Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NYUHome Dinosaur

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. --Coredesat 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NYUHome Dinosaur

NYUHome Dinosaur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Prod was rejected, so now it is in AfD... Seems to be on an "Easter Egg" on the the school's website. On closer inspection it is not really a hidden egg, ONLY A PICTURE that comes up from time to time. The article cites no sources, and therefore does not meet any notability criteria under WP:WEB, nor is it verifiable. If we could get published references there might be a slim chance of keeping it, but otherwise this should go. Also fails Google Test... Danski14 07:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Completely non-notable: no sources, no independent coverage. --N Shar 07:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An image that randomly pops up on a Web site, no matter how many people join its Facebook group, is not encyclopedic. Caknuck 07:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A random image in a non-notable website.Has no notability whatsoever. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not and unlikely to ever be the subject of multiple independent reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's been noted in NYU's campus paper, Washington Square News and seems to have a loyal following at NYU BrotherSulayman12:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - mention in campus newspaper does not satisfy criteria #1 in WP:WEB. It isn't even a clever Easter egg with unique encyclopedic value - just a cute picture on the website. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. --Noetic Sage 14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Washington Square News and seems to have a loyal following at NYU snoops12:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.253.229 (talk • contribs).

• Comment Is this meant to be a vote? And please login and sign with 4 tildes rather than hard coding a user name (which we have no way of knowing if is really yours) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Since most of you have voted, the article has been cited by a local newspaper. Furthermore, it was deemed noteworthy enough to get the front-page spread. Erikdidriksen 03:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment : did you even read WP:WEB??. Sources related to the subject of the article do not count. Furthermore, there is a violation of WP:SELF here as the article talks about the wikipedia article itself. The wiki article, was a probably a stimulus for this "craze" among NYU students. I put craze in quotes because the article does not actually explain the importance of the subject, or the relative size of the facebook group to similar groups or the student body as a whole (not that facebook size in an indication of importance anyways)). Danski14 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment : Yes, I have read it; and in no way is the NYU tech department, a group of computer professionals, dependent or directly connected to the staff of the Washington Square News. That'd be like saying a journalist investigating Wal-Mart is connected to them because they frequently shop there -- the tech people who brought about the dinosaur's existence have merely created a service that NYU students (and, by association, the WSP staff) use. I can't say much regarding the inclusion of Wikipedia article; however, I can assure you its inclusion on Wikipedia had little to no effect on the spread of the 'craze;' that anyone is aware that it is on Wikipedia is a direct result of direct linking from the Facebook group, which is the start of much of the hype. Finally, what reasoning do you use for not having the "importance of the subject" directly given in the article? It is something that has captured the imagination and interest of students across one of the largest universities in America; how is this any less relevant than, say, another article in the In-jokes category? Erikdidriksen 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, 'nuff said. ~MDD4696 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with some other NYU related article. While it might not seem totally relevant to everyone, NYU is the nation's largest private University and this is on par with the other In-Jokes as a previous poster stated. This happens a lot when an article has an eye-catching name for those who patrol the newly created pages and is more relevant than a completely irrelevant article with an innocuous name. JesseRafe 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't have a problem with a merge, although I don't know where it can be merged. I looked over the NYU main page, and the page is already seems very list-heavy on "jargon", "trivia", and "traditions". Therefore, I would like to propose that we create a page "NYU traditions" or "Student life and culture at NYU", (simliar to Student life and culture at MIT). This is just a suggestion... I'm not sure how much should be merged into any new article. Obviously you would want to keep the most notable traditions on the main page... so it might not be a good idea right now. Danski14 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Its just one (of many) images that randomly appear on one (of thousands) of NYU-related web pages. The fact the campus paper wrote a cute little story about it (recursively citing the wiki page) doesn't establish notability even for mention in a different article. It is much too trivial and ephemeral. I bet fewer than 50 students would even know what it is come Monday. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thats exactly the way I feel. I just thought I might have been a little too hard on it before... but I still hold it is non-notable. Danski14 03:51, 18 February 2007 (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.