Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/She Put

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. --Celestianpower ^háblame 15:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] She Put

Obvious hoax/joke --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• DON'T DELETE She-Put is most definitely not a hoax. It is a group of law students committed to radically reforming legal pedagogy as we know it. Why wouldn't Wikipedia want to be on the forefront of such a movement? KEEP THIS ENTRY -- DO NOT DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.165.68 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• DON'T DELETE She-Put is not a hoax. It doesn't even bear the hallmarks of a hoax: Hoaxes don't work by celebrating and embracing absurdity but, rather, by holding out the absurd as mundane. She Put as a hoax is about as effective as a parody of "Airplane!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.121 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• DON'T DELETE As for the allegedly "non-encyclopedic" nature of She-Put, query, what is the entire point of having a resource like Wikipedia? Wikipedia taps the collective knowledge of anybody who cares to participate, in order to assemble a comprehensive information source not subject to the limitations of traditional information markets. All law students currently involved in She-Put are augmenting the information base about the movement. The society running it is semi-secret, but it's activites are already public amongst law students. That publicity is currently local, but growing. What good reason is there for deleting this entry? Again, this cannot be a hoax - that just doesn't make sense - and what harm inheres in providing more information at virtually no cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.121 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• DON'T DELETE She-Put is categorically NOT a hoax. Rather, it is a very real organization of law students dedicated to its tenets and determined to ensure its success throughout future generations of law school students in search of an organization designed to provide meaning and substance to an otherwise banal law school career. As to its verifiability - members of She-Put have a First Amendment right to expressive association and the mere existence of the organization renders it inherently verifiable. The organization likewise has a First Amendment right to the freedom of speech, and the informative article currently under consideration for deletion on Wikipedia harmlessly describes this critically important organization using no offensive, untrue, or unencyclopedic descriptors. An encyclopedia serves to provide information about a wide range of topics, and this article merely provides information about this burgeoning and exciting law school movement. DO NOT DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.163.77 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• DON'T DELETE In fact, it is not. While it may be humorous, the group's work is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.163.170 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't know if it's a hoax, but secret societies are inherently unverifiable. Delete. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• It is "semi-secret." The group's activities have not yet been made public, but it is a burgeoning movement with widespread, if currently localized, support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.163.170 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-19 22:50:31 UTC
• Delete. If the group's presence is unverifiable by a third party, it is unencyclopedic. Wikiacc (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. What does 'semi-secret' mean anyways? You can talk about it but only VERY QUIETLY.  freshgavin^TALK   23:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• As 165.124.163.170 states above, there is no information available to the public from reliable sources. Delete. Uncle G 00:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 'Viral marketing campaign' indeed. Come back after your campaign is successful; don't try to wage it here. --Aquillion 02:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• DON'T DELETE The group's presence can be verified by doing a search on zazzle.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.161.48 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• DON'T DELETE The group currently has a board of directors, including a president, a marketing campaign director, and two community outreach chairs. The organization is legitimate, and the presence of this article is certainly not causing anyone harm. Pleae don't delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.166.70 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 October 2005

• delete - obvious vanity --Ixfd64 04:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This isn't vanity, it's a law student organization aimed at philanthropy. If we can have articles on Wing Commander Academy's cult following, why not on an organization with a good cause? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.121 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The anonymous user's rather desparate argument that "the presence of this article is certainly not causing anyone harm" seems to prove that this article isn't 'pedia material. Being "not harmful" is not a reason to allow an article to remain. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Whether or not being "not harmful," on its own, is insufficient reason to let the article stand, it doesn't "prove" that the article isn't sufficient for the "'pedia." It simply needs other justification. All you've done is argue against one justification, not all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.163.10 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Wikiacc. MCB 06:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, it's not a hoax. But delete as non-noatable vanity. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)
  • Comment for anonymous users: Thank you for posting your views. Unfortunitly, your votes cannot be counted. This is not anything against you personally, it is just a policy we have to prevent ballot stuffing. Also, see the Meatpuppet policy.
  • Comment for User:24.148.60.121: Please not not edit comments posted by other IPs. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any basis here for suggesting that users are "meatpuppeting." That seems unnecessarily antagonistic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.162.102 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting anyone was meatpuppeting. I was just pointing it out in case anyone thought that if they signed up for an account their vote would be worth more than if it were posted anonymously. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Come on, when there are seven separate votes from the same IP block at Northwestern University, that's pretty much classic meatpuppetry. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like my warning was ignored. Now there is definate meatpuppetry. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Can multiple people meatpuppet? It's the same BLOCK, Fish. It doesn't mean it's the same person. We're law students. We are at the school all the time, sharing a BLOCK. Capiche?

Have you read the Meatpuppet policy? - Dalbury 21:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I have. If there's confusion, they're treated as one user. What's the confusion, Samurai? TheBradSeed 03:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You asked, "Can multiple people meatpuppet?" That's the definition of "meatpuppet", i.e., when several people are posting in a way that looks like a sockpuppet. I can't tell whether there's one of you or several of you, so there is confusion. And please be careful how you address others in this forum. "Samurai" could be taken to be pejorative. Wikipedia:Civility - Dalbury 04:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That this might suggest meatpuppetry proves nothing. In fact, it makes sense given the local emergence of She-Put. TheBradSeed 17:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As befitting future lawyers, that is a very legalistic comment. :) --

Go NU Law!TheBradSeed 21:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

N-law! Viva She-Put! I must say, Alice, we have stumbled upon a dimension even stranger than law school. Would it help if we presented She-Put at DragonCon? ( ;) j/k) --24.148.60.121 22:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete anything that admits to being part of a viral marketing campaign. —Cryptic (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It employs a viral marketing campaign strategy within very specific confines--law schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.186.62 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, the viral marketing campaign is aimed at spreading popularity of the organization to other law schools, and the Wikipedia entry is simply not a part of that. Compare my prior comments on the necessity of this not being a hoax: any information source that mentions a viral marketing campaign is, by definition, not a part of any viral marketing campaign. Note finally that - if Wikipedians deleted everything that has been promoted at one point or another by a viral marketing campaign - this would require deletion of articles on many consumer products, e.g. likely everything made in the last 10 or 15 years by an apparel company with brand recognition, for starters. This would also include soft drinks and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.121 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is the proof that is viral marketing campain is notable? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - unverifiable. 81.109.242.195 14:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That you haven't succeed in proving to yourself that it's verified does not make it unverifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.235.251 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says it does. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. First, re claims that the no "no harm" argument is a desperater, it is not. It just highlights the fact that the article bears no substantial risk of providing "bad" information to Wiki readers. Moreover, its inclusion amongst several better arguments precludes desperater status; it's just thrown in there to make an additional, albeit weaker, point. Additionally, it just doesn't follow from the presence of even a terrible argument that no good argument exists. Weak arguments are often used to support strong conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.121 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Second, as to verifiability: When numerous people claim to have organized for a particular purpose, that they have is inescapable, unless of course they are lying. In this context, the only real reason that we would have to lie is to perpetrate a hoax and, as noted above, that just doesn't make sense, here. Thus, for the purposes of this article, our claims are self-verifying. We do admit, however, that there is a distinction between the goals of an organization and its actual effects; thus, if it would make other Wikipedians more comfortable as to the quality and accuracy of the article, we have no problem with removal of the segment on viral marketing specifically. That we intended to use such a campaign is one thing, whether or not it is substantial is another, and so we concede verifiability problems, there. Finally, we aren't trying to abuse Wikipedia but to add information to it. That something like She Put could be documented here is a testament to the advantages of this particular sort of information source. Let's not overstate Wikipedia's policies: much of the information included herein is not verifiable in the traditional sense, but references obscure phenomena, such as trends in the tastes of comic book aficionados etc. If the policies were as stringent as those used by traditional information sources, the benefits Wikipedia would be very attenuated. Rather, these policies aim at preventing the spread of "bad" information - certainly a worthy goal - but the content in the She Put article really doesn't pose a risk of spreading "bad" information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.121 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

