Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Spoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Spoo

Article is still a featured article.

This article does not meet several FA criteria, mainly that it is not representative of our best work and it has insufficient references, same as Goomba. The article is basically a few paragraphs describing Spoos in TV, and a few paragraphs about Spoo usuage in the fan community. Almost all references are from websites. Some are about particular TV episodes that are self-linked to Wikipedia, and others are a collection of usenet and email message posts, neither of which are published works, regardless of who wrote the messages. Other refernces all point to websites which do not list where they get the information, therefore no sources are verifiable, even though they may be true. Temporary account 01:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP naturally. It is one of the most stable Featured articles we have and solidly meets the various criteria. Comprehensiveness is not an issue here - indeed, this is the single most comprehensive treatise on this subject that you will find anywhere, period.

As for the quality of the references, they are all relevant to the subject, a fictional food from a fictional tv show. The usenet post linked from Wikisource is actual canon, as the show's creator, executive producer, and writer of 90% of the epic, wrote those words. Further references go towards the evolution of both the word and the fictional creature, both inside and out of the fictional universe. Usenet posts by J. Michael Straczynski are verifiable and legit - please read Internet marketing and fan influence on Babylon 5, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, J. Michael Straczynski, and The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5. The JMSNews.com archive of his usenet posts is officially sanctioned by Straczynski, and the legitamacy of the google archives is without doubt.

It's an obscure subject, yeah, but all subjects deserving an article also deserve a featured article, even really obscure minutae like this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• You are telling me to read a wikipedia article that links to the same site I am objecting above? When does the citation and source standard hit this low? Give me a break. Temporary account 01:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just for clarity, you are objecting that statements made by Straczynski were done on the internet? (Versus, a paper book, or an academic conference?) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I guess I am pretty old-schooled regarding sources and stuff. Either give me PDF from respected journals or citations of published works. I have been writing term papers, research paper, and other serious no bullshit stuff for a long time, and what I learned is that internet doesn't count as proper source. In another words, I try to be as academically rigorous as possible. If you want lower your standards, fine. Temporary account 02:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[refactor]

