Talk:The Frosties Kid/AfD discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The Afd is IMPORTANT TO THIS PAGE Although it was concluded without decision it is essential to what we write in this article.

Please read all the comments:



Contents

[edit] 3 lines is nice

I think the current article is nice, small, and readable. I doubt there is anything more to really say about this. --mboverload@ 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. wikipediatrix 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's retarded. And anyone who think a three line article is worthy to sustain a page in WP should have their heads checked. WP is not a repository for three-lined articles, three lines don't even make an article. Wake up and smell the crappucino. This article should either be re-written with the original corrrect information added into detail for a proper article or deleted. I woudl vote for this article to be deleted because it doesn't inform the reader/viewer of anything, nor does it stand well as an article. Piecraft 00:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The way it is right now is fine. It should be left like this. Bababoum 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Article

I have left a revised article in the sand box Article Sandbox. Its slightly different to what has been put forward before. Please add your own versions of how you would like to see the article look and we can merge the best and sourcable parts together. 3 lines might be good but its unlikely to enlighten anybody. Mike33 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your article Mike33, I think it should go up and put the image as well on to the article. Whoeevr keeps banging on that it's copy vio needs to read up on their copyright law. Good work Mike33. Piecraft 00:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

lol, we shouldn't even HAVE an article on this topic. 3 lines is nice and clear, there is 0 more to be said. --mboverload@ 00:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Either have Mike33's article in place instead or this will go up to AfD, because as it is now is pointless, not useful at all. People are better off finding more information from the NME boards. Piecraft 00:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official proposal

Talk:The_Frosties_Kid/Archive_2 How's it taste? --mboverload@ 00:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is still pointless, it isn't explaining anythin gother than a "vague" semblance to the actor and the ad. The fact that the article is titled The Frosties Kid implies people will search WP for an article relating to the phenomenon and kid starring in the ad. Information such as: "It's Gonna Taste Great" owes its tune to Ian Dury and The Blockheads "I'm Gonna Be Straight" [1]. is unneccessary. And the ad is not called The Frosties Kid or It's Gonna Taste Great - this proves my point further, the article is not neccessary until further information is uncovered and decent content added in. Piecraft 02:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Then add it into the proposal. This is a wiki, where anyone can edit. --mboverload@ 03:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I like the proposed version. It gives a decent summary of the facts and offers external links to other aspects, like the controversy. GassyGuy 05:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's go with Mikes proposed version. Seems to be more for it than against it, plus me thinks the current one is simply too brief! --Jum4 07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The two versions to choose from:

To make it much easier I have split them.

I'm partial to mboverload's. It's nice, small, and gets the job done. Lets not provide an incomplete summary of the advertisement, the external site does it WAY WAY better than we ever could. --mboverload@ 10:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're partial to your own version of the article. But it still bears no significance to the actual subject. You people need to start sorting this out because even of the AfD comes out positive I don't see the progression of this article going anywhere. And if it wasn't me someone else would have put it up for AfD soon enough. This article is pointless, unless you provide proper content relating tot he character/lead actor. Otherwise make a new article relating to the ad itself. Piecraft 11:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an informal and non-binding poll, it is simply to gauge opinions as they stand now.

[edit] Mike33's version SUPPORT

We can till tweak it but I belie it's a better foundation --Jum4 11:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mboverload's version SUPPORT

Support if the article survives AfD. My article was too big and gave sources outside of WIKI who could expand on the topic.
As per AfD - I am an Idealist and see every topic having value, as long as it can be shown to exist. Realists who troll controversial sites, pick arguments for the sake of it. This AfD is not about notability (which it definately is NOTABLE) but about whether The Frosties Kid is the advert or an Urban Legend.

Mike33 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a realist so sue me, but this is not about idealism or realism. I was if anything supportive of this article. But the entire article is a mess and it seems editors have their wires crossed about what the article's intent is supposed to be. Any person coming on here will make up their own wrongful assumptions from this travesty of an article. I put it up for deletion due to the current state that it is - it is NOT an article and it does not explain the subject. Piecraft 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STOP REVERTING UNTIL AFD IS OVER

Please stop reverting and changing the article until the AfD has finished, otherwise you are basically manipulating the article which is not in accordance to the regulations of Articles for Deletion. Piecraft 23:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

this is getting pointless --Jum4 23:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Piecraft, you don't know how AfD works. You are free to fix the article under AfD. --mboverload@ 00:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do know how AfD works, please go over the rules yourself. Of course you change the article, but the fact that people are reverting and changing it constantly puts the article back where it started, in an ugly revert/edit war. That is why I suggested to hold it. Piecraft 09:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the your point mboverload@ The AfD was written when the page had suddenly been recreated from a version none of us had agreed upon. It changed the media from conception as a page about the kid into the advert. It annoyed editors to the extent that the Title page was renamed. During an AfD those mighty, mighty tigers who do look on AfDs just get bogged down with revisions. The AfD was posted on the grounds that Realist editors prefer an article to represent its immediate position, whether or not it is justifiable. The Frosties Kid is the Frosties Kid a source of speculation, gossip, death rumours, who exists living or not outside of the advertisment. That position goes against everything that Wikipedia is about. On the AfD I moved to the Delete position on the grounds that 3 lines is useless and adding unsourced material is foolish. During this AfD the article should stay as three lines. Mike33 11:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeekers

This is so silly that I really could not bother waisting my time on this. Basically an artice about an advert is pointless and has no place in wikipedia. An article about our good friend the forsties kid is what merits an article. So delete it merge it burn it dance on it couldn't give a tinkers hoot. I am now going to register frostieskid.com, write the fcuk what I want and aint nobody gonna stop me. laters, im off back to real world and my beer --Jum4 23:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

you'll be back... Piecraft 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
never!! --Jum4 23:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What does Jeekers mean? anyway, my article was only ever a suggestion. It seemed sensible at the time to propose it as a way of avoiding impossible demands about sourcing which can never be fullfilled. The last Frosties kid article was deleted on 7th July and this one opened on the 8th july. Twenty days (albeit 7 days in Gehenna) is not bad. The AfD is not about its WP:Notability but whether or not it is about the kid himself or the advert. Taking the Idealist position would say that the kid does not exist without the advert. (You can go silly too and suggest that the advert does not exist without Television, Electricity, Frosted Flakes, Maize Sugar, God - so lets merge it with all of those.) Being sensible would suggest that we leave the article with Wikipediatrix' 3 lines. It doesn't give any enlightenment - I could write those three lines in St Annes Church and nobody would notice. Anyway, Its Gonna Taste Great! Mike33 07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Frosties_Kid_AfD_discussion_02d1.html"