Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

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 of the debate was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

[edit]

Originally listed as {{prod}} with the note, nn website, nn two day old internet meme. Most of the allegations and events in this article, and the website it refers to, are hearsay and unverified. The prod was removed by the original editor, kindly with an explanation on the article's talk page. I disagree with the editor. I read the slashdot entry prior to adding the prod, and all it is is a reposting of a blog entry. The fact remains is that this article is essentially hearsay about a nn event. I leave it up for consensus whether or not the article should stay. Agent 86 01:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by new editors

[edit]

Comments listed here are either by IP address, or by editors whose accounts show fewer than ten edits prior to this vote. A large number of "keep" voters have been attracted by website discussing the outside event discussed in the article; that site has run a "keep vote" campaign, or at least participants on its discussion area have.

  • Strong Keep I agree, let's see what direction this heads in first, obviously a lot of people will be looking for an article on this in a while, so let's wait a bit.
  • Strong Keep Let's see where it goes first. If it ends up being overblown, THEN we can delete. Deleting now is pulling the trigger far too quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.217.195 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I think the sheer volume of comments in the past hour or so warrants the article a presence, at least for the meantime.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.35.230 (talk • contribs) who has no previous edits.
  • Keep This phenomenon exists and is somewhat unique. It deserves to be referenced. Maybe not as a meme, but only time will tell.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.234.194.29 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. Its been the first serious example of an Internet rebellion. Where the NYPD wouldn't help, we all did.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superspacejoel (talk • contribs) who has no previous edits.
Users first and currently only edit, hmmm.--Andeh 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The movie Secondhand_Lions has a relevant line in it that goes something to the effect of "Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most". “That people are basically good. That honor virtue and courage mean everything; that money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. That true love never dies. Doesn’t matter if they’re true or not. A man should believe in those things anyway. Because they are the things worth believing.” Keeping this article doesnt only have to be about how enduring it is, or how rigorously backed up it is. There are sufficient minimums, and there is reasonable argument that they have been met. Mans inhumanity to man is one of the great themes of human history. This article is also about the idea that man should have humanity, and even excellence, toward his fellow man. Engr.student 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: vote is user's second edit.[reply]
Perhaps it is too early to say whether this is worthy or not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.178.58 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep I did an initial article for this, but it too was put up for fast deletion. It DOES fit the definition of an internet meme, despite it's short lifespan. I quote from the article on Internet meme - "An Internet phenomenon (sometimes called an Internet meme) occurs when something relatively unknown becomes increasingly popular, often quite suddenly, through the mass propagation of media content made feasible by the Internet; however, the popularity of the phenomenon usually wanes as rapidly as it was acquired" Internet phenomenon Smw1983 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This vote is user's third edit.[reply]
  • Keep just as this guy over here Amir_Tofangsazan I think there might be a real movement starting. It will be very interessting to see how the different countries (UK/USA) judiciary system handle theses kind of cases. --HamstaHuey 08:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users second edit.--Andeh 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with the idea that this is a good example of how quickly internet phenomenon can take off and how much of an effect the virtual world can have on the real one. This, when finally resolved, will be an interesting case study in viral marketing and social networking, to say the least. Logick 05:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: this vote is user's first edit.[reply]