See WP:V for Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability. If you can't meet the guidelines set here, you have no argument as to why this article should be kept. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. We have met the requisite criteria. It sounds like you are strictly interpreting the policy that "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher"; if that is truly the case, then about half of the material on here should be nixed. This may have been official policy at the inception, but is clearly not adhered to, at all. See, e.g., Doom for the wholly unsupported and unverifiable proposition that "The development of Doom was surrounded by much anticipation. The large number of posts in Internet newsgroups about Doom led to the SPISPOPD joke, to which a nod was given in the game in the form of a cheat code. In addition to news, rumors, and screenshots, unauthorized leaked alpha versions also circulated online. (Many years later these alpha versions were sanctioned by id Software because of historical interest; they reveal how the game progressed from its early design stages.)" This is only the first example that came to mind. It is a canon of construction that, if one interpretation of a rule leads to absurd results, that interpretation cannot be used. Likewise, if one possible meaning is systematically ignored for a long period of time, that also suggests that the interpretation is unworkable and not worthy of adopting. For instance, it is well accepted that - strictly speaking - it is unconstitutional for the federal government to print paper money. Because of the history of this practice, and the absurd results that would inhere in reverting to a strict interpretation, no commentators today seriosuly suggest that the practice is actually unconstitutional. Similarly, you are asserting a strict interpretation of the policy that is clearly not followed at all, and that nobody really takes seriously, here. --J-Bizzle 16:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that it's "truly unsupported and unverifiable"? Have you looked through all the references cited in article? Wikipedia does not contain academic articles where every claim needs to be cited, but all statements made in the articles should be verifiable somehow. The verifiability policy is enforced through edit corrections in the case of existing articles, or the AFD process for new ones. Additionally, just because a policy isn't always strictly enforced doesn't mean it should be ignored. For example, eBay prohibits the sale of counterfeit goods, but there are a large number of auctions for fake purses or bootleg DVDs. eBay relies on its users to police its auctions, just as Wikipedia relies on its users to police its articles. There are upwards of 800,000 articles on the site; editing/deleting the ones that violate policies takes time and effort, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable vanity. chowells 15:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete The group's philanthropic and sociopolitical efforts negate arguments that this amounts merely to vanity. The group is notable and its notariety is increasing. The direction of the change argues for inclusion. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). TheBradSeed 16:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC) User's first and only edit. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I have commented above. --J-Bizzle 16:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC) User's first and only edit. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Response: Does that really matter? Unlike traditional information sources, which focus on the qualifications of their editors - looking to traditional resume type indicia - Wikipedia is a place where an idea should stand on its own.--J-Bizzle 17:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does, because it reflects your knowledge of Wikipedia policies. If your only edits are in regards to this AFD nomination, it shows you know little about how things work here and why some articles are kept and others are deleted. Thus, your vote carries a lot less weight than say, an administrator, or someone who has thousands of edits and has weighed in on many AFD nominations. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I understand the need to police Wikipedia, but given the strength, seriousness, and sheer volume of the arguments below, query whether these voices are really worth silencing. Pages for deletion are typically jokes, vanity references to people's names, or a mess of sheer incoherence: nobody bothers to defend. We are vigorously defending She Put, not for vanity but to have good information about it available. As for verifiability, please see my comments below [now located above --hc] regarding the absurdity of an overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia policy.--J-Bizzle 17:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Strength" is in the eye of the beholder here. In terms of criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, the arguments your group members have made are not particularly strong, as evidenced by all the delete votes from experienced Wikipedia editors. "Volume" is also a non-issue, as Wikipedia is not a democracy and meatpuppets' votes are essentially ignored. Also, you seem to misunderstand "vanity" as used here; please see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines for what we mean by that term. Nobody here is arguing that your group is vain or unworthy of existence, only that it does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. If She Put becomes at one point a big enough movement that it transcends multiple law schools and has an influence on a large number of students, then it deserves an article. Also, please place your comments at the end, or directly below other items you're commenting on, not above the nomination itself. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - meandering is certainly the word for it. -- RHaworth 19:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't Delete! She-put is not a hoax, only those who fear what they don't understand would make such an uninformed accusation. Open your minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joysky (talk • contribs) 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC), user's first and only edit

• Delete. I fear nothing (except tigers, and I understand them). Tonywalton  | Talk 22:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia. - Dalbury 00:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN OR; Wikipedia is not a soapbox for sockpuppets. --Anetode 01:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As currently written, the article provides no way of verifying the content. Notice that nobody has yet identified what school this organization can be found at. If someone does, I will look for confirmation of the group's existence. --Metropolitan90 03:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. As pointed out by User:Howcheng, a number of anonymous votes were entered from an IP block at Northwestern University. - Dalbury 10:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. Nevertheless, I still haven't been able to find any independent proof of this group's existence at Northwestern (I don't think anonymous comments are "independent proof"), and student organizations that exist at only one school are generally non-notable anyway. --Metropolitan90 05:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A number of anonymous IP addresses at one school could also be the work of one student with access to public computer clusters and too much free time. I don't see that it constitutes proof. -Colin Kimbrell 15:09, 25 October 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.