To that end, there must be sources. I've told you to cite sources to make a solid case for keeping, with links to Wikipedia:citing sources, several times on this page, and yet you still haven't cited any. A nebulous claim that sources exist, somewhere, is not enough. Neither is excuse-making that this article should be an exception to the project's basic content policies. Cite sources! Show us the multiple reliable and independent sources that document this subject in depth. Excuse-making and irrelevant arguments won't wash, and will result in deletion. Your only arguments are sources. You know how to make a case. So do it. Produce sources. Once again: Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Seem like an obvious deletion to me - this meme is not even 24 hours old, and hasn't had a chance to become notable by any definition of the word. Give it some time, and if the meme sticks (questionable, but possible), we can revisit it. Rm999 (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The world of memes does not have such necessary waiting periods for 'sticking'. It is clear to all involved that the meme has stuck. Memes come from a portion of the psyche common to the meme-aware-- this one, in particular, fills a hole in that thought space, this hole can never be reopened. Its age it irrelevent. 70.71.195.225 (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — 70.71.195.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • The fact that it hasn't been properly documented by named people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy is, though. Unless you can show that this is the case, by citing sources, you do not make an argument for keeping that actually holds water. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge with the main article for the ??? / Profit meme. I see no reason to delete it, for a legitimate explanation to a meme. Seriously, someone give me a negative effect having this article is having on Wikipedia. You're paying hardly anything to host maybe a kilobyte of text, I'd be happy to make a $5 donation to cover that if it makes you feel any better. Anyways, if you're going to delete it, just add it to the existing article on the meme. dead (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - this blatantly fails WP:NOTABILITY. The author can create this on some other site, perhaps one that devotes its pages to memes. DigitalC (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly does not satisfy WP:N and also violates WP:NOT#NEWS, as a "theory" that is one day old. Nsk92 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philisophically Ramble. Who's to say this is old? Wikipedia is but an infant comapred to humanity, humanity but an infant compared to the earth, the earth an infant compared to the stars. You can quote all the policies and guidelines you wish, but you choose to neglect the simple fact that the Gaucho theory, though by your accounts subjectively young, has fufilled a hole in the sub/unconscious minds of the internet-meme-aware barren since the relevent episode of South Park first aired. The Gaucho theory, all but instantly, has become notable, perhaps not by your theories of notablity, forged in the dark ages of months and years ago-- but notable. The desire to keep anything remotely humourous off of this website is a symptom of the unwarrented sense of self-importance experienced by wikipedia editors. Do not use this profound, insightful meme-- which sums up the entire nature of memes-- as an outlet for your wiki-rage. Whether your codified 'guidelines' disagree or not, literally, by volume of awareness and by relevence this theory is notable. Do not let your wiki-blindness stand in the way of the obvious answer. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. SCVirus (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP has to keep up its standards or else joke entries would not be funny. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as complete bollocks. WillOakland (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Doesn't belong here; belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Segregationist, eh? Just because you see this subsection of internet culture in such a flat way, does not mean there is not greater, relevent meaning. 70.71.195.225 (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a reason other than bigotry? Grhm01 (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — Grhm01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • I don't feel I have to respond to people who registered or posted only on this topic and obviously haven't read the relevant policies, but I guess I will. I'm a redditor myself--I was there (sort of) when ElGaucho made his comment. Something someone on the web made up one day is not necessarily important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, even if that encyclopedia is web-based. Otherwise, what's to stop other memes from making it to Wikipedia? Pretty soon, Wikipedia will be full of articles about random memes that no one's ever heard of. Both of you, anon and Grhm01, have simply called me names without offering any explanation for why your position is better. It doesn't even make sense to say that I view something in a "flat way"--that statement is devoid of meaning. And no, there is no greater, relevant meaning; that's the entire problem. The only meaning it has is on reddit, where it's not even particularly famous. Why don't we write up an article about reddit and digg's love for bacon? I can assure you that is far broader in scope than this stupid theory. Don't call me a bigot when you don't even bother to read the policies before choosing a side in the debate. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Wikipedia has gone to hell from over deleting and the inability to tell content from vandalism. -- 66.91.62.114 (talk)