  • Strong Keep From the Wiki entry on Encyclopedia:'Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain.' If this is not an excellent example of the power of Internet Vigilantism then what is? The article should be kept and perhaps made a subarticle of I.V., same as 'Dog Poop Girl.' CitizenJ 8:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This vote is user's first edit.
Users first edit and sounds like he's been here for some time, hmm...--Andeh 13:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How unusual... Yanksox 13:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I continue to see posts from people that have absolutely no involvement with what is happening refer to this as a non-event. Well, of course people that are not involved and don't understand technology will say such things. The fact of the matter is this is not a Slashdot-only event. Sure, it gained widespread coverage as a result of postings on Digg and Slashdot, but this is becoming a worldwide event. People from all over the world are taking part in the fight for someone to get stolen property back to its rightful owners. I would suggest that if you do not understand technology, do not understand the Internet and its potential, that you do not post your opinion here. So many opinions are from people that obviously have no idea what they are talking about.--Thenet411 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This vote is user's third edit.[reply]
  • Comment Yet another example of someone that has no idea what they are talking about. This is my first vote on the matter. Others were simply comments. Learn the difference.--Thenet411 17:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thenet, the comment was not that this was your third vote, but that it was your third edit. It's common policy on high-traffic AFD's to tag votes by very new users. And Lulu, who added that comment, definitely does know what he's talking about. -- Vary | Talk 17:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like Charlie Wenzel and others(such as this sidekick thing) will keep bombarding Wiki, Keep it, make a category for it. Hell, if the ever so important topic of light-saber combat can have a bigger spread than Thermodynamic, I think you can make room for this and Charlie Wenzel. --Brady 07:45 PST, 9 June, 2006
    • Comment The above comment was posted by IP 66.245.195.72, the first posting from this IP.--blue520 15:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. This is not my first posting on a discussion page. I've never felt the need to register as a Wiki-user. My first comments were well over a year ago on a couple of different pages. Thank you. --Brady, 08:40 PST 9 June, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.213.120 (talk • contribs)
  • Blue said that it was the first edit from the IP you were using, not from you as an individual. If you don't have a user account, the only thing we have to go on is your current IP's contribution history. -- Vary | Talk 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The abnormal popularity of this event online (with coverage on Slashdot, Digg, CNET's blog, MSNBC's blog, and countless others) and how it is a great example of internet vigilantism should merit a keep for now, espicially now that the article focuses more on the event rather than the website. I agree with RoyBoy's view on the matter as well. Full disclosure: This is my first edit, but I've joined (shortly) before this article was created. AirwalkLogik 06:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Shows the power of the internet and its infancy. Reminds me of mobs justice in the early parts of our country and I am interested if others are about to start up and how this develops further as the internet progresses. --Cowhig 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's (ten) edits are entirely to his/her own userpage- this vote is the first one outside of that. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has created his account well before the creation of the article in dispute and even before the disputed website was created. Give the benefit of doubt? -- Evanx(tag?) 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by established editors

