Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenlighting 2

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 no consensus keep. Suggest to merge into into Something Awful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greenlighting

Previous AfD vote was for Delete. Has been undeleted following a discussion on WP:DRV. DRV policy calls for undeleted items to be relisted on AFD. That was not done. Finishing the process. My vote is delete, nn forumcruft. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete after reviewing the other AfD I still think it is worth deleting... Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again: the article is a non-notable example of systematic bias towards internet users with too much time on their hands (ie, us). - squibix 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:Not indiscriminate collection, etc. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very intriguing story and hoax that was covered by Slate, so why would we want to delete this? -- JJay 00:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A small but interesting part of Internet history that is worth covering; if I heard about these events and came to Wikipedia looking for information on them, I'd want to find this article here. The Slate article provides verifiability and shows that it is not merely "forumcruft". –Sommers ^(Talk) 01:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Something Awful. Not worth an article. JoaoRicardo^talk 01:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unimportant. Unknown outside of a narrow circle. Unsuccessful hoax that was immediately recognized and fooled few. Before finalizing this vote, I am going to do a reality check: I am going to see whether this was ever mentioned in The New York Times. If it was, I'll change my vote. I don't know the result yet. This is my own reality check to make sure this was not much more notable than it seems to me. I'm not saying this should be a universal criterion, I'm not saying we should never mention things that weren't in the New York Times. But we don't need to have articles on everything that was in Slate. OK, here goes. Between 2000 and January 28, 2005, the word "greenlighting" has appeared five times in The New York Times. All of them were usages in the show business sense (project approval). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: See Jayson Blair for why the NY Times should not be viewed as an authority on reality. -- JJay 01:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  A lovely idea, but sadly inconsistent with the reality of writing an encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 08:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/delete We don't need an article for every little idea that some columnist mentions, especially an online columnist. Ashibaka tock 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete While it interesting, it is a hoax and, I have to admit, there's not much interest outside a small gorup of people --M@thwiz2020 02:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -Ikkyu2 02:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Just doesn't meet the standards of notability for one. One article in Slate does not make it notable. Cyde Weys 02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Did you mean keep? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 02:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Good thing it's not a website then. Phil Sandifer 05:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:WEB "gives some rough guidelines which Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content ... should have an article on Wikipedia." To me, that includes internet hoaxes. -- Dragonfiend 06:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per JoaoRicardo --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as barely notable. At the least, rename to Greenlighting hoax. Turnstep 03:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete By including in WP - there is a risk that a plainly unnotable event will gain substance. WP should be a record of fact not a creator of it--Porturology 03:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, based on the systematic bias and the fact that a WP article would significantly enhance the notability of a mostly unnotable event. Might merit brief discussion in Something Awful.--ragesoss 03:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep not a fan of hoax entries in general; needs to be labeled hoax to stay Amerigo 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, major coverage, renaming is reasonable. Also because I oppose repeatedly AfDing until you get the result you want, and the needless and antagonistic uses of "nn" and "xcruft." Phil Sandifer 05:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean?! It was deleted the first time! - squibix(talk) 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, the Slate article just barely establishes notability.
• Keep and rename, per Turnstep. Wisco 06:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Jcuk 08:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, Strong merge to whatever-the-name-of-the-forum-is. Probably means something to somebody. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Turnstep. Batmanand 10:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Should clearly be labelled Hoax to keep it from the dictionary name. Charles Merriam 10:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Requires a name-change but is otherwise fine by me. Kusonaga 10:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per JoaoRicardo - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 12:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Greenlighting hoax. --King of All the Franks 12:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable hoax, or merge to Something Awful. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. all the external links are to "greenlighter.org" obviously a non-third party source. plus the wikipedia self-references. plus two previous afd delete vote decisions where the majority of users in both cases voted to delete it. Greenlighting hoax gets only 105 unique google hits [1] -- Astrokey44|talk 14:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable hoax. Merge into Something Awful. As far as I can tell, it isn't now, nor ever was even mentioned there. Add it to that article, and if it gets too large to fit there, then split it to its own article. Peyna 15:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Something Awful Obli (Talk) 16:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. -WAZAAAA 16:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. not notable. Arbustoo 21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Harmless. Lack of notability is not a sufficient criterion for deletion. SP-KP 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I move that this vote be discounted because lack of notability is actually a significant criterion for deletion. --Cyde Weys 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. Wikipedia:Notability keeps us from being an indiscriminate collection of information, and this information is indiscriminate. Ashibaka tock 01:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "I move that this vote be discounted" ... ??? AfD is not a voting process. I guess the two of you probably aren't aware that there are very different views on the use of notability in AfD debates; not everyone subscribes to the view that non-notability is a sufficient basis for deletion. Wikipedia:Notability is neither policy nor guideline; it's opinion. SP-KP 01:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is, however, a handy portmanteau term for describing whether an article is or is not likely to be verifiable from reliable sources, and whether or not it constitutes "indiscriminate" per WP:NOT. In this case the sources appear to be: the hoaxer, and: the hoaxer. Not quite what I would understand as reliable ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know?^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Are you claiming that Slate is not a reliable source? Or that the hoax was perpetrated by Slate? Please clarify. -- JJay 13:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Slate is owned by the Evil Empire, they are minions of Stan and nothing they say can be believed :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. You know, I hear all the time that AFD is not a voting process, but have yet to see any evidence that it's true. -R. fiend 05:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete But to give R. fiend faith, let me be clear: this is just my recommendation as to what to do with this article; certainly not a vote. Eusebeus 07:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, three-day SA wonder. Pilatus 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to the article on the forum. Not an event worthy of an article by itself. Thryduulf 15:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Still stupid, still not notable, just because SA engages in something doesn't make it notable either. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Turnstep. --Caponer 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Cyrus Farivar. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:DRV must be pulling verdicts out of a hat again. --Agamemnon2 10:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I brought this article to DRV because of concerns about the process. After reviewing the content, I agree with Dpbsmith. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Sleepyhead 11:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not noteable. —akghetto ^talk 09:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Liberatore(T) 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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.