Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshzilla
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 03:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Moshzilla
Non-notable, could be merged into Internet phenomenon. Merge and delete. --WikiFan04Talk 12:18, 18 Jul 2005 (CDT)
Merge anddelete as above. KeithD 17:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)- Keep, I do think this both adequately notable and encyclopaedic jamesgibbon 17:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Keep in mind that merge and delete is an incompatible vote which will be discounted. Thus, I say delete. If we want something from this for Internet phenomenon, then someone should add it now and let the conversation ensue there. Certainly non-encyclopedic on its own (summary: a picture floated around several sites and was named "moshzilla", followed by people being told to take it down by the photographee's parents) -Harmil 18:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Harmil. Jaxl 19:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Internet phenomenon and redirect, not worthy of its own article but I see no problem with a redirect, since "Moshzilla" seems to be a reasonably recognizable name for it. Dcarrano 23:34, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not everything that happens on the internet is a phenomenon. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. chocolateboy 02:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete transient notability at best. JamesBurns 08:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's been photoshopped a lot, e.g. ([1]). ArcTheLad 17:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. And how does a lot of photoshopping and a mention on LiveJournal give it notability? --WikiFan04Talk 17:21, 19 Jul 2005 (CDT)
- Quoting from ([2]), "Within a few weeks, the photos had spread to multiple message boards, some of which were attracting a quarter of a million hits." According to Wikipedia's policy on importance: "An article is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if any one of the following holds true: 1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject." I don't know how you can defend the position that it isn't a well-known meme. There are probably more than 500 photoshopped images, and, of course, many more people that are interested in it. The people voting delete do not seem to be familiar with the phenomenon and appear to be basing their votes only on the content of the Wikipedia article. ArcTheLad 23:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- "The people voting delete do not seem to be familiar with the phenomenon..." Really? I thought many people were interested in it! Surely our fellow Wikipedians should know about it. I did. Before listing this article on VfD. "There are probably more than 500 photoshopped images..." Probably? How can you know? Is this like the "tourist guy"? Show me where I can see these 500+ photoshopped images. In fact, I'm going to make more than 1,000 photoshoppings of myself in the next week, and make an article about the photoshoppings, because, you know, there's 1,000 photoshoppings of a picture of me. --WikiFan04Talk 4:02, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT)
- Quoting from ([2]), "Within a few weeks, the photos had spread to multiple message boards, some of which were attracting a quarter of a million hits." According to Wikipedia's policy on importance: "An article is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if any one of the following holds true: 1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject." I don't know how you can defend the position that it isn't a well-known meme. There are probably more than 500 photoshopped images, and, of course, many more people that are interested in it. The people voting delete do not seem to be familiar with the phenomenon and appear to be basing their votes only on the content of the Wikipedia article. ArcTheLad 23:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete For internet phenomena, the Google bar is higher, because the internet is presumably the major source of notability. This thing gets 9,800 Google hits, which is fairly low as these things go. Xoloz 04:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. As if a moment's entertainment for a few internet users is really something that needs to be recorded for posterity in an encyclopedia. Indrian 17:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Merge into Internet phenomenon, does not deserve a full article, has had a small impact on a relatively small amount of people. [[User:Rtconner]Rtconner]]
- Delete non-notable and not very kind to the girl in question either. Samboy 06:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Internet phenomenon and redirect Dunemaire 14:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. If the vote goes against deletion, then at least merge and redirect. It doesn't need its own article. Chuck 19:47, 2 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