[edit]
  • Strong Delete per nom; I not only believe in the test of Time, I don't think any Internet meme should be put up for an article sooner than a year after its creation; then let people make the argument as to whether anyone still cares enough about it to be encyclopedic. RGTraynor 23:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The original website serves as record enough of this event. Hanako 02:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Move — I've been following this since near the beginning, and I think it's fascinating, but ultimately unencyclopedic. Perhaps better suited to WikiNews — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  June 9, 2006, 02:26 (UTC)
Perhaps Move is what you meant? -- Evanx(tag?) 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Move seem appropos. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  June 9, 2006, 03:45 (UTC)
Would you be changing your vote? -- Evanx(tag?) 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Just did.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  June 13, 2006, 23:56 (UTC)
Not positive. How many of them will be remembered? I say, at most, 4. Yanksox 02:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if I am rubbing off poorly, I'm not upset or leaning towards deletion or closure. I think it's funny how we define a phemon. Yanksox 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote to delete a lot of these examples also, with the obvious exceptions of Lazy Sunday and William Hung. GassyGuy 02:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably keep the star wars kid, too, but not the rest. That's the problem with these fads. They're mostly going to need cleanup later when they're forgotten. Fan1967 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWho cares, there are over a million articles. Behun 04:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Hardly encyclopedic or newsworthy. We don't put up stories about every single site that gets slashdotted or dug, nor do we have stories about everyday thefts - as much as I admire the guts of the guy who stood up to the thieves, this should not be on Wikipedia. --ElizabethFong 04:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article really places us in a VERY deep quagmire. I do think the article was put up a little too quickly by the author. If we delete this page, I honestly believe we have a good chance of this coming back up, since I believe a news source is eventually going to notice this. If we keep this, we would appear to contradict all of our previous debates. I think a delete is the safest decision, while we wait and see what happens of this. Yanksox 04:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Possibly something needs to be added in WP:MEME asking for a cooling-off period before creating an article? I notice that there is also a standard there: "The meme has been mentioned in a reliable source outside of Internet culture". Fan1967 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's a shame if a major news source's recognition of this event is the main factor in whether this article stays. It can just as easily be deleted later as now, and I don't think failure of a major news source to ever cover the event should be reason enough. true_blue2 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's really a very tough call. I read about the incident, and well, I'll say it, an "OWN." I have to admit the google test results are AMAZING. We need to back away from this article it is WAY too soon to make a finial call. BTW, major news source doesn't have to be CNN or BBC. Yanksox 04:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its just not noteworthy enough. If people still remember this in a month there might be something about it worth having an article for. Shogun 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nobody said it doesn't fit the definition of an Internet meme. I think everyone agrees that it does (though I must admit, I first heard of it because of the Wikipedia article being put up for deletion.) However, the question here is, does this meet the requirements of WP:MEME? While this one may, at some future date, meet the requirements, at this point it really doesn't seem able to do so, which is why it would be best to delete this now and wait an appropriate amount of time. GassyGuy 05:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is still this huge in a few weeks (particularly after it is resolved), then there is probaby noteworthy.--SirNuke 05:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is deleted and this does rise up through the ranks, there is a very simple solution: It can be recreated. Obviously, someone will tag it as a repost. But if notability is there, I will defend it. You have my word. Yanksox 05:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Believe you are right there Peripitus.--Andeh 13:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, notability first... then create an article -- bloggerel and mindless link propagation can sod off. Never mind arguments like "I think it might be picked up by the papers soon." We are not in the business of predicting notability. If becomes notable outside of a few incestuous gossipy websites... then add it. Until that happens, every time some misguided newbie recreates it, wel'll keep smacking it on the head and dragging it to the exit. Any other choice is just an open door policy for crap. - Motor (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no need for getting more attention with the help of Wikipedia. --Vlad|-> 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I must have made an error while moving things around. Please forgive my offense, GassyGuy. LotLE×talk 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, it takes a lot more than an organizational oversight to get me upset. Think nothing of it. GassyGuy 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete for today. If this is still a big deal six months from now, then it's a different story. Also, pity the poor admin who closes this one. ScottW 01:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- An internet meme must have already established notability to warrant an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia documents important stuff- it does not document stuff that might become important later. This is especially important for internet phenomena, where any interest often blows over very quickly. Reyk YO! 01:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967, Paddles and various other delete votes. --Metropolitan90 02:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, for now. That ignores Wikipedia's strengths. Such as our long tail; also Wikipedia is not paper. I can also guarantee the article will be recreated by good faith new users; making this entire exercise ludicrously premature. Changing my vote as a result... a deleted article isn't the best way to introduce new people to Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 800 15:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I was sitting on the fence with this one, as it has recieved coverage in not just Slashdot but Cnet and MSNBC. But what pushed me towards delete was that the subject of the article is the website, not the incident itself. And being an encylopedia, we have to look at what's gonna be noteworthy five or ten years from now. And while the incident might merit a stub or at least a mention in another article in five years, there's no reason to believe that the website will even still be online by then. And the whole thing seems to me like it's really just a whole hulla-balu about nothing. Somebody picked up someone's cell-phone - who cares?! ENpeeOHvee 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Although the article is regarding the website, it was meant to convey the influence of internet vigilantism and present a valid case. Hence, the focus is indeed the incident, but you may have miscontrued it. It may be my fault in phrasing the article, I am continually trying to edit it for acceptable standards. -- Evanx(tag?) 20:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very strongly. This is all over the internet, apparently. Everyking 05:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Discussion

[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

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/How_NOT_to_steal_a_SideKick_2&oldid=1259529594"