Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh fight

Add links
Source: 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 no consensus. This discussion attracted a lot of new and less experienced editors so I am going to give some extra explanation. Nearly all decisions on Wikipedia are made through discussion rather than voting which we call
notability (the word we use to describe topics that may have articles) to be shown (or not). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Josh fight

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Josh fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this article for deletion per

what Wikipedia is not. Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

collapse ref list for page readability

References

  1. ^ Harrison-Martin, Jackie (February 23, 2021). "International concern for dog rescued on river turns into wave of controversy over ownership". News-Herald. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  2. ^ "Dog Rescued After 4 Days Stranded Along Icy Detroit River". US News & World Report. February 21, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  3. ^ Champion, Brandon (March 29, 2021). "Man adopts dog he rescued from icy Detroit River". mlive. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  4. ^ Press, Associated (February 21, 2021). "Dog rescued after 4 days stranded along icy Detroit River". KUSA.com. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  5. ^ Taylor, Ariana (February 22, 2021). "'Miracle dog' recovering after he was stranded for days on Detroit River". Detroit News. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  6. ^ "Dog Stranded Alone on the Thin Ice of a Michigan River Saved by Animal-Loving Rescuers". PEOPLE.com. January 5, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  7. ^ "Dog rescued after falling through ice in Dearborn County". MSN. April 20, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  8. ^ "Canadian helps rescue stranded dog on Detroit River ice in international effort". CTVNews. February 21, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  9. ^ Thomason, Amanda (March 30, 2021). "'Miracle' Dog That Survived 4 Days Stranged on Ice Finally Finds His Perfect Owner". The Western Journal. Retrieved April 25, 2021.
  10. ^ Detroit, FOX 2 (February 21, 2021). "Dog rescued after spending 4 days on ice patch along the Detroit River". FOX 2 Detroit. Retrieved April 25, 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
    • I disagree, because this event has a lot more media coverage from around the world and not just outlets from North America, from a lot of reliable sources from Australia to Austin to Africa and India to Indonesia to Singapore. And why would we erase this knowledge from future generations? We have kept the Storm Area 51 event's page, why should this event be taken off? If anything, this one was far more significant, as it had a substantially higher number of participants and a similar level of media coverage. JoshFight (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The amount of media coverage it got is
        criteria for inclusion. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (they/them | talk) 13:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Keep: It meets most of the guidelines in
    talk) 23:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep seems to be appearing in numerous sources that establish notability, at least for now. If the only sources that can be found in a few months or so are the same sources published in the immediate aftermath of the event, then a reevaluation of notability and a renomination, if necessary, is always a possibility. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ("1 Josh", "Hundreds of Joshes" etc) was newly–added vandalism. MainPeanut (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fully agreed that the use of that infobox was unconstructive, and I've changed it back. I don't think it should be regarded as relevant to this AfD either way. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this event has gotten significant national and worldwide coverage, with outlets like
    Yahoo,[7] and even an outlet called Mothership based in Singapore.[8] Out of the list of references from the dog being rescued from the ice, 5/10 of them are from Michigan (where the incident happened), 9/10 of them are from the United States, and the only reference that isn't from the United States is from neighboring Canada. I don't believe we can judge something on if it will be notable long–term right now. We should revisit this in 3 or 6 months. MainPeanut (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, per the aforementioned reasons by others. This fight was reported by various news journalism sites, so much so that it would be improper to delete this page. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 23:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Keep. Such events are significant historical events, not in isolation but in combination. Keep it in combination with other such gatherings like the Area 51 gathering, as a single combined article. (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep only. Although there are comparisons made between the "Area 51 Raid" and the "Josh Fight" in terms of actual event participation, The "Josh Fight" has no real direct involvement to be included into the "Area 51 Raid" article.DJ Baguio (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - passing the general notability guideline is not enough when the subject is not encyclopedic. Lots of news events are covered by large news outlets, like the dog example cited by the nominator. Such short bursts of coverage do not establish notability, unlike sustained coverage, which would (
