Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Wenzel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 DELETE. There is, I think, a single countable keeper. -Splashtalk 01:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie_Wenzel

Originally I thought this was an attack page, so I went and tracked down the links. Unfortunately the authoritative sites listed require a login. I think that makes it somewhat unverifiable-ish. Kim Bruning 04:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Comment Could someone please sort the voting below into sockpuppets and non? Ashibaka (tock) 03:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT I'm a big thief and a liar, but I'm never gonna Wenzel anyone again now that I know what can happen. Thanks to Pirate 4x4 for scaring me straight. This just proves that the free market can solve all its own problems without government intervention. --Barry
  • KEEP IT If the term wenzeled becomes a popular internet word (such as lol or owned), then it would be beneficial to have an entry about how it came into being. The 'wenzeled' phenomena could prove to be useful to the world of academia and helps us understand how the use of language in society can be altered by the internet, especially to the fields of sociology and linguistics. ~James
  • Delete nn underground Internet celebrity. Ashibaka (tock) 05:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT It Only requires registration due to it's popularity

    they did not require log in until 900,000 plus people had viewed the threads. and that number is still climbing... we are at 925,576 as of this posting.

    to give you an idea... Alexa has some impressive stats on the matter

    • 120 out of every million pages viewed on the internet in the last 3 days are Pirate4x4.com
    • Pirate4x4 is currently #5,219 most popular site on the net... that doesn't sound high until you remember that there are roughly 46,500,000 sites on the internet.
give it a few days till google spiders all the pages linking to that thread and all the pages talking about charlie wenzel(this one included) and it's going to be pretty obvious how big this thing is.

really that is irrelevant as the actual thread does nothing to illustrate Mr. Wenzel's fame... the other sites do that quite well.

I see no reason why anyone would even suggest to delete this page, it is not an attack page.

If need be i can copy out some of it and re-post it here... or to verify you can register(it is free)

there was an attack page add4ed to the wikionary as "to wenzel" and it was rightfully deleted, however i created the charlie wenzel wikipedia entry specifically as a documentation of the phenomenon and charlies involvement not as an attack.

others who have contributed have even deleted the couple attacks(his reported steroid use) that did exist.

this is now the second attempt to delete it... how many times do we need to go through this?

as for Ashibaka's silly assertion that it is a no name internet celeb... remember that the thread only got publicized outside of its home forum on Friday... in 72 hours the thread had 900,000 views... not too shabby... tell me of anyone else that went from "nobody" to 900,000 viewers, hundreds of sites and multiple t-shirts and bumper stickers and bonafide slang terms in such a short time and i will agree that Mr. Wenzel is no big deal.

this is no different then the Flying Spaghetti Monster in that it started as a joke but caught on.

This should definitely stay

Todrick 06:45:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • keep Registration was only added as a means to stem the MASSIVE amounts of traffic that pirate4x4 was receiving from all over the globe. 900,000 views in just a few days is an internet sensation of ridiculous proportions. This should definitely stay as a testament to the event that happened. I see nothing defamatory about the wikipedia post, all it states is fact. -xenoturkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.61.224 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-15 06:49:24 UTC
  • Keep It.

    In addition to the above stated facts, this entry also shows that individuals that one would consider luddites to be more internet savvy than previously given credit for. . . This alone makes this instances rather unique. Individuals that normally we chuckle at for having raised 4x4's and lowered IQ's, 'owned' a nineteen yrld kid who should have known better!

    And it should also be noted that these hits were generated in such a short amount of time without the help of 'normal' media outlets and that this phenonemum also show the dynamic nature of the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.215.191 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-15 08:00:42 UTC

  • Keep It. This term isn't going to disappear. It is already too big. It has become a signature tune for the detection and 'education' of all internet scammers of which there are already too many. Sooner or later the term WILL become household slang and kids are going to be on here searching for the answer. Why deny them that knowledge? Paul
  • Wenzel this and Delete. Dottore So 11:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - I'll have forgotten him tomorrow. --MacRusgail 13:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: non-notable and non-interesting ephemeral phenomenon. - squibix 14:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Turnstep 14:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This should stay, at least for the time being. If the term catches on, or people are still talking about this in a month, then it has more than earned it's keep. If in a month's time one can't new material posted which references 'To Wenzel,' then indeed it was just a blip on the radar. However, I don't think that's going to be the case.
  • Speedy delete. Possibly slander. A juvenile vendetta over a $25 dispute that threatens to disclose street address, telephone number, and other highly personal information. Durova 17:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as attack page. The rampant sockpuppetry here and the begging notice at the bottom of the article earn it two more black marks. — Haeleth Talk 17:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. BD2412 T 17:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • ... and send all sockpuppets to Wiki-Hell! BD2412 T 14:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment - RE: Haeleth "as attack page." i see no attack anywhere on the page. "The rampant sockpuppetry here"... where? i obviously edit this thing more than anyone else and make no attempt to hide that.
"and the begging notice at the bottom of the article" that is there because it was already nominated for speedy delete... however it violates none of wiklipedia rules to justify a speedy delete.... i can understand you thinking its no big deal... that is why i said wait a few days to see how big it is on google... also there is now an internet scam prevention and awareness site named wenzeled.com... this is a term that will stick... but since "to wenzel" was already deleted from the dictionary due to what i originaly thought was attacks(something i have gone out of my way to prevent here) i made this factual non attacking page... I do wonder now if it was simpyl deleted becasue users here were not framiliar with the term... i understand that it is a new term.

