Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accomplished Googlebombs

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 MERGE to Googlebomb. -Splash^talk 17:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accomplished Googlebombs

Delete: Original research, PoV, and (probably permanently) out-of-date. I should point out that I just moved this from Googlebomb. Andy Mabbett 00:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this page, merge content BACK into Googlebomb. If you don't like the content, edit it in the article instead of using this backdoor tactic. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, 'back door tactic' - this is a perfectly legitimate course of action. I note you also reverted its removal from the Googlebomb page. Andy Mabbett 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a strange new meaning of the word "legitimate" I wasn't previously aware of. You could have simply deleted the material; instead, your edit summary for the deletion from Google bomb read "Accomplished Googlebombs - move to own page)" Since you almost immediately put up that "own page" for deletion, it sure looked like a way to delete the section without raising suspicions. --Calton | Talk 12:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Suspicions of waht, exactly? Andy Mabbett 13:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Andy Mabbett's method was a fairly standard and perfectly acceptable way to break an article section out into a stand-alone article. That being said, "googlebomb" is not such a big article that it is bursting at the seams with material to be broken out in this way. BD2412 T 14:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Breaking an article section into a stand-alone article: fairly standard and perfectly acceptable. Article creator slapping an AfD tag 13 minutes after creating said article: uh uh. Did you miss the all-important second half of the process he actually did when you called it "fairly standard and perfectly acceptable"? --Calton | Talk 02:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Information has been domesticated. Dottore So 07:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Re-Merge per User:Calton, but I do think the list is a little too long. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Googlebomb] Zunaid 10:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge back, it seems strange to nominate an article for VfD that you created 13 minutes after creating it. Astrokey44 12:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Googlebomb. --Merovingian 13:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. This smacks of WP:POINT. ESkog | ^Talk 13:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• 

  

  SLAP!
  Speedy Delete this, and slap the nominator with a trout, he is an experienced editor who should know better. The place to discuss article content is not AfD but Talk:Google bomb. Pilatus 13:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes; I am an exepirenced editor - and I have experience of similar move-and-VfDs, without any of this fuss and failure to WP:AGF. I also know that this doesn't meet the requirements for a speedy. Andy Mabbett 13:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • • I have experience of similar move-and-VfDs: that you ween't caught before says nothing about the validity of the technique nor about its appropriateness here.
      • failure to WP:AGF: no reason to assume it. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, neither of which, I'll note, has ever had one single edit or comment by you. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Your comments are outrageous and unwararanted. "caught" doing what? Andy Mabbett 10:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
          • My comments are perfectly appropriate and completely warranted, your usual knee-jerk sputtering aside. And "caught", as I've said more than once, sneaking a wholesale deletion of text under the guise of a move. I'll note that there is no mention I can see about the text in question being too long before your unilateral decision that it was so, nor have you commented -- before OR since -- on the Talk page of the article. This is good faith? This is the work of an experienced editor? --Calton | Talk 05:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no consensus to break this out and no need to let this fester for longer here. Pilatus 14:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For the most part, these are not noteworthy. Any particularly noteworthy Googlebombs should be discussed in the Googlebomb article. --Carnildo 22:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Merge into original article. A bad faith nomination. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 06:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • On what grounds do you (wrongly) claim it's "bad faith"? (Also, please do not use deprecated HTML on Wikipedia). Andy Mabbett 10:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Easy, you attempted to circumvent the debate process in the original article by moving the content to a new article and immediately nominating it for AfD. That's bad faith, provably and undeniably. Also, please do not tell me what to do on Wikipedia, you are not in a position of authority here. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 11:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I have not tried to "circumvent" process, but to use it. There is no bad faith, and your comments are verging on being a personal attack. I have not tried to tell you what to do, I have asked you to stop doing something which bloats WP and shows a disregard for users with visual or other impairments. Andy Mabbett 11:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge back into the original article and discuss possible removal there. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have no particular reason to assume that this was a bad-faith nomination, but I do think it's not the most helpful way to deal with this issue, so I definitely think this should be merged back into Googlebomb and discussed on the talk page there. --OpenToppedBus - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|Talk to the driver]] 12:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

This Afd page has been entered as evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Evidence presented by Karmafist#Accomplished Googlebombs. Karmafist 03:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

The new article should either be kept, or deleted. Merging back into the main article should not be an option, because the article was over-long. Andy Mabbett 12:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This would be the case if there was a consensus that removing this information from the main article was the best way to tackle the length issue. As it is, there appears to be a consensus here that it should be merged back in: after that, a different method can be found to solve the length issue, such as splitting out a different section (if there's another one that could be split out), or simply editing the text down so that the same information is conveyed more concisely. However, the appropriate place to discuss such solutions is the article's talk page, not AfD. — Haeleth Talk 13:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure this out... let's say you have an article that is contains what you think is an extraneous section... it seems that one choice is to just edit the article and remove the section... but perhaps you're not sure that the section is extraneous... you want some more sets out eyes on it... wouldn't doing as nominator did -- removing section to a seperate article and putting it up for a 'vote' at AfD serve that purpose? Perhaps nominator was trying to more 'democratic' by using this method? That being said, if this is nominator's intent, then:

• Nominator need to explain what he is doing! Nominator's post at the beginning of this section is the first explanation that nominator has offered, belatedly. Suggest nominator explain in original nomination to avoid much mutual misunderstanding!
• Could nominator put Article#Section in AfD? And say "I'm going to delete this section, are people OK with that?" If this is proper, I'm pretty new so maybe that's not allowed.
• This would be faster than using Article:Talk. But one problem is, AfD is awfully long to wade thru as it is. So maybe using Article:Talk would be better. Herostratus 07:32, 18 November 2005 (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.