    WP:EVENTCRIT specifically addresses this: "Routine kinds of news events (including [...] viral phenomena) – whether or not [...] widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, Same reasons given by others. Events that come from viral memes can gain significant coverage (Area 51 storming), and shouldn't be discounted just because they're not groundbreaking or "historically valuable". Alimorel (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, I think the fact that it was a fundraiser and food drive, not just a meme, contributes to the event's notability. Alimorel (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This AfD has been linked from Reddit[4][5], and the article from Reddit[6] and Facebook. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeesh, will probably not be helpful to the discussion. In any case, I suppose it's an opportunity to educate some potential editors on how Wikipedia works. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closing admin should note that most of the keep !voters are from Reddit and have fewer than 50 edits.--v/r - TP 01:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • TParis, I think *most* is a bit strong. This isn't a vote, as we know, but any closing admin should take a look at the actual arguments made and not discount legitimate keep comments because of outside canvassing by others. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't speak for the rest of the Keep voters, but because I've been boycotting Reddit for over ten years, you've motivated me to reply: I searched for this article after reading about the event in the
        flailing the word "encyclopedic" or ascribing guilt by association. Cheeftun (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
@
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
So the "Delete" arguments that say "that event will not be notable" (like
WP:CRYSTAL by then. DJ Baguio (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep! That's why I think this AfD is clusterfucked.
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, the "People will imitate it" part of
WP:CRYSTAL since some posts in Facebook (in which I'm very active) indicate that some people are apparently planning to imitate the Josh Fight event with different names. I can't tell, however, if these plans will come into fruition in any way.DJ Baguio (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per the other Delete arguments above... in short, it's a non-notable event. ~EdGl talk 06:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's forgotten in two weeks, we can delete it then. We're not wasting space. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (they/them | talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the facts may be correct (they are), the event may be real (it is), and the article may be real (it is), that doesn't make it automatically notable. I was born (for real) but that doesn't mean that I deserve an article. Please expand upon your reasoning. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again... Borderline
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The second sentence of that page directly says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid". You are going to have to find another argument, or at least elaborate, because simply linking that page is not an argument. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk)
What you said is to some extent correct, but it is only valid when
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 17:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm having fun with repeatedly linking
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • @DavidCostell44: Having little lasting significance is actually a reason to delete the Area 51 article, not a reason to keep this one.--v/r - TP 14:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It just funny, also its a very recent event, of course there won´t be a lot of sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisahumanboi (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prime example of
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 15:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I'm not sure the incident being either funny or recent is good enough reasoning to keep the article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Isn't wikepedia about documenting history? If so why is there a bias towards events that have happened, stopping them from being retold in the future? There is countless stupid things like this that have been recorded in history, yet we're ignoring today's history, and by deleting today's records, those in the future will have forgotten about this era. — 99.234.172.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Dear IP editor, see
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 15:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nostalgia and your feelings toward the event are irrelevant in the decision on whether to keep this article. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of people seem to be saying that this article should be deleted due to the fact that the event is easily forgettable, but remember that a lot of people don't seem to be talking about events like Storm Area 51 nowadays, but they still have articles on wiki. Wizzito (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. User:CAMERAwMUSTACHE puts it well – "It’s reliably sourced and has received enough widespread coverage to indicate notability." Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, the two events are not comparable. Sevgonlernassau (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Ok. Another argument with
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.DJ Baguio (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The article has already been translated into different languages.
It has been shown to be notable enough as it has spawned articles from
Lincoln Journal-Star, The Courier
and several more reputable news organizations and publishers. The notability of this event is reasonably big as well.
It has received lots of pageviews: over 300,000 in the mere days since its creation. Also, many of the people against this page's existence claim that it is new and not yet noteworthy. Just because something is new does not at all make it not noteworthy.