  • Delete I'm here to vote as requested by Reddit; too bad that I think this is nonsense. If it's a meme in 12 months time then maybe it would be worthy, for now it can stay on Encyclopedia Dramatica. bad_germ 09:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Phiren. We should give it a month-long trial period and if it still fails WP:NOTABILITY then, delete it. --24.16.61.196 (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Hello. I am new to the format of the AfD debate, but I had the initial impression that a consensus had to be reached within the broader community of contributors, and not only within WP moderators. As mentionned, one might be surprised by the sudden rise in attention to the Gaucho theory; however, the nature of the missing step leading to Profit! has been explored for a decade now, and Gaucho theory came to provide an elegant solution for this question. The validity of the theory is still matter of debate, but the impact of its applications makes it more notable than a mere news report (if I understand the WP:NOT#NEWS policy correctly). The tidiness of WP seems to be at the core of the raised objections for users more familiar to WP. Now, we must arrive to a consensus so it would seem a reasonable compromise to include Gaucho theory in the discussion of ??? - Profit!. 142.157.122.237 (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a few days. Pragmatically, trying to delete this now would be foolhardy. It's a developing meme and removing it will only increase the fervor of its contributors. Let's all just let the article sit for a few days and see what happens. If the idea fails to take off (which it likely will), then go ahead and delete the article. I'll endorse the deletion. But at this exact moment, it's noteworthy. On Monday it probably won't be. Delete it then. 153.108.64.1 (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proper course of action, in accordance with our Wikipedia:No original research policy, was to wait those few days before creating an article in the first place. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Do not come here as a means of documenting the heretofore undocumented. Please use alternative outlets, of which there are many, for that. Only come to Wikipedia with things after they have become properly documented, by reliable sources who have performed peer review and fact checking, and become part of the general, documented, corpus of human knowledge. Your only convincing argument here would be to cite sources demonstrating that that has already happened. The argument that you actually are using holds no water here at all, and indeed (by arguing that it hasn't happened) is a strong argument for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This idea has been around and very popular for a long time. It is sad to think that we would delete something simply because it is obscure. It exists, so it should have a right to be documented - and just because you don't understand it or have never witnessed it, does not give you any right to remove it. 78.105.167.5 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — 78.105.167.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. It provides information and it is interesting (at least to some people). That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. TheAsocialApe (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This encyclopaedia requires that the information be verifiable and not original research. Please make an argument that actually has some basis in our policies and guidelines, because your current argument holds no water at all. The interest that people have in a subject forms no part of our content policies or article inclusion criteria. Notability is not subjective. Your only effective argument is citing sources, to show that our primary notability criterion is satisfied. Do that. Failure to do so will result in deletion, however much you argue about rights to be documented, interest, fame, or other things that have no relevance to our policies and guidelines. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Dear reddit: I understand you are trying to be like 4chan and make your own meme. But this is pathetic and stupid. Take a step back for a moment and look at what you are trying to do here. You just want to be "in" on something. In two years you'll realize how pathetic this whole thing was. You are like those screaming 10 year old girls watching American Idol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.10.131 (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have Cuil Theory as a meme; why are we trying to make another one?
  • Strong delete strongly in the stongest possible strongest terms. Did I say I !vote strong delete? ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and Uncle G's comments passim above. We aren't here to help publicise newly-invented memes, however many SPAs Reddit sends here to support them. JohnCD (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There is not a word in the English language to describe just how badly this page should be deleted from wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as a reddit-only minor meme. Anyway, it's incorrect: the second-to-last step is always ???. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is currently a Reddit article asking people to "help save this page from deletion": article atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Heavily related to Profit meme and should be discussed there. --Macrowiz (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, article is just an inside joke on Reddit, not notable. Peaceduck (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per just about every delete vote so far. This meme is not widely followed, and fails WP:WEB. — neuro(talk) 21:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As nom, I'm already for delete obviously, but would you look at that, there's a policy for this sort of thing I didn't even know existed: WP:MADEUP. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I checked the math myself and referenced it to my calculus professor. It works, therefore this theory is verifiable. Darlyn Perez (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? First, there is no math in the theory, so there is nothing to check with a calculus professor. Second, WP:V requires verification by published reliable sources, not something that you thought through yourself or asked somebody's opinion about. Third, the subject has to be notable as defined by WP:N, which means coverage by independent published reliable sources. Moreover, per WP:NOT#NEWS such coverage needs to be spread over a sufficiently long period of time. None of these conditions are satisfied here. Nsk92 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the article. Scroll down. There's a formula that has been verified by my calculus professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.209.168 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this "formula", don't you: . Damn, that is some fine math. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I agree, the "formula" is complete nonsense. I was attempting sarcasm. Nsk92 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gaucho_theory&oldid=1140188004"