Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning Shithead Festival

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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. —Xezbeth 19:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burning Shithead Festival

Delete. This "Burning Shithead Festival" is 100% made up. Run a Google search and you'll see that all of the results can be traced back to this article. –MementoVivere 11:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems to be legit though no activity since 2004 -- see the archive. Keep the article.--csloat 11:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The archived website that you linked to reeks strongly of irony. Even if this "festival" actually happened, the fact that a Google search of "Burning Shithead Festival" "Joshua Tree" turns up 35 results, all of which are mirrors of the original Wikipedia article, makes this not notable at the very least. –MementoVivere 11:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I say Keep this article. There's a reference to it in the Burning Man article. Scott Gall 11:12, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • The problem with this line of reasoning is that the original author of the Burning Shithead Festival article, Commodore Sloat, also added the reference in the Burning Man Festival article. –MementoVivere 11:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Me and my friends did something similar from 1992 to 1997. I can still remember it. It was when we played Nirvana songs while burning effigies of our parents. I can also remember burning the Romanian flag one year and almost being thrown in jail for it. These things bring back memories. (And believe me, Nirvana songs sound quite funny if translated into Romanian.) NazismIsntCool 11:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS: We called it "Burning Dolls" - I seem to have forgotten how to put it in Romanian.
    • I don't see what you and your friends doing something similar to the Burning Man Festival in Romania between 1992 and 1997 has to do with whether or not this article should exist. –MementoVivere 11:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the point is that such parodies are not unusual. Looking through the archived pages it was around for at least 4 years as a parody of Burning Man; I think that is notable. Also it is mentioned on other pages -- like this. When I was involved with a website called nofuncharlie we sponsored this festival and there was a story about it on our website. It was quite funny, and apparently got some feedback from burning man people (there was something on the website for it). The festival definitely exists (or existed). It's true that copies of wikipedia come up most on google but that just shows how pervasive wikipedia is, IMHO. I think this is a legitimate parody and should not be deleted. --csloat 12:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! - Just because this site is down now doesn't mean that it wasn't real for a long time. I should know, I hosted it. I own the domain and will put the site up again when time allows. I have been to every Burning Shithead Festival that ever existed. If you don't believe it's real, come to the Best Western Inn and Gardens in Twenty Nine Palms California over Labor Day and see what happens there... shithead is indeed burned... This isn't even a parody of burning man, it is real!... NoFunCharlie
    • The above actually from 63.201.67.93; it was his first edit. —Korath (Talk) 14:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable, possible hoax. And once the POV is stripped away there won't be anything left of the article anyway. --Angr/comhrá 13:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! - This event is real, recurring and unique. To quote Rodney Shead "Can't we all just burn some shithead and then get along?" How long has WikiPedia been around? Since 1997 like BurningShitHead I wonder? I bet I could look that up....unless the article was deleted. Right, that's my point, keep the article. --Jumboslice 13:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable, sock-supported. —Korath (Talk) 14:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no sock puppet. I contacted the user who owned the burningshithead.com website specifically to inform him about this discussion -- that is why a new user came to vote. I can say for sure he is not a sock.--csloat 19:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Korath. Radiant_* 15:19, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete out of pure spite, b/c I was never invited. -- 8^D gab 16:16, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • LOL! BD, come on out this way once the weather cools off! We all really need to have a "West Coast Wikipedia Boogie Blast Blowout!" - Lucky 6.9 22:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable parody of Burning man —Wahoofive | Talk 16:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. --InShaneee 16:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable at best, hoax at worst. Johntex 16:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete For so very many reasons. --Lee Hunter 17:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as absolute, sock-supported, burning you-know-what. Not worthy of BJAODN, either. I live and work in this region. Furthermore, I'm in the media here. If it's happening in the desert, I know about it. This ain't happening. - Lucky 6.9 18:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What constitutes "happening" in your estimation? According to archive.org, the website for the festival goes back 5 years. And here is a link to a press release from 2001 about it (from when the nofuncharlie site sponsored the festival). There is also a mention of it still on the web here in addition to the other pages mentioned above. This may not be a huge deal, but it is a legitimate entry. --csloat 19:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact these sites tell me zilch about this event is what I consider to be "happening." I took your opinion under consideration and checked the links you posted. An impromtu gathering on public land isn't encyclopedic, isn't notable and barely verifiable if it's verifiable at all. I see press releases every day. The local papers do a good job of covering local events, even the esoteric ones. It wouldn't be hard to remember something called the "Burning Shithead Festival." I stand by my vote and my opinion. - Lucky 6.9 22:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible hoax, certainly non-notable. Rje 21:00, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable CDC (talk) 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Not notable. No credible third party references. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, possible hoax, sockpuppetcruft. RickK 21:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on Lucky 6.9's reasoning. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; also agree with Lucky; I've lived in southern Cal most of my life, and I've never heard of this. And how would you get permits to do that in Joshua Tree? In the summer? LOL. There's a lot more flammable stuff out there than just shitheads. Come on, really now. Antandrus 01:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand most people want to delete and that's fine if it's not notable but how can you guys say it's a hoax? Are you saying somebody hacked archive.org? Are you saying someone (presumably me) created the burningshithead pages in the year 2000 in order to play a trick on wikipedia 5 years down the road? That's a pretty elaborate hoax. And I'm not sockpuppetting (sockpuppeteering?) either, as a simple look at my IP will tell you. This is a legitimate parody of burning man, even though it may not be notable in wikipedia. --csloat 02:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Why couldn't it have been a hoax in 2000, just as it's a hoax now? RickK 04:19, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Did you look at the archive.org pages? If it was a hoax, it was one that was maintained and updated for four years.--csloat 05:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Some hoaxes, pranks and frauds have been maintained for decades. Delete, probably hoax, small-scale personal "festival" at best. We do not list every house party, for example (or at least they are usually deleted when the participants try to add them). - Skysmith 07:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • That's an awfully long time to be involved in a hoax with no apparent goal other than tricking wikipedia (which didn't exist when the hoax began). Interesting theory.--csloat 18:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Who ever said the hoax's initial aim was to trick Wikipedia? Piltdown Man was created a long time ago, and it was surely a hoax. RickK 18:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
              • LOL... fair enough, but if it's a hoax of that magnitude it probably belongs in wikipedia, like Piltdown Man. I guess I just don't see what the goal of an elaborate hoax like this would be.--csloat 21:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • I believe that we've made it quite clear that we don't consider this to be a hoax, so much as a satirical website created as a joke. I disagree with your implicit assertion that having the website up for four years means that it is a "hoax" of significant magnitude, not to mention of the same magnitude as the Piltdown Man. As I have mentioned before, there is not a single reference to "Burning Shithead Festival" "Joshua Tree" (other than mirrors of the article under consideration) to be found in a Google search. –MementoVivere 09:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • Again, fair enough; I was just responding to those who have been calling this a hoax. I agree that this festival is satire; when I originally put the page up it said this was created as a parody of burning man, and I think it is fair to say it is satirical. Whether it is notable enough to include here is another question, but it is not a hoax or a sock puppet as many claimed here.--csloat 09:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not-notable, unverifiable. Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability in an encyclopedic sense not established. Jonathunder 04:42, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not demonstrated. Megan1967 05:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, smells suspiciously of a fake parody of the much more well-known Burning Man Festival. Most of the results link back here, heck, Google's even crawled this VfD page! And I have yet to see a photo of what it is they (supposedly?) burn--a cardboard turd? A wooden man with a turd on his head? A man holding a turd kind of like the Cho Aniki mascot? I'm curious, but it has NO PART in Wikipedia. Master Thief Garrett 09:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • According to the archive.org pages (poke around and read), what is burned is cereal. When does a parody become a fake parody? Aren't all parodies "fake" in some sense? --csloat 10:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, our good friend the Wayback Machine! Well, I don't really know. Burning cereal sounds a bit naff to me. I could grab a couple of inebriated friends, burn (object here), eventually recruit more and more friends for future years, set up a website about it, and say it is an important part of Wikipedia. Now maybe that's a bit exaggerated, and I'm not intending to offend anyone by saying that, but, really, where do we draw the line?
There's surely a difference between "big-budget movie parodying famous thing" and "group of friends creating mock parody of famous thing that becomes popular an as excuse to have a night of crazy partying", isn't there? I know *I* don't have the answers... Master Thief Garrett 10:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.