Finally, claiming that this article should be taken down for irrelevance is disprovable, as another internet meme, Storm Area 51, They Can't Catch All of Us has its own page: even though this event had exponentially more participants than the scarcely-attended Area 51 gatherings and nearby festivals.--JoshFight (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— JoshFight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
New record: that's
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 10:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • WP:BITE the newbies, they're contributing in good faith, even if they are not as familiar with policy as experienced editors. I know you're also commenting in good faith, but it's not a spectator sport. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    On another note, if they're newbies, please stop using the
    wiki-ABCs. You're forcing more Wikipedia jargon in their face that will make it harder for them to understand how to make good AfD arguments. Explain with clarity, not with the expectation that they'll read 15 policy pages on the topic. Chlod (say hi!) 12:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 10:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Agree with Chlod. And I have to mention that
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay and there is no obligation for anyone to agree with it. Just because someone use OSE does not mean their comments are invalid. The admins would judge as they close this discussion, and as far as I could see those who respond to other new commenters by using jargons are not admins. (and they probably would never become one if they keep doing that) --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Agree with
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but that is exactly why we should explain to them instead of just dismissing them quickly. And from a newbie standpoint, if Area 51 could stand, why couldn't this one, which really happened, and with humanitarian cause, can't be allowed to stand? It's the "duty" of more experienced editor to educate them, instead of just dismissing them with a wave.SunDawn (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Agree I agree. Also, a lot of people are citing
    WP:SSE (which is in the same essay): "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." Wizzito (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • In addition, I feel that some people here should stop
    WP:Biting new editors (being unfair towards new editors), and instead lay out the rules and guidelines, instead of linking to a lot of jargon that newbies may not understand. Wizzito (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Ok. I am one of the editors who kept slamming OSE essays on newbie editors, and I apologize for that. This AfD is getting unreasonably repetitive with the same reasons all over again, and it's getting annoying.. Well, this is actually my first AfD page that I'm very much worked out, so I scarcely stated my arguments here unless when deemed necessary due to lack of experience, so I just tried to patrol this AfD to keep it in control. But it also seemed like some of my actions actually added more chaos instead of controlling it. Again, I apologize for that. Guess I'll just tag SPAs for now. ^_^ DJ Baguio (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DJ Baguio, understandable, thank you for acting in good faith. Frankly, I wish this AfD could be closed sooner rather than later, no matter what the consensus is, because I agree that it has rapidly grown repetitive. But apparently there's no good precedent for doing that, so we'll just have to wait until the week has run its course. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I kept hearing references to this and couldn't find out about it. This definetly should be hear to help people know what it is because people will still be talking about this for a long time and the information should be recorded.PythosIsAwesome (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is history! We cannot let it be removed and forgotten by most as time continues. Too much has already been lost or made to be lost because people do not like being reminded of the truth in our history. Little Josh deserves better!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.108.123 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC) — 70.77.108.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Just because you like the winner of the event, it does not make the event notable. Fixing26 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
    , but even though there's hardly any news coverage of Storm Area 51 anymore, the page still receives ~750-800 views per week (excluding the new views sparked by this event) and 34 edits per week (from 21 March to 21 April). I acknowledge that page viewership and editing statistics don't solidify lasting significance, but perhaps they'll provide an insight into the event's questionable significance in the future?
  • @
    WP:CRYSTAL which, in summary, means you can't suggest you do know what reliable sources will be saying a year from now or that an event will be still revelant. Fixing26 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Lasting effect is needed for events only and not for people (see
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Layton, Josh (February 27, 2021). "'Little Josh' fans raise money for college fund after he wins battle of Joshes". Metro. Retrieved April 28, 2021.