• If you wish to be rigorous then see for yourself that the records are accurate and verifiable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• How does Spoo compare to Goomba? Goomba's got paper sources, and I favor removal because the article's subpar. Samething here. Come on, you've got to admit even if this is a FA, it's at the bottom. Temporary account 02:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sources need to be verifiable, not just paper (there are paper sources in Spoo, BTW). To accuse a resource of unverifiability and then not bothering to back it up is a diservice, to say the least. Finally, I have no opinion on Goomba - I do know that Spoo is one damn good article (evil Media subject or not), and, I say this with utter confidence, is the single most complete, comprehensive, referenced and well written article on this subject to be found anywhere. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Whoa hoho, congratulations. My point is that if I favor removal for Goomba, I gotta reject Spoo too. I wouldn't want to be biased of course. Temporary account 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. This is getting awfully close to WP:POINT. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Spoo and Goomba and Bulbasaur???? [Personal attacks and incivility removed] We have so many terrible articles on important subjects (check out Amazon rainforest, recycling, or any article on the AID), and we spend time arguing about Spoo? That being said, I see no reason to remove this article. I wouldn't worry too much about the quality of the sources. If anyone in academia tried to do a serious work on spoo, I'm not sure anyone would read it, let alone actually try to track down the sources.PDXblazers 06:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove I find the fact that most of the references rely on usenet postings unsettling. Does the series have some other book sources or technical journals published? I know Star Wars and Star Trek have tons of that kind of stuff. And is "Lurker's Guide" in any way affiliated with the production company or whatnots? If not then at most it's just a fansite. BlueShirts 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Its really not that difficult: Spoo Creator J. Michael Straczynski wrote "such and such" about Spoo. "Such and such" is archived at this and this website. "Such and such" is mentioned in the article, with a footnote explaining from where and when this statement came, linking to this and this website. Not only are the references valid, they are relevant and authoritative. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Content-wise, this is an example of what an article on a fictional element should be. It is light on the plot-summary filler and heavy on the real-world and fictional analysis. The creator's use of usenet posts are well-documented. So, if authenticated, how do they differ from an interview or production notes? [1] [2] --maclean25 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove For now. I am ambivilant about the sources, however I do not like that nothing is quoted, it is merely linked. Since none of this is verifyable, it should be relayed with a lot more direct quotes from the sources, rtather than the one that is there currently. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• When writing an article about a character in a book, do you just quote vast sections from the book, or do you describe the character and reference the book? When you say "I do not like that nothing is quoted" you are just plain wrong (read the article: there are quotes). And then you make an utterly preposterous statement: "Since none of this is verifyable..." None of it? So there is no book by Frank Zappa, no B5 cookbook published in England, no Babylon 5 television series, no statements from Straczynski archived anywhere? Gee wiz, did I make this entire thing up? If so, then my prowess as a fiction writer is massively underappreciated. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do, particularly if the subject is completley made up in the first place. I don't quote vast sections of any text, you are misinterpreting me. I have said that the one quote you have listed is unsufficient for a make-believe subject. I still hold that the article is poorly written and unencyclopaedic. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Well referenced from ultimate authority on the subject, the creator, and meets all FAC criteria... it is a somewhat obscure topic, that is not and should not be a bar from being a featured article. Judgesurreal777 06:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep You cannot compare raw numbers of references and expect quality in all articles. Spoo, for example, will have less potential references than Babylon 5 as Babylon 5 can use every ref for Spoo AND others. Spoo uses every ref listed wonderfully, and while the article is short, it is definetly the definitive source on spoo. Staxringold 08:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Remove for now. Get some better sources then Usenet postings, anyone can spoof an email address. I agree that obscurity should not be a bar from FA status, but lack of proper ref's most definately is. -Mask Talk 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• 1) JMS has been posting to USENET etc since 1985. 2) The JMSNews.com archive is oficially sanctioned by JMS. 3) The USENET posts are official resources for much of Babylon 5's back story. You simply cannot get more proper than this. Indeed, to not use the USENET posts by JMS (who, again, created Spoo) would gut the article, and much of Babylon 5's backstory. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Simply put then, find more authoritative sources. Instead of the usenet posts, is there a book about the backstory of Babylon5 that has these posts in them? If so, use that. If the article ends up gutted, well, then you simply dont have enough factual sources for a featured article. -M^ask 20:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, the willfull ignorance in all these statements is astounding. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Mind explaining that one a bit? Preferrably in a way that doesn't lead me to cite WP:NPA. -M^ask 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh... J. Michael Straczynski created Babylon 5, and therein, Spoo. He wrote 91 of the 110 episodes, some of the canon comics and short stories, and the outlines to the canon novels. Warner Bros owns the B5 rights, but he controls the story. He wrote about B5, both the production and backstory, extensively, online. See Internet_marketing_and_fan_influence_on_Babylon_5. Straczynski created Spoo, and when he writes about it, it is official. Furthermore, Google Groups' Usenet archive is verifiable and notable, and the JMSNews.com archive of his Usenet and Internet posts is officially sanctioned by him. To ignore the resources provided because Straczynski officially wrote backstory online years ahead of the curve instead of doing it in a magazine or a book or an interview is to willfully ignore both the verifiable evidence and the official resources. Willful ignorance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all of the above, but I will take exception to the fact that USENET posts are verifiable and notable. Notable, yes, verifiable, with some research into them. As I have said, it's easy to spoof an email address. Some research is required to verify it, and as such, falls under original research. To use an example, look at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion article. They're a hoax, and if you researched it, you could prove it were a hoax. But we can only report on others, not what we do ourselves. Therefore, we link to and source from others who proved they were a hoax. Same here. In a medium that is easy to fake, we can not inherently trust it, and can not verify it ourselves. An outside source such as a book or fan magazine who verified the posts are easily enough to prove they're real. So I ask you: Whats so hard to do about finding one of these? As I understand it, B5 has a large fan base much the same as Star Trek does. Theres even an official magazine out there. Simply source to the appropriate issue of that, or a book. Hell, I'm sture the guy has provided interviews with an outside media source. As it stands now, the article is NOT properly sourced. -M^ask 17:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per ALoan. --Allen3 ^talk 17:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ALoan and Gustafson - JMS' posts are archived from a moderated newsgroup, and have been extensively verified as being from him over time. There is no problem with the sourcing, especially to those familiar with Babylon 5 and its history. TheRealFennShysa 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per everyone sane. This looks like another ride of the "Reference Riders." RyanGerbil10 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per Gustafson and ALoan. Trying to assert that it requires original research to verify that Straczynski actually posted on this usenet group, when he's publicly stated that he has, is one of the more ridiculous things I've read today. The Disco King 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. While the subject is (perhaps) not the most note-worthy of subjects, the article meets all FA standards. I should also mention that some of our best featured articles have been about subjects that traditional encyclopedias have ignored (with my favorite obscure FA being Dogpatch USA).--Alabamaboy 00:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, how does Dogpatch compare to Spoo? I think the former beats latter in terms of FA. I still don't think Spoo meets rule #1 though. If somebody is looking for FAs that represent the Best of the best of a million articles, and finds Spoo, what do you think he will react? I don't doubt that this article is the best about spoo, but it's not the best of wiki. Some of the better FAs(in terms of subject and...etc) are getting taken off the list because they lack inline citations or other technicalities, and we're keeping spoo? Why Babylon 5 is not promoted, but Spoo was is totally beyond me, are we trying to make fun of the system (wiki)? Temporary account 02:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not the fault of this article if other quality articles are removed from FA status because they lack inline citations or other technicalities. All that means is that the editors of those other articles should get off their butts and insert the dang citations. In short, this article meets the FA requirements and that is all that matters.--Alabamaboy 13:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • See that's the problem. When dealing with fancruft, the goal is to just pass the requirements and get a star, and then argue that the article is good because it conforms to the rules and that's all that matters. You see, to me the phrase "that's all that matters" really stinks to the high heavens. Are you here at FAC to write the best articles on wiki, or just to pass the requirements (which are lax) and get a FA status and feel yourself to it? Sorry, I know it sounds harsh, but that's the most figurative yet accurate way I can put it. Anyways. Temporary account 18:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: A discussion about policy and procedure has been moved to the talk page.

• Keep per others voting keep. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In my assessment, the arguments against the article's featured status are wholly without merit. For the record, I've never seen this television series. —David Levy 16:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks plenty well referenced to me. Well written, too. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 02:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)