Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Fitzmas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KEEP IT -- "Fitzmas" is soon going to be enshrined in American culture.

  • Thanks, but you're on the wrong page. Please learn to use Wiki or go back to the DUmp. Jinxmchue 14:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of learning how to use Wiki, the voting on the Project Page is a complete mess thanks to the denizens of the Democratic Underground. Unsigned votes, no regard for the formatting, lengthy discussion. Can the garbage be cleaned up or does it have to stay that way?

I did a little bit of cleanup, i.e. added bullet points, but now I'm worried that this is considered "editing other user's comments". Can anyone clear this up for me? --Ryano 15:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Formatting in AfD is acceptable, to my knowledge, as long as the votes and comments remain intact. As a side note, the {{unsigned}} template is handy for anon voters. — ceejayoz talk 17:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I've put a note for the anons up. — ceejayoz talk 17:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I've posted twice on DU to explain to people that there's no point to trying to recruit large numbers of non-Wikipedians to vote "keep". I hope I've cut down the flow somewhat. The notice at the top of the voting page is a good idea. JamesMLane 22:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What a mess. I sympathise with the closing admin.--Sean Black | Talk 06:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed that this article was even nominated for deletion as "obscure". A google search for "Fitzmas" gets over 300,000 hits. [1]. You can even buy "Fitzmas" T-Shirts. [2]. Compare that to say, Filegate, when a google search for that gets only about 110,000 hits.[3]. Or compare it to Travelgate: [4]. Fitzmas is more than Notable, its a bonafide pop culture phenomenon. And it shouldn't be deleted after the hype dies down either. Because then it becomes history, just like Filegate and Travelgate --- Mr. Tibbs 07:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

A google search for "Fitzmas" now turns up 546,000 hits [5]. This thing appears to be growing exponentially. - Mr. Tibbs 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
That's not the point. I advise you to consider the "Ten year rule"- In ten years, will anybody care about this term? No, I think. People will care about Plame Affair, however.--Sean Black | Talk 23:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
According to your logic then, it should be deleted in 10 years. Whether or not anyone will care about this in "Ten years" is only speculation as of now. And about that are you actually suggesting that we should delete Filegate, Travelgate, and all the other once big issues that are now old news? Should we delete Pogs or Pet rock or All your base are belong to us or Star Wars kid or the endless procession of internet phenomenons simply because those fads have died? It doesn't matter if anyone will care about Pogs ten years from now, because once upon a time, they were notable. And guess what the past's notable topics are? History. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
No, that's not what I think. Virtually everything you cite has been around for ten (or close to ten) years already. In ten years, this word will only show up in the bowels of the internet, a few newspaper columns, and maybe books about the Plame affair. Therefore, it doesn't deserve an article of it's own.--Sean Black | Talk 20:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Star Wars kid certainly hasn't been around for ten years. Neither were Pogs. The only thing I cited that you could possibly make that arguement for would be Pet rock. Do you think Bad Day or Chin2 or Anything related to subject of internet phenomenons has been around for 10 years? Because the Internet Itself hasn't been widespread for that long. This article is being unfairly singled out because of its political ties. -- Mr. Tibbs 22:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
No. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a repository only of information a lot of people want to know about. ~~ N (t/c) 22:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Requested clarification: sure, it'll be obscure in 10 years, but we have zillions of articles on things that are obscure now, and probably were never as popular as this term. Half a million Google hits should qualify anything for notability. ~~ N (t/c) 22:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I can buy that. Note that I don't think just because something is obscure that it shouldn't have an article- I just question how much information is here that can't be easily included elewhere, if it needs to be included at all. But hey, I won't lose sleep over it. Whatever the consensus is, right? --Sean Black | Talk 22:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question for merger advocates

No one has responded to my observation about the current length of the Plame affair article. (We can expect that a great deal more material will be generated as Libby's criminal prosecution goes forward, even aside from whatever other indictments might issue.) Do those calling for merger favor putting this article, as is, into the Plame affair article, thus including in the latter a very fine level of detail about a comparatively minor aspect of the scandal? Or do they favor excising much of this detail about the origin and usage of the term "Fitzmas", thus causing that information to be lost completely from Wikipedia? JamesMLane 09:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that artciles can be too long and keeping them spun off or spinning them off is a valid idea? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 10:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
For those of you who don't understand this question, Rex is trying to pursue an argument from Talk:John Kerry. I've addressed the issue there (to the extent I intend to dignify his comments with a response at all), and I won't repeat myself here. I started this thread to clarify how advocates of this particular merger envisioned handling the details now in the Fitzmas article, not to get into yet another lengthy and pointless exchange with Rex. I'd like to hear from people who want to merge Fitzmas into Plame affair and are willing to discuss the specifics of how that alternative would work. JamesMLane 14:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

How much new information is in this article that would require merging, anyways? When I said merge, I meant that the Plame affair article should breifly address this neoligism that bloggers coined, perhaps in some sort of "media" section, or something.--Sean Black | Talk 20:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Plame affair already Does address this term in brief: [6]. As you can see, Fitzmas is much too large for that one small section. But if anyone has any ideas about how you could possibly merge Fitzmas into Plame affair without losing any information, I'd like to hear it. - Mr. Tibbs 07:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)