@MJL: That's why he made the copy. As a draftspace. So we don't have to scrounge up all the sources again if the page is deleted. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:D530:346B:5153:DBE5 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep discussion in English, and please be respectful. LucasA04 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst the article may have sources, it still doesn't apply to
    WP:RECENTISM Fixing26 (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Does not suffice
    WP:CRYSTAL, we can't know if there will still be major coverage in the future, and if there is we can revisit if there is a need for an article about the Josh fight. For now, it just seems to be a slowly fading internet meme. Fixing26 (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Fixing26, while I agree that the burst of coverage right after the event is, understandably, receding into the past, there is already continuing coverage that goes in-depth and discusses this event in the context of others past and future. For instance, this Op-Ed from today in a local Delaware paper, hundreds of miles from any local connection.[1] No event is covered as frequently as when it actually happens, but I don't think there's any real reason to believe this won't still be mentioned and discussed months in the future. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - further continuing coverage.[2][3]
@Ganesha811: That's true, however the event coverage from major sources seemed to be one or two brief stories, and the rest from minor publications. These were mostly published around the date of the Josh fight, and coverage was nothing more than covering the basics of it being an internet meme. Fixing26 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Editor, Darin J. McCann | Executive. "How many Joshes does it take to have a good time?". Coastal Point. Retrieved 2021-04-29. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  2. ^ Nasser, Yousef (2021-05-02). "After week of their lives, Josh Swain and Little Josh look to the future". KLKN-TV. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  3. ^ Miller, Dale. "'Battle of the Joshes' more than absurd event". The Grand Island Independent. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  • Keep I think it's quite clear simply from the fact that there are so many reports of this event that is is indeed notable. If Storm Area 51 is notable enough, then so is this event. The article is Start Quality, no doubt no doubt no doubt. But I feel like this is a unique event and fundraiser, and the quality of the article will improve whenever some Josh uploads some photos to Commons and the text is given more thought. I fear that most potential writing users are spending most of their time here, and so the current quality isn't indicative of how the article will look in the near future. RobotGoggles (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see
WP:CRYSTAL, as editors are unsure about the notability of the event in the future, that is why I advocate keeping the article for now, and assess its notability in the future. SunDawn (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The case with most internet memes is that they stay relevant for a short amount of time, whilst it was wrong for the nominator to immediately open the inquiry into deletion. In regards to
WP:PERSISTENCE, the news headlines are already fading, and whilst this can't be used to predict the future, it's shows that the event has already mostly fallen out of relevance other than those who insist to keep believing the meme. Fixing26 (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Even though it is another dumb fad popularized by the use of internet memes, it still should receive some sort of coverage, but not coverage in a way that grossly exaggerates what actually happened for comedic effect (no use of battle infoboxes, and no treating of the event as an actual armed conflict). Kosmosnaut87. 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete An examination of
    WP:EVENTCRITERIA shows that the Josh Fight does not meet the notability guidelines. It is not an event with a lasting impact or one with a wide geographical scope. It does not have deep coverage (only brief news reports), and hasn't had time to establish lasting significance. While there is a diverse number of sources, this is an expectation for notable events, not something that establishes notability itself. To contrast with Storm Area 51, Josh Fight has less coverage and less impact (no responses from local or national governments, no lasting impacts beyond internet memes). This isn't to say that the notability criteria can never be met for Josh Fight, but it doesn't seem to be established right now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Qwaiiplayer, while I think there are a lot of reasonable points in your comment, I want to take issue with one part of it - that "it does not have deep coverage (only brief news reports)." I don't think that is accurate. The WSJ, NYTimes, Lincoln Star-Journal, and a couple of other sources are long, in-depth, and solely focused on this event - they all show signs of original reporting (interviewing relevant people, for instance), and are not just "churnalism" that lifts from other reporters. While not all of the article's sources are as high quality as those, overall, the coverage is in-depth. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, that essay appears as a red link. Is this a serious comment about deletion? Wizzito (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 07:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify or delete for now. NOTNEWS, indeed. But could be notable in few years if there is sustained coverage. We should have a project/system for such hibernated topics, tagged with 'revisit in 5 years' or something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Why delete this . In the midst of the pandemic this made people look forward to something. It was hyped up and had a happy ending that everyone liked - from User:117.96.218.242
  • While probably true, this is
    ItsTrei 15:59, 3 May 2021 (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/Josh_fight&oldid=1021249705"