Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (4th nomination)

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. Default to keep. Strong suggestion that there be a mortatorium on

This was a horrifically out of process "reclosure" that should not have been done without the input of DRV. I've undeleted.

Phil Sandifer 13:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

P-P-P-Powerbook

Nominated as unverifiable. I quote from

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook Result: No Consensus
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (second nomination) Result: Keep
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (third nomination) Result: Keep (Redirected from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (2nd nomination))

• Delete as nominator. Three previous AfD discussions have focused on notability. I consider that issue settled, and am only concerned about the previously undiscussed verifiability issue, and the associated problems with original research and NPOV as discussed on the talk page. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, since this isn't a vote, you don't need to vote delete when you nominated it in the first place.
    Kevin_b_er 19:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep Chicagoist?. A little blog-like though. This is probably one of the finer examples of internet memes that touched at the point where everyone BUT the media has heard of it. Several major tech sites covered it.
  Kevin_b_er 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Um... Chicagoist is "a little blog-like" because... well, it's a blog. Bwithh 00:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment none of the named sites make a point of checking their sources. In particular, Zug is humor site, avowedly uninterested in the underlying truth of a good story. We have no assurance that this was not an elaborate hoax played on the Something Awful crowd, and no NPOV evaluation of its impact, if any. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So
      Kevin_b_er 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Well, yes, this isn't
        Star Wars kid by a very long chalk Bwithh 00:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Respond Per the Register's own website: [5], they evaluate articles for wit and literacy, but nothing is said about fact-checking, so, no, I don't regard the Register as a
        reliable source. As things stand, it is impossible to write an NOR and NPOV article on this subject because it is not verifiable. Its a great story, and I spent a month trying to find a proper source. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]

•  A separate nomination was opened by another editor after this was started. It has been closed and the comments moved here:

• Delete. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of SA and I love the story, but without any kind of independant, reliable sources that it is even real, let alone notable, it'll have to go.--Drat (Talk) 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of encyclopedic notability and I don't see any possibility of encyclopedic notability. It's not even a meme. Its just a "I thought of a funny thing to do today" anecdote. Falls under
  WP:NFT in my opinion. Take it to Encyclopedia Dramatic or Uncyclopedia etc. Those are the places for this kind of thing. Not Wikipedia. Bwithh 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. Already on ED.--Dhartung | Talk 06:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Case closed! (I mean that rhetorically) Bwithh 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incidentally, my corporate firewall filter blocks ED and gives an explanation I've never seen before... "Tasteless". True story. Bwithh 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How many times is this going up for AfD today? Anyway, looks like a good candidate for ED if it had more lulz. --
  talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete unless secondary sources added -- The first nom had a bunch of people who said they saw it on the news, but none of that news coverage has been cited in this article. If it can be found and cited, we should keep, but without it we have no verifiability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Did anyone even look at the article's sources? Two newspapers: The Register and The Independent. Anomo 20:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs better mention of it. One article in the reg isn't enough, but if it can cite several articles specifically about it, then we've got something. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? The article has two newspaper sources? I have seen articles kept just for having one sources in a newspaper. Anomo 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) The Register story is trivial - it's categorized under the "Wild Wild Web" section, which is The Register's section for tabloid-style internet news in brief stories with a large dose of lurid sleaze stories. From the current edition, amongst more mainstream brief news stories, there are reports on a sandwich half-eaten by Britney Spears being sold on Ebay; a "Dead Steve Irwin" being sold on Ebay, and various titallating reports with some sex angle.
• 2) The Independent story does not refer to the P-P-P-Powerbook incident at all.
• 3) Media coverage, even widespread coverage in leading news channels, does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm.... How come it passed its 2nd AFD with lots of keeps and its third are tons of deletes? What changed? Anomo 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CCC. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Much as I thought this was cool and I hate to say it, it really isn't that notable per the commentary here. I'm not sure El Reg can hold it. Weak Delete. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - vote stricken and changed, see below. --Dennisthe2 14:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. wikipediatrix 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; subject could be better covered at scam baiting. --keepsleeping slack off! 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

