Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Somar

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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Somar

Joe Somar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable. Only achievement seems to be answering questions absurdly at the end of an episode of People's Court. —Perceval 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn internet celebrity, only 256 ghits outside of myspace. MER-C 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The original article even called him a "minor internet celebrity". --Calton | Talk 07:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Salt as it has been four times before. Danny Lilithborne 23:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete please. Too many 1-day-youtube-etc-"celebs" these days.. 00:49, 8 December 2006 84.133.168.103
• Delete per above, and add plenty of salt per Danny. Ohconfucius 05:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE What is you guys' problem with this entry existing? Some kind of bandwidth shortage? Why are you eager (and embittered it would seem, based on the tone of the above comments) to delete so many articles? Who are you people who give a crap so dang much, and what puts you in a position of any authority anyway? I quarrel with the motivation and the execution of the new Wikipedia deletion surge. If Wikipedia isn't a suitable place to record and explain these passing pop culture phenomena, then where is? This guy's clip has appeared on several national TV shows, many many many people saw it, his existence is a curiosity of a much higher magnitude than many other subjects who have somehow found their way into the hallowed halls of Wikipedialand. All this lingo of "salt" is nothing if not mean-spirited and elitist. To deny the public the right to write about this (or any subject) -ever-again- reeks of a betrayal of what this thing is supposed to be about - a democratic submission policy about collecting knowledge - in all its pros and cons messy splendor. That a Wikipedia cabal has been deputized to delete and ban the submission of certain subjects (and that anyone would applaud the act) seems to serve little purpose, and certainly not a democratic one.24.199.84.215 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nonsense. Wikipedia is not many of the things you say it is, particularly not a democracy, which is explicitly listed in WP:NOT. And to constantly recreate the article despite it being deleted four times is a violation of what Wikipedia is all about. Get off your high horse and learn a bit about process. Danny Lilithborne 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Calm down, friend. Before you throw stones, get off of your own high horse and realize that the aspects most people -in-the-real-world- value about Wikipedia are its thoroughness and democratic ideals. Democratic ideals are not the same thing as "a democracy", by the way, I -never- said that Wikipedia is a democracy. I seriously doubt you would stake your argument on a claim that democratic ideas are not central to Wikipedia. I think that you folks who eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia are losin' it, seriously. I mean, read the comments above, these comments are borderline hateful and bitter. Why are you wasting your lives, folks? There are actual -important- and positive things to do in the world. Reveling in the censorship and removal of other's Wikipedia entries is not an important or valuable use of your time or energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.84.215 (talk • contribs) 20:09, December 8, 2006

• Given your original rant above, with its hyperbolic talk of conspiracies and evil intentions, telling someone responding to it to calm down is a bit rich, as is your misuse of the word "censorship". If he -- or, I suspect, really, you -- want the attention of a Wikipedia article, he (or you) will have to earn it. Showing up on People's Court isn't it. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Dude, I am not Joe Somar, and my "rant" above is 100% right on. You Wikipedia people are nutty little nerds, it's hilarious how much you guys shit your little pants whenever anybody disagrees with your groupthink mentality. I've read a bunch of these discussion pages, you folks don't address complaints or dissenting views, you just insult anyone who disagrees - as if these minor league barbs you throw manage to put all questions to rest. Friend - you aren't that clever or funny, sure as heck haven't changed my mind. The basics are still out there, awaiting a reasonable response - A) why do you think you're qualified to censor what info goes up on this thing, and B) even if you were qualified, what's the justification for bothering with this messy ugly process?
    
    If you want to have a constructive debate, please explain your argument further than stating it as if it were self evident. Beyond that - again - please explain why it's A) become such a priority to delete so much and so speedily, and B) where the checks and balances are in your deletion policy in order to guard against bias. There is a definite slippery slope to worry about here when you're relying on the odd birds who eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia to also be the arbiters of notoriety and relevance. Kindly explain why this collection of oddly motivated volunteers make up the ideal group to decide what is or isn't important information to share with the world. Seems pretty shoddy and arbitrary. More importantly of all - if the deletion process is so shoddy and arbitrary, and ripe for abuse and misuse, then wouldn't the drawbacks of instituting the policy outweigh the goals? 24.199.84.215 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you recommending that Articles for Deletion debates should be conducted by people who aren't Wikipedians? How would that work? Wouldn't anyone participating in an AfD debate by definition be a Wikipedian? Who else would be qualified and willing to judge the worthiness of articles, and how would such a person not qualify as a Wikipedian?

As for the article in question, you don't seem to have addressed any of the guidelines in WP:BIO. You accuse the AfD process of being "shoddy and arbitrary", but you seem to be the one whose comments are not grounded in some sort of logic or policy. Perhaps if you focused on defending the article, you would be able to convince others with your reasoning. I'm kinda on the fence about this one, and maybe if you actually explained yourself I could be convinced to see your side. --Maxamegalon2000 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please don't feed the anonymous attention seeking trolls whose votes don't even count anyway ^_^. Danny Lilithborne 01:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• deleteThere are people who tend to feel certain ways, but anyone can join in, as I have. There is a certain level of content below which a separate article is more confusing than helpful. One comment in one episode is about as low a level as possible. it could well go in the main article, and a web search would findthe name in WP. DGG 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge fact to People's Court as trivia. Bearly541 05:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Let's avoid adding to trivia sections. MER-C 06:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• deleteThere are people who tend to feel certain ways, but anyone can join in, as I have. There is a certain level of content below which a separate article is more confusing than helpful. One comment in one episode is about as low a level as possible. it could well go in the main article, and a web search would findthe name in WP.DGG 01:27, 11 December 2006 (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.