Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No-boo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

    • Tally:
    • Delete (20) — Gamaliel, SWAdair, Geogre, Triskaideka, Terrapin, DJ Clayworth, Jayjg, Hadal, Bkonrad, Bcorr, Neutrality, Bobdoe, RickK, Spatch, Dpbsmith, Lacrimosus, Wolfman, andrewa, Gwalla, Chriscf.
    • Keep (2) — Fish-man, Rex071404 (conditional)
    • Neutral (0)

Delete. POV, copyvio, etc. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic coverage of a non-story. SWAdair | Talk 10:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: More political campaigning in the pages of Wikipedia. Geogre 13:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Do not delete: Actual story, reference is given to AP, all verifiable, part of zeitgeist, no POV as is telegraphic. Perhaps remove word 'albeit'
  • Do not delete: What is wrong with catching the AP and Boston Globe publishing a false story? Eye witnesses and video tape prove there was no booing. Can't the liberals take the truth? Are they all mind numbed followers of Michael Moore?
  • Delete. This is either a neologism or a news story, and Wikipedia is not the right place for either of them. Whether or not the story is true, accurate, and/or well-referenced is irrelevant to the fact that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Triskaideka 15:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Were they booing or just saying "boo-urns!!"? BOOING! ;-) Terrapin 15:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If we added an article for every mistake made by a news agency we'd have to start a whole new Wiki. Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: What Wikipedia is not: "A news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories. But of course creating encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea. See current events for some examples. (However, the Wiki process lends itself to collaborative, up-to-the-minute construction of current events of historical significance, as long as these are written as encyclopedia articles.)" -Seems like this is an item 'in the news'. It is a neologism in that it is a 'new word' - but that actually isn't listed in the 'what wikipedia is not' page, and it is certainly being referred to as the 'No-boo' affair on the web. And it does not simply document an error. It documents a clear falsification by AP, a 'trusted' news source. Fish-man (I am also one of the above anonymous-dudes, and the creator of the entry.)
    • Would you care to note which one of the "anonymous-dudes" you were? -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 17:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The first one.
    • VfD pages aren't the place for protracted arguing, so I've posted my lengthy response at User talk:Fish-man. Here I'll merely note that this vote by a brand-new username carries the same weight as an anonymous vote according to the page I linked above. —Triskaideka 18:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Jayjg 17:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I hope against hope that this sort of partisan piffle will subside after the election. -- Hadal 18:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonencyclopedic. older≠wiser 18:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonencyclopedic. BCorr|Брайен 18:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, based upon both the uselessness and incoherence of this article as well as the general tin hattery on the user's talk page. Also of note is the ridiculous title. "No-boo"? It sounds like one of those Japanese killer robots. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 21:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I am pleased to be cited by tinhattery by someone as <insert poper adjective here> as Bobdoe esp in a subject where there is clear evidence of a cabal.  :) blessings to you Bob, and may you get everything you wish for in life in spades!  :) --Fish-man 03:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: I thought No-boo was the planet Jar Jar Binks came from. — Gwalla | Talk 16:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense, hasn't even made it to the national consciousness, not an encyclopedic article, POV. RickK 21:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fold into Media Bias TDC 21:38, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree. No indication of any such thing. RickK 22:13, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • I do not follow? TDC 22:19, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • No indication in the article that there was any media bias. RickK 22:46, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Notable? Please. 10 years from now, and I'm being completely generous with that figure, nobody's going to care one whit about the reporting, mistaken or not, of booing at a single campaign rally.. Delete. Spatch 21:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if event is as described in the article it has no historical or even journalistic importance. By the way, I listened to the audio and my take on it is that I could not tell whether or not there was booing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. All news agencies make mistakes; nothing about this mistake suggests that it deserves a lengthy article, or indeed any article at all. —No-One Jones (m) 22:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with better name or fold into media bias [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 22:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Lacrimosus 02:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. a reporter mistook ooh's for boo's and corrected it when the mistake was pointed out; why is that noteworthy? if you feel this was a noteworthy example of bias or carelessness or whatever, then use it in a broader article as an example of that issue. Wolfman 02:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Electioneering. A summary could usefully be added to the media bias article as an example, but it's not worthy of a redirect. Andrewa 06:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable slip-up. — Gwalla | Talk 16:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • D Shit happens. Wikipedia is not Denis Norden. Delete. Chris 00:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/t/Wikipedia%7EVotes_for_deletion_No-boo_6653.html"