Talk:Borf

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

While the article definitely covers Tsombikos, the article also seems to move on to cover the Borf brigade beyond Tsombikos, and therefore it might be worthwhile to make "Borf" the main title, and make Tsombikos the redirect. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, you make a valid point. --AW 16:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So do you think that, after the AFD closes, we should make a requested move to change it? (We have to go through WP:RM to do it because "Borf" as a redirect was created independently.) SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

John Tsombikos → Borf — Article seems to cover the concept of "Borf" more than it does Tsombikos, and therefore should go on the "Borf" title. Currently, Borf is a redirect to John Tsombikos. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since this is not a vote, please explain the reasons for your recommendation.

• Support. Tsombikos is not notable except for Borf; the article should be his associated moniker, not his real name. - Freechild 23:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Borf isn't Tsombikos's 'moniker,' as this wasn't traditional 'tagging' graffiti. Tsombikos (according to the Washington Post article) was memorializing a friend who had committed suicide. An article at 'Borf' would need to be about the graffiti itself and not the person who created it. -- Vary | Talk 01:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article does not cover the 'concept' more than it does Tsombikos, especially if you discount the quotes from the 'comuniques' (the first of which in particular is plenty long enough to be a copyright violation.) The actual original content that's not directly about Tsombikos totals about five sentences. Not nearly enough to justify a change in topic, even without taking into account that the content on the 'borf brigade' group is very poorly sourced. -- Vary | Talk 13:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This article is about more than just Tsomikos. Borf involves more than one person and so it doesn't make sense to only talk about one memeber. As mentioned below by others, two articles isn't a good idea, so we should have one. And it should be at Borf. Further, someone is more likely to search for "Borf" than "John Tsombikos," and naming conventions say that in most cases we should try to name an article based on the most common name for the subject. So even if we don't want to change the focus of the article to the entire group, we should still move it. Also, "Borf Brigade" should redirect wherever we decide to keep this article. I don't want to do it now in case it gets moved, in which case there would be a double-redirect. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 06:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support because there is Borf the guy, and Borf the group of people who also do graffiti. This article is about them both. --AW 15:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Not only is Tsombikos only a candidate for article per WP:Notability bc of Borf, but Borf has become a meme larger than one individual. VanTucky 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The original rationale behind changing from Tsombikos to Borf is because the Borf graffiti campaign appