Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghyslain Raza

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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 15:43, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghyslain Raza

And again, is there continuous evidence of a systemic bias towards internet memes and other articles of general interest to males in their late teens and early twenties on Wikipedia? Which is it; is Wikipedia here to serve as a "real encyclopedia" or a resource for internet memes and sci-fi fanboy arguments? No vote. GRider\talk 20:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, really not notable--nixie 22:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (interesting and notable), and comment: systematic bias is not an argument to delete something, but to add something. --grmwnr 22:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This did achieve notability, deservedly or not, and was very widely reported. It was one of the first cases of its kind, and the litigation aspect adds to the notability. It belongs on Wikipedia on the same basis as All your base are belong to us or Mahir Cagri. -- Curps 22:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, widely reported. Thue | talk 22:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I question whether anyone will remember this name in 100, 50, or even 10 years. Sad testament to WP's systemic bias toward anything connected to Star Wars/Trek by even the thinnest of strands. I have a rare vintage 12" IG-88, where's my article, hmm? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll go along with keeping this. I believe we have articles on much smaller internet phenomena, including flamewars. No one will remember his name in 10 years, but then again no one knows the name of half the people we have articles for. We've gotten to the point where anyone involved in some slightly noteworthy project now has his own page, even if he's a nonentity. I wouldn't be surprised if we had an article on the guy who invented the mechanical pencil. Can anyone name him? Anyway, this guy is more often known, I believe, as the "Star Wars Kid", so maybe the article shoud be moved there. -R. fiend 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and didn't someone start a fund drive to buy the kid an ipod, as payment for his humiliation? That should be mentioned. -R. fiend 00:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Star Wars Kid is actually a redirect to this article, as it should be. — Gwalla | Talk 02:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I remember reading articles about this in the past.
  • Delete --Spinboy 08:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - as internet phenomena go, this one is really rather small. The consequences of the court case may make it into legislation which could make it notable - or the suit could get thrown out. Radiant! 09:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepXpendersx 16:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Made the news internationally. — Gwalla | Talk 02:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Half the reason I come to wikipedia is to learn the details of issues and phenomena that I can't learn anywhere else. If we start deleting things out of snobbery ("Eugh, this isn't IMPORTANT enough for MY encyclopedia") we'll lose a lot of what makes wikipedia so unique and invaluable. —Rafe
    • Unless you want to be banned, please don't attempt to apply reason and logic while in the presence of Wikipedia deletionists. RaD Man (talk) 12:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but with some changes I don't mind if you want to do an ‘encyclopaedic’ description like “that’s the guy how was in a big internet phenomenon”, but thinks like “here the list of amateur video remake” are thinks that as no place in wikipedia. Ok to keep nice and clean encyclopaedic descriptions, but ‘Access Hollywood’ like articles: No thanks!
  • Extreme keep, obviously. Notable meme. People not remembering this in 10-15 years does not make it less notable. Memories fade and people forget things all the time. Trivial or not, the only way to preserve information is to document it. It's the possibility of being able to search and find this information 10-15 years from now is that is important, and Wikipedia should be the resource where people can conduct such a search. If you remove the documentation, only then is it forgotten. RaD Man (talk) 12:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- иAIяBRIAN0918  16:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiNews and delete from Wikipedia. This is a human-interest current event, not an encyclopedia topic. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not really a current event anymore; the article didn't make that clear. I have added additional information to the article to establish the timeframe (2003). Note also the external links to New York Times and the CBS News video (the latter from November 2003, five months later... the kid got quite a bit more than the customary "15 minutes" of fame). -- Curps 23:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-03-7 23:19 Z
  • Keep: The thing that sets Wikipedia apart from bog-standard off-the-shelf encyclopaedias is its up-to-date info on things that a normal encyclopaedia can't afford to document. This article does have some importance as one of the earliest Internet phenomenons, but the fact that it has bloomed into something worthy of discussion is reason enough to have it. Fads only get forgotten because no-one keeps records of them: Wikipedia has accepted pages about far lesser known fads, because deep down we know that if you don't know what something is, Wikipedia will more than likely have the answer.
    • Above comment by 80.58.2.236 (talk • contribs) -- Curps 20:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this got a metric shitload of press at the time so is highly verifiable - David Gerard 16:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - carolaman
  • Keep- To base an article on if the person will be remembered years from now is dumb. Half the people listed people have never heard of. Saopaulo1Saopaulo1 01:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep-This was an extremely well-known phenomenon which holds an important place in the history of "net culture" as an example of an ordinary individual attaining celebrity status (wanted or not) through peer-to-peer file sharing.Jay Champagne 04:38, 11 Mar 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.