•  AFD was never listed on 25 September, so I'm listing it today. Punkmorten 07:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respond Strange. I listed it on 9/25, as shown by the following diff: [6] Robert A.West (Talk) 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• K-K-K-Keep, it has demonstrated enough notability already. JIP | Talk 08:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, like all marginally notable Internet shenanigans; also of weak verifiability. Sandstein 08:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, I actually read this article a while back to understand a reference made on slashdot. It's notable = almost 30,000 hits on google. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete as per "marginally notable Internet shenanigans" stated above. This really only merits a single line on the Something Awful or scam baiting article, rather than an encyclopedia entry to itself. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or merge. Previously, I noted that this was one of SA's top 2 or 3 pranks. We can't know whether it was a prank on a person (as advertised) or a hoax (as SA is known to engage in). On the other hand it's a big meme independent of whether it's true or not. Maybe that does mean merging (it's not overlong, could be one paragraph). For what it's worth a blurb was included in Smart Computing (print edition). --Dhartung | Talk 10:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I find that the SC article is only accessible with a Google referrer. Ah well. --Dhartung | Talk 06:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not verifiable? OK, this has gone to the point of bad faith. Speedy keep by a long shot. --Dennisthe2 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Rescinded SK, see a couple of lines down.[reply]
  • Please
    assume good faith, and please read and understand the rules of speedy keep. Punkmorten 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Well put. In this case, I rescind the speedy keep and simply go with Keep. --Dennisthe2 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with (and redirect to) scam baiting.
• Weak Delete I have to admit, I was surprised by the verifiability claim, but I failed to pull up any decent reliable sources, and without those, notability rather fails to be an issue. GassyGuy 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Fourth nomination? Sour grapes. A consensus has been reached TWICE now, one of those times just a few weeks ago, to keep this article. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but the issue raised in both of those was notability. I would argue that this is notable because even I'd heard of it before it got its article nominated for deletion, and that only happens with so many of these things that draw out supporters (and sometimes rather fanatical cult-like ones, but that is another issue). I, personally, would like to see this stay, but when you're dealing with a policy like
    reliable source, then it doesn't much matter what numbered deltion this is, because it's the one where the nomination focuses on this issue and requires that it be addressed by keep voters. "Sour grapes," whatever truth value it has, fails to address any relevant issue. GassyGuy 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. Anyone who thinks that The Register or Something Awful are reliable sources needs to get their head examined.
  Warren 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep and expand with descriptions of spread as Internet meme. There is a problem with this article but it's not worthy of deletion. I have seen this meme come around to me several times, so it ought to pass
  WP:MEME -- but it requires some exterior sources documenting its spread as a meme to be a full article. Otherwise it should be merged to an article on Something Awful. The only result I am opposed to is deletion; after passing three AfD attempts I cannot believe deletion is still being seriously considered. Alba 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• To those fretting about verifiability: Fine, rephrase as a description of the content. That's verifiable, even if the veracity of that content isn't. I have trouble believing the entire Something Awful community was fooled by a conspiracy involving a poster in Washington State and a cheap barber/cybercafe owner/scammer on the Edgeware Road in London, so I'm not sure why the SA community is being considered as a single source. Other elements could be confirmed by, say, inquiring to Federal Express regarding the package details, which were published. A fanatic could even track down the scammer -- numerous photos of his shop were published; I'm sure he could be found.
  • Or you could just relax, put a few disclaimer sentences down, and get on with life. Alba 19:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's original research, again not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Ziggurat 00:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bwithh. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable third-party sources; 'notability' does not trump that. nn. Ziggurat 22:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; but this should not prevent anyone from moving the article into user space, or mentioning it in Something Awful as a typical story. In that article, a description of SA content is perfectly appropriate, and verifiable under the exception for sources talking about themselves. Septentrionalis 04:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--
  Peta 05:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per Ziggurat. No actual media coverage from a really reliable source. Batmanand | Talk 10:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per every other time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per parsssseltongue, smells of sour groups to me as well. RFerreira 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alba's comments regarding the internet meme. Neier 23:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment could someone address the issues of verifiability that have been raised?
