- 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Greenlighting hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:WEB. A slate article alone is not enough; no evidence that anyone off the internet every heard or wrote about this. Savidan 04:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and salt; has already been deleted twice. Slate may be a non-trivial source, but it's the only source; WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Also the hoax only lasted three days, unlike the year-long, widely-cited toothing hoax which does merit its own article. Krimpet 04:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Bwithh 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom MiracleMat 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete internet only and no sources BJTalk 05:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do people even look at the articles they vote on? There's a damn good source - an entire feature on Slate Magazine, which is owned by the Washington Post. Phil Sandifer 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sources a subject isn't notable because it has one internet only article written about it. BJTalk 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since, generally, objects that number zero are pluralized (i.e. "there are zero sources"), saying that there are no sources is flatly misleading. Furthermore, that it is Internet-only is irrelevant - we're dealing here with an online magazine owned by the Washington Post. And we're dealing with a full feature on the subject, not a mention or a paragraph. This isn't Joe's Blog Shack. This is well-sourced by any standard. Phil Sandifer 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you would find very few objections to adding information from Slate into an article with other non-trivial sources. Good people can disagree over articles sources only to Slate, however. It's really second-tier as sources go. It's certainly not such a gold standard as to preclude the skepticism you attempt to rule out. Savidan 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since, generally, objects that number zero are pluralized (i.e. "there are zero sources"), saying that there are no sources is flatly misleading. Furthermore, that it is Internet-only is irrelevant - we're dealing here with an online magazine owned by the Washington Post. And we're dealing with a full feature on the subject, not a mention or a paragraph. This isn't Joe's Blog Shack. This is well-sourced by any standard. Phil Sandifer 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sources a subject isn't notable because it has one internet only article written about it. BJTalk 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do people even look at the articles they vote on? There's a damn good source - an entire feature on Slate Magazine, which is owned by the Washington Post. Phil Sandifer 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. MER-C 10:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:WEB is not policy, and the "multiple mentions" was really created to head off various forms of "was mentioned once in passing in the New York Times." This was the subject of a full-length piece on Slate. This is a reasonable exception to WP:WEB. Phil Sandifer 15:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is a single one-page article in Slate a year and a half ago any different than, as you said, being "mentioned once in passing in the New York Times"? From reading the article itself, I get the impression that it seems to be more of a focus on the (somewhat self-aggrandizing IMO) adventures of the journalist "exposing" the hoax and getting ganged up on by the SA goons, rather than actually being an expository piece describing the hoax itself. Krimpet 20:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since Slate didn't adopt pagination until this year, the page length isn't exactly relevant - it's a full-length article. As for the focus, I'm sorry that you're not fond of its writing style, but that does seem rather beside the point to its notability. Phil Sandifer 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said I "wasn't fond of its writing style" let alone use that as an argument against its notability; you're heading into straw man country here. However I would say that the focus of the article is very relevant. It's a first-person narrative of the author finding and "exposing" the hoax, and being messed with by the hoax's perpetrators afterwards, more of an entertaining piece than an informative piece. I noted that the style is self-aggrandizing because it suggests that elements of the story could have been fictionalized to some degree for all we know; we have no other reliable sources at all, because this hoax was simply not notable enough. Krimpet 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's still a subjective judgment of the piece that is far beyond what is appropriate under WP:NPOV. The piece was published by Slate as non-fiction - that's sufficient to establish its relevance. If you have any objections to its content, they should be sourced, not original research. Phil Sandifer 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that this illustrates the reason why we need multiple non-trivial sources to write an encyclopedia article. Especially for an article with "hoax" in the title. This is a common sense issue for me. Savidan 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's still a subjective judgment of the piece that is far beyond what is appropriate under WP:NPOV. The piece was published by Slate as non-fiction - that's sufficient to establish its relevance. If you have any objections to its content, they should be sourced, not original research. Phil Sandifer 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said I "wasn't fond of its writing style" let alone use that as an argument against its notability; you're heading into straw man country here. However I would say that the focus of the article is very relevant. It's a first-person narrative of the author finding and "exposing" the hoax, and being messed with by the hoax's perpetrators afterwards, more of an entertaining piece than an informative piece. I noted that the style is self-aggrandizing because it suggests that elements of the story could have been fictionalized to some degree for all we know; we have no other reliable sources at all, because this hoax was simply not notable enough. Krimpet 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since Slate didn't adopt pagination until this year, the page length isn't exactly relevant - it's a full-length article. As for the focus, I'm sorry that you're not fond of its writing style, but that does seem rather beside the point to its notability. Phil Sandifer 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is a single one-page article in Slate a year and a half ago any different than, as you said, being "mentioned once in passing in the New York Times"? From reading the article itself, I get the impression that it seems to be more of a focus on the (somewhat self-aggrandizing IMO) adventures of the journalist "exposing" the hoax and getting ganged up on by the SA goons, rather than actually being an expository piece describing the hoax itself. Krimpet 20:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. A full-length article on the topic from a reliable source is enough to warrant inclusion. —Dark•Shikari[T] 17:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One Slate article is not necessarily enough. We could create billions of non-notable bios from single mentions in Slate-or-better news sources. Savidan 21:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be impressed if we could actually get 1/3 of the world from mentions in Slate or better, actually... And this is not a "single mention," it's a detailed feature. Please do stop misrepresenting things - it negatively affects the debate when you do. Phil Sandifer 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I acknowledge that. I didn't mean to imply that this was a trivial reference, but just a single article. Savidan 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be impressed if we could actually get 1/3 of the world from mentions in Slate or better, actually... And this is not a "single mention," it's a detailed feature. Please do stop misrepresenting things - it negatively affects the debate when you do. Phil Sandifer 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep WP is the place to look for this sort of article. Slate is used a a RS for internet culture, even more so than WP itself. DGG 02:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But in this situation the Slate article is written by the person claiming to have debunked the hoax; not really a qualified person to determine its notability. Savidan 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be relevant only if Slate were self-published. But it's not - the editors of Slate (and thus, by extension the Washington Post company) have vouched for the event's notability. Phil Sandifer 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with the implication that Slate/Wash Post is "vouch[ing] for the event's notability." Even the New York Times does human interest pieces on things that obviously aren't notable. Savidan 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that totally goes against the entire distinction we make between self-published and independent sources, right? Slate thought the event was significant enough to pay for an article on it and publish that article. Slate is a highly notable publisher. In judging notability, I consider Slate's judgment that it was worth publishing on very important, and your judgment that Slate was wrong more or less irrelevant. Phil Sandifer 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slate's credibility is an entirely separate issue from whether everything that they write about is "notable" in the sense of the Wikipedia guideline. It is unlikely that Slate's editors took a look at our notability guidelines before publishing this article. This is why multiple non-trivial articles are necessary to establish notability. For example, in the current issue of Slate, there's an article by this guy about his wife's post-partum depression [1]. That doesn't make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Savidan 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's multiple non-trivial mentions. One mention of this kind of substance is also, I think, significant. Phil Sandifer 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Show us a second source, then. Savidan 02:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be missing my point, which is that a full-feature coverage is at least as significant as two "non-trivial mentions." Phil Sandifer 03:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pisses the point of having multiple non-trivial sources, i.e. not having to rely on a single source. We can dress this Slate article up all you want. The fact is that this greenlighting hoax is no more notable than the average internet meme and definitely not up to the criteria of WP:WEB, which doesn't say "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself or one really sweet full feature coverage in an internet periodical." Savidan 03:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also a guideline, and we're allowed to sod it if it seems poorly phrased, off base, or otherwise not useful. They're guidelines, not rules. Especially not WEB, which is disputed on the relevant section. And especially not since we're not talking about a website here, so it's not even clear to me that WP:WEB is the operative guideline. Phil Sandifer 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB is definitely the operative guideline for an internet hoax. In this case the article violates both the letter and the spirit of the guildine because the purpose of requiring mulitiple non-trivial sources is to limit out minor internet hoaxes which never achieved significance in the non-internet realm. We seem to just be repeating ourselves here. Why don't we just let some other people weigh in. Savidan 07:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that [{WP:WEB]] probably should cover internet memes. But no text in it does, and the website rules don't necessarily translate well. Phil Sandifer 14:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB is definitely the operative guideline for an internet hoax. In this case the article violates both the letter and the spirit of the guildine because the purpose of requiring mulitiple non-trivial sources is to limit out minor internet hoaxes which never achieved significance in the non-internet realm. We seem to just be repeating ourselves here. Why don't we just let some other people weigh in. Savidan 07:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also a guideline, and we're allowed to sod it if it seems poorly phrased, off base, or otherwise not useful. They're guidelines, not rules. Especially not WEB, which is disputed on the relevant section. And especially not since we're not talking about a website here, so it's not even clear to me that WP:WEB is the operative guideline. Phil Sandifer 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pisses the point of having multiple non-trivial sources, i.e. not having to rely on a single source. We can dress this Slate article up all you want. The fact is that this greenlighting hoax is no more notable than the average internet meme and definitely not up to the criteria of WP:WEB, which doesn't say "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself or one really sweet full feature coverage in an internet periodical." Savidan 03:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be missing my point, which is that a full-feature coverage is at least as significant as two "non-trivial mentions." Phil Sandifer 03:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Show us a second source, then. Savidan 02:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's multiple non-trivial mentions. One mention of this kind of substance is also, I think, significant. Phil Sandifer 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slate's credibility is an entirely separate issue from whether everything that they write about is "notable" in the sense of the Wikipedia guideline. It is unlikely that Slate's editors took a look at our notability guidelines before publishing this article. This is why multiple non-trivial articles are necessary to establish notability. For example, in the current issue of Slate, there's an article by this guy about his wife's post-partum depression [1]. That doesn't make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Savidan 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that totally goes against the entire distinction we make between self-published and independent sources, right? Slate thought the event was significant enough to pay for an article on it and publish that article. Slate is a highly notable publisher. In judging notability, I consider Slate's judgment that it was worth publishing on very important, and your judgment that Slate was wrong more or less irrelevant. Phil Sandifer 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with the implication that Slate/Wash Post is "vouch[ing] for the event's notability." Even the New York Times does human interest pieces on things that obviously aren't notable. Savidan 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be relevant only if Slate were self-published. But it's not - the editors of Slate (and thus, by extension the Washington Post company) have vouched for the event's notability. Phil Sandifer 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not really encyclopedic material and reads like a badly written novel Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per DGG. Winterborn 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the references just aren't there, this was a flash in the pan.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not seem notable, and a single article as a source does not make it verifiable. Perhaps it warrants mention on the Something Awful article, but even in the grand scheme of things there it seems trivial. ContivityGoddess 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & Salt per above. /Blaxthos 00:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, failing that do not salt - This is one of a handful of events that highlight the metamorphisis of "news", how it is reported, and how it is manipulated or successfully fabricated as a result of the sudden availablity of widely accessed forums due to the advent of the internet. It's historically noteworthy, almost unique, and well worth referencing if attempting to describe the concept of how news or widely evidenced cultural trends can now be created rapidly and on demand, and should be availble for reference at wikipedia. Normalphil 05:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Users only contribs are too this afd and the Cyrus Farivar afd, which was linked from his blog. Savidan 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this incident "highlights the metamorphosis of 'news'", though, considering it was a failed three-day hoax that received no media attention whatsoever outside of this single Slate article. Toothing, which "greenlighting" was just an attempt to recreate the success of, is a much better example of news fabrication. Krimpet 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pare down heavily then merge to Toothing as a section (title it "Further impact" or "Attempt to duplicate" or something of that nature). Serpent's Choice 07:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting suggestion, but ultimately one that succumbs to most of the same problems as having a full article, I believe. Savidan 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think this is a really good idea - there is not a two source minimum, to my knowledge, for inclusion, and the Slate article would surely provide a reliable source for the addition to Toothing. Phil Sandifer 20:30, 6 February 2007 (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.