Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimob

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, the cited quotes act to make this article a disparagement of its subject, plus self-reference and several other good points raised below. A good-faith request for userfication may be honoured provided that references to specific editors and conversations are excised. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimob

Wikimob (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Was marked for speedy delete, but probably deserves fuller discussion here. This seems too self-referential and unencyclopedic to me. NawlinWiki 03:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I thought of nominating this myself, because it seems to be more an essay about Wikipedia politics than an article about an actual subject. I think it's therefore probably original research that fails to cite reliable sources (one of the sources is a Wikipedia talk page, and the other seems similarly unreliable from its name - but I couldn't get it to load, so someone who can should take a look.) I think a small portion of this could be an essay in user or possibly wikipedia space, but it's not an article for article space. --TheOtherBob 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, neologism, fails to cite sources. 32 unique G hits. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as self-referential, neologism and original research. I was able to load the second source, but it doesn't justify the existence of this article. I would have no objection to a speedy delete.-gadfium 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy as essay on WP itself. --N Shar 03:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

N Shar are you suggesting this entry would be ok on a user page but not as an article?--Janusvulcan 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On a userpage where you can work on it more and then post it as a WP essay. CyberAnth 05:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Userfy - the article has a point, often mentioned inside and outside of WP, and would make a fine WP essay. CyberAnth 05:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Userfy as a WP essay. --Candy-Panda 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think avoid self-reference applies here, but I see no problem in user space... Wintermut3 08:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not encyclopedic. --Philippe Beaudette 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or, alternatively Userfy, under WP:ASR, WP:V, WP:NEO, and WP:NOR.-- danntm ^T _C 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy as noted above; as it is, it's lacking in reliable sources and is far too self-referential to be an article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - needs to gain a LOT more traction before being included in WP. WP:ASR, WP:NEO, and WP:NOR --JJLatWiki 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete before I have to call the Don. The Don doesn't like original research. — coelacan talk — 21:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment A call to the don coelacan talk? That is an admission to a wikimob or a bad joke. If it is a joke, wikipedia has no place for that. Try myspace. If the referance to Don is code to a mob than my article is warranted. Either way Coelacan's vote should be striked. --Janusvulcan 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Janusvulcan, I may be misinterpreting sarcasm here, but frankly, a little light-hearted humor isn't out of line every once and a while, it's just when it gets in the way of making an encyclopedia or is done in leiu of productive work that it becomes an issue. In addition, votes are virtually never 'stricken' in AfD discussions, they may be discounted when determining consensus (IE an administrator ignoring 10 "me too!" or "delete per nom." 'votes' when determining the real results of a debate) but are generally not removed. Also, I beleive that Coelacan was simply attempting sarcasm, while it's not always the best thing for consensus-building, please try to understand the comment in context. Wintermut3 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wintermut3 your comment real made me think “Could I be missing a sense of humor.” So I began almost three hours ago to familiarize myself with Coelacan. To see if this users sense of humor was misunderstood by me. I spent time in his discussion page, user page, user contributions to articles and talk pages, looking at the other users who had contact with Coelacan, following the history back on virtually every page he edited, and one thing is for sure, Coelacan doesn’t joke around. I’ve noticed in many situations quite the opposite. Sarcasm and a little light-hearted humor toward the above mentioned user is usually met quite harshly. So what I knew before I started on this journey, but ended up verifying is that I was not misinterpreting sarcasm.

I don’t dispute your comment, but who draws that so called line? a little light-hearted humor isn't out of line every once and a while, it's just when it gets in the way of making an encyclopedia or is done in lieu of productive work that it becomes an issue. --Janusvulcan 05:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all true. I have no sense of humor. In fact, just the other day, I beat a clown to death with his own floppy shoes. — coelacan talk — 08:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ey. Tony don' like dis kind of stuff. You don' wanna mess with the WikiDons or you go swimmin' with the Wikifishes. Capisce? Don Tony 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the WikiMafia. Artw 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Userfy as WP Essay - It's a phenomena I've seen myself, basically a collective version of WP:OWN. However if this is really a covert method for the user to gripe about edits on some specific issue not going his way we should just delete it without mercy. Artw 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without mercy - covert method to gripe. Artw 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Userfy per Candy. -Toptomcat 00:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy per above. Can be rewritten into a useful WP:Essay, but does not belong in mainspace. -- Kesh 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Never mind. Rereading the article, as well as the author's comments, it seems more like a Conspiracy theory in the making. The author could write something that better fits WP:ESSAY on the subject in Userspace, but this article just needs Deleted. -- Kesh 01:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Are the people voting delete against userfication? Because I don't see any reason not to userfy. It's not a personal attack. --N Shar 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's really no point in userfying, as it would have to be rewritten from scratch to become an essay anyway. -- Kesh 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. After reading all the comments I agree with many of the users opinions. I would like this article userfied, I don't want to do this while the AfD is in progress and I don't know how to. Could someone please help or do it for me. --Janusvulcan 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy - not notable neologism Alex Bakharev 05:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy and tone down—There is no cabal.Circeus 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

toning down. Taking afd a little personal. Will start now with the tone down. ––Janusvulcan 05:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Cross-space it - I don't think it would be too bad as an essay under Wikipedia:Wikimob either, if it was toned down just a bit as author has suggested (keep in mind how many words we've made up on this encyclopedia, anyway). Essays can sometimes be a little inflammatory anyway: see m:Guerilla UK spelling campaign for an ugly example. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy an excellent option that satisfies most parties involved. I think it could be a good essay someday given some editing love, wikimobs do happen, correcting systemic bias may be the greatest modern challange to maintaining the neutrality of wikipedia. Wintermut3 07:00, 25 January 2007 (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.