  WP:V is a baseline standard that is usually indisputable, and I don't think that the keep votes have properly dealt with it so far. Ziggurat 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Can someone explain how this anecdote is an encyclopedically notable internet meme, without lapsing into a definition of internet phenomenon which is hopelessly broad and without resorting to "People say they like it on their blogs and chat forums" (and yes, trivial news coverage too) arguments? In addition to "Someone did something clever" anecdotes, there are cute animal pictures, inspirational saccharine glurge stories, emails and that people shouldn't have sent (showing how comically obnoxious they are) that get sent all around the internet to thousands of people all the time. Is every single cute kitty picture, glurge story, silly email and "I did something clever today" anecdote encyclopedically notable? Bwithh 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, well, people have already discussed the notability and I don't think that's a productive area for discussion (it's too subjective, and always seems to be reduced to a says-I says-you argument). If we can't find any reliable non-trivial (etc. etc.) sources talking about this phenomenon, however, there's really no disputing whether it should be here or not. If there are satisfactory sources, it harms no-one for it to stay (and I'd vote keep). Ziggurat 00:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I don't you can dismiss notability as an issue so easily. There is a large section on notability guidelines on Wikipedia which play a major part in afd discussions, and they certainly don't boil down to simple subjective views as you frame it. Just as the "harmless" argument holds no water either, both these arguments blithely ignores the fact that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia and isn't supposed to be a free-for-all dumping ground for any information out there that has trivial sources (
      WP:NOT). Using Wikipedia as a dumping ground in a thousand ways like this does do grevious cumulative harm - to the project's mission and identity as an authoratitive encyclopedia I can find local newspaper reviews for the little kebab shop or the mom and pop diner around the corner - this doesn't make these establishments encyclopedic. And the news media - even internationally prominent news sources are also full of trivial news stories and non-news content which is far from encyclopedia. Take this story about a "killer" teddy bear for instance - 130 media sources (including FOX News, the Washington Post, USA Today, and others outside the US... this far far more coverage than the powerbook stunt will ever get) have published a story about it as shown by google news. The teddy bear has had more practical impact than the powerbook stunt. It's a apparently funny anecdote we can pass on to each other and we can use it to provide a lesson for the kids. Does this make it suitable for an encyclopedia? No, because its trivial ephemera, just like the Powerbook stunt. Bwithh 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Respond The notability argument has been discussed in three previous AFDs, while the verifiability issue has not been previously discussed. Arguments to delete on the basis of non-notability alone encourage "keep" arguments that avoid the verifiability issue. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - notability, verifiability... –Outriggr § 23:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please do not be stupid in thinking about sources.
  Phil Sandifer 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment What is that supposed to mean?--Drat (Talk) 17:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the people complaining about the sourcing are being silly -
      Phil Sandifer 01:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete per nom and Bwithh. Not notable. David | Talk 18:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not-notable in any non-internet kind of way, and not so notable on the internet as to make up for it. Recury 22:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kuralyov 04:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not an important part of human culture - therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 05:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have Anna Nicole Smith on here, too. There's no accounting for taste. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and get a freaking life, this OBVIOUSLY had some sort of impact on the web in general or there wouldnt have been 5000+ backlinks to the site according to google. Notable sources mentioned it... passes WP:WEB in my opinion.  ALKIVAR™ 05:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• dick. Recury 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep or merge (and redirect) with scam baiting. It's a notable meme, if nothing else, and lots of people check Wiki for that stuff if they haven't already seen it. Besides, it's been through four votes already. We're not going to have another GNAA fiasco, are we? TheWarlock 15:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Even if it cannot be verified that this happened we can certainly verify that this scam was purported to happen and became an internet meme which was covered by several major sources. The article could be rewritten to reflect that. --BHC 18:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What major sources? Blogs? Discussion groups and user forums? Not a single source that mentions the incident is reliable, and the one reliable source does not mention the incident. Producing our own analysis, even trying to be as NPOV as we can, would constitute

original research, and hence is not appropriate for Wikipedia either. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:39, 3 October 2006 (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.