to Durova: i was not even a member of pirate4x4 until i found out about this event so i have no reason to want to attack Charlie. I make no threat to disclose any of charlie's information... in fact i don't think that act was right, but since the term "to wenzel" was deleted from the dictionary it became obvious that you all needed the entire story in order to understand the meaning of the term... so i provided the story... nothing more, nothing less.

if any of you want to read the original thread to verify that everything stated is factual... why not just use bugmenot... that's right... because you have no interest in finding out about things you don't know.

since I appear to be the only one who wants to discuss this. Here is an expert of the wikipedia page on notability:

Obscure content isn't harmful Wikipedia is not paper and (theoretically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.

Deletion reform is necessary A policy of "delete if and only if the article is not verifiable in a reliable source" would make it far easier to decide borderline cases and would turn AfD into a more constructive process, which would make articles Wikipedia more reliable by adding references where possible. The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable.

to all those calling for Speedy Delete we have already been down that road and this article passes with flying colors any criteria for speedy deletion
Todrick 18:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep

-As for this: Speedy delete. Possibly slander. A juvenile vendetta over a $25 dispute that threatens to disclose street address, telephone number, and other highly personal information. Durova 17:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) NONE of the information released on Pirate4X4, with the exception of perhaps his yearbook photo, was private information. It was all gathered through postings Charlie made freely and of his own accord to other sites - EVEN the part about banking info. If Charlie did NOT want that information public, he should not have posted it in the first place. This is just another reason why the article should stay - it shows not only the flamewar that can start due to dishonesty (which in reality, matters very little) but the very REAL repercussions of handing out personal information and photos willy-nilly.
-- As for Slander - all of the information posted on Wikipedia is verifiable, most of it simply by reading the threads, and the rest by visiting the linked sites. The origional post for $100 has been saved since the begining by Pirate4X4, and Charlie himself owned up to the fact that the parts were actually used. Therefore, though statements made on the forums are certainly bound to contain some exageration and slander, this Wikipedia entry, which simply discusses the documented events, does not.
-- As a side note, Charlie had the option of preventing his public information from being given out by appoligizing and releasing the tracking number of the shipment he claimed to have made. He was prompted to comply by releasing one digit at a time, but instead he chose to continue with his previous course of behavior.

  • Keep: notable, encyclopedic ➥the Epopt 22:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There are already enough flash-in-the-pan jokes here. Jasmol 22:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Godawful article, completely non-notable incident too that no one will remember next year - or tomorrow, for that matter. And extra points for the most hideous sockpuppetry I've seen in recent times. --Wwwwolf 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment i know it's bad form to keep replying, but tell me Wwwwwolf, where is the sockpuppetry?... I see none, I do see a few Wenzelites who don't know the procedures here(i was one until yesterday). I would also love for someone to explain to me why this is non-notable. If you are using the google test then I understand that you don't realize that this JUST happened and google takes a little bit of time to spider pages. I'm assuming you are basing the NN statement on your opinion... but opinions don't count here... an encyclopedia has no opinions. So lets look at the facts we have. It passes the Alexa test with flying colors... The spike is undeniable

that aside... why, if it is non-notable, should it be deleted? Wikipedia's own documentation states(as i posted above) that non-notable is no grounds for deletion if the information is verifiable and non-POV... interest in the subject will determine how many page views the article gets and thus it's inclusion, if it is in fact... fact, has no impact on wikipedia if it is non-notable.... which, of coarse, I have just shown(through Alexa) is not the case anyway. Todrick 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • COMMENT I have noticed that everyone calling for deletion seems to be making assumptions, Slander, attack, non-notable, joke, private forum.... I would suggest that anyone who has an opinion on this, either for or against do a bit of research. I am going to modify the article a bit to reflect the private forum issue. Also... what was the reason for this articles nomination... thew original post said she "Originaly though it was an attack page" then she continues with the asumption that it is a unverifiable because of free registration that was only added do to the amazing amount of traffic... nevermind the listr of sites at the bottom discussing Charlies actions. It does not qualify as violating Verifiability and is clearly not an attack but a documentation of actual events. So what was the reason?

Todrick 02:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Oops... looks like Google is starting to find it... and look at that, there is even a link to the Urban Dictionary for the term "Wenzeled".... yes there are some links to non-related sites, but with 5 days before this deletion proposal gets decided... I think this article is going to be sticking around.

Todrick 04:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: The first two pages of a Google search on 'Charlie Wenzel' are in reference to HIM and this event! Come on, keep it. --Sean
  • This is bigger then Star Wars Kid, this needs to stay!!! -Lugburz
  • comment The original thread just passed 1,000,000 views(1,003,511 to be exact) ... I would most certainly call that notable

Todrick 19:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Okay, here's a few thoughts for the article-keep-vote supporters. The real reason people want the thing dead is that the article regards a rather new "internet phenomenon", and the article is pretty awful and in dire need of cleanup and style improvement. Further, it's pushing a neologism - people don't like neologisms too much unless they have been around and there's actual evidence of their use (and no, UrbanDictionary.com doesn't count as evidence, or so I've seen). So unless you gain something other than "underground" fame, or get people organised to fix the article really well, I don't think people will take this article seriously at all. Here's a really big issue, for example. And looks to me the grassroots notability isn't very much established either, not really. Of course we would like to have the article, but the thing is, is this "net phenomenon" really going to be as big as allyerbase? There's no article for this guy either, and he was "bigger than the Star Wars kid" a few years ago, the was picked up by respectable (?) IT media like Slashdot and The Register... and now few people even remember him. In conclusion: Is this thing really important, will it ever become really big? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment thanks wolf, just wanted to hear someone lay it out like that. I claim full responsibility for th earticle being laid out badly, and would greatly appreciate others fix it as needed(and no don't just leave it blank like has happened already) I think one hting that will add to the staying power her eis the Scam awareness database being built at wenzeled.com, what i really see happeneing is this gets deleted (because the 5 day window is not long enough for google to catch all the pages and also too short for wenzeled.com to get off the ground), so it gets deleted and down the road, a year or so, people will add an entry to the wikitionary for "wenzeled" but i for one wont be putting in the time to rebuild this page. Todrick 02:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but remember if this gets deleted, you may add a reference to the wenzeled.com site to external links of some other appropriate article, and if there's some article that covers related incidents, it may be worth of mentioning there. It may just be that this isn't ever going to be big enough thing to get an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep It This is absolutely priceless. At no time should anyone be allowed to act in the manner that Charlie Wenzel did on the web. A lesson earned is a lesson learned. Mad Cat Omni
Keep It This is a good demonstration of how vulnerable anyone is on the internet, and how we should all be honest and courteous in how we act towards each other. CTG 17:50, 17 November 2005
Keep it!! As far as I know being a member of ar15.com, what was written is totally true and a good example of what could happen to scamers!

  • Keep: definitely a phenomenon judging by the scale of views, a cautionary tale on the dangers of swindling and very, VERY funny.
  • comment Here's a really big issue, for example. And looks to me the grassroots notability isn't very much established either, not really.--wwwwolf
    • Wwwolf, it appears to me that 2 of your 3 links now say otherwise . . . as to 'sockpuppetry' run amuck here, that is probably the fault of my wife and I to some degree, since we are new to 'Wikipedia' and I would like to offer our sincere apologies for not following or understanding proper protocals and etiquette in this discussion. There really are TWO people at this IP address. Really. Sean & Jill
      • Erm, for the sake of clarity, please don't copy old comments over. And no, the two latter searches don't particularly disagree. Google Blog Search gives six hits. Technorati gives nine. Those are not big numbers. Those are small numbers. Everyone and their monkey has a weblog these days and tend to write about weirdnesses in the web; if only nine people bother commenting about this even briefly, it's not really all that widespread. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[b] Keep it [/b- If such entries as googly eyes can exist, then I see not why this cannot.

  • comment wwwwolf... you need to be more focused on your search... charlie wenzel is known because of the term wenzeled... google thatand you get a much better representation of the reach... also you are still ignoring the alexa spike that shows the reach of this item... and that doesnt even count the second hand tales... it seems obvious that "wenzeled" is the new "pwn3d" Todrick 08:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, but remember what I said about people not liking neologisms? If this article gets nuked, by all means, try creating a "wenzeled" article again in a couple of months if you can find more than 300-some occurences of the word (which, in my opinion, isn't really evidence of particularly widespread use of the term. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete : Nonsense and not notable as per squibix. Manik Raina 16:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a not-notable lame forum dispute (over $25!) that, while it's currently 'making the rounds' on forums and blogs, is highly unlikely to be widely remembered even a month from now, much less a decade or century. This could also be said to be unverifiable, as well as possible Speedy delete material as an attack page and/or A7/NN-Bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There seems to be one or two users who are attempting to dominate this VfD (and possibly edit-spam the whole thing to make it harder to sort out), but I am highly unimpressed by both the article, which is borderline slanderous, and the notability of the subject, which has not yet been established as far as the eye can see. --TexasDex 01:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • TOAST. Non-notable attack page that deals with ONE action on ONE webpage. --Martin Osterman 03:23, 22 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.