Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boredome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 7, 2005 01:57 (UTC)

[edit] Boredome

Seems to be a self promotion, non-notable ≈ jossi ≈ June 28, 2005 21:10 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable nonsense. Falcon June 28, 2005 21:48 (UTC)
  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:51 (UTC)
  • Keep Ian (who wrote the article) DID NOT start The Boredome. "Madcow" started the Boredome, and he was not the one who posted this article. Therefore, it is not self promotion. As well as that, many many people on Div-arena take The Boredome seriously, including the forum administrator - who has given it a seperate forum. Hell, it even has a .com. It is simply a form of art; saying its nonsence is like saying that Picasso was nonsence because the ears and the noses and the legs, etc, were all in the wrong place. If modern "art" can get an article - on a FAIR Wikipedia - so can this. User: N/A 29 June 2005 18:48 (UTC)
    • Anonymous vote by 86.131.42.26. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
  • Keep the article speaks about a specific form of art which is growing quite a following. If any old random comic has an article (which is usually does) then I think Boredome is most certainly a noteable mention. - Ferretgames 30 June 2005 05:28 (UTC)
  • Keep I wrote the article. I also have very little to do with Boredome. I didn't create it, I don't own the website, and I wasn't one of the few people who pioneered it. I only occasionally create Boredome art. I wrote the article because it's a fascinating genre of art that has had literally hundreds of contributions from dozens of people around the world, and which continues to grow. In addition, I was careful to abide by the rules governing articles on Wikipedia, including objectivity. - Ghotistix 30 June 2005 06:03 (UTC)
    • User has 10 edits, all Boredome-related. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems to be completely unknown outside the Div-arena forum and that's simply not notable enough. I think the art is amusing, but it needs to have some significance in a larger context to be encyclopedic. I also think the article is original research, since the references provide examples of the art, but they don't define it in the terms used in the article. Actually they don't define it at all, so I don't see how much of anything can be written about this subject without falling into the original research trap. Quale 30 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
  • weak Cleanup or BJAODN This article seems to be about some sort of variation to a forum game, but is probably too mutch related to one website. User: N/A
    • : Its actually going on three websites at the moment, possibly more.
    • : : I'm actually quite sure that it's more than three. What I ment was that the article was probably too mutch written about one website, but I'm not sure if that's a valid poind, hence it's a weak vote.
  • It'd be greatly appreciated if someone could explain to me what I've done wrong with writing this, perhaps so I can write better articles in the future. I've been using Wikipedia for a year and I have great respect for the guidelines governing articles. Boredome is a relatively obscure genre of art, but I'm sure a large quantity of Wikipedia articles have begun in the same way. And the subject is far from stagnant, considering the growing number of contributions and the approaching launch of a dedicated website for showcasing the art. It's especially frustrating to read so many votes for deletion citing original research and bias when I actually have very little to do with it, and also claims of its limit to one website while it has already spread to several. Ghotistix 3 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)
  • A good example of one of these more obscure topics that has grown since, is Post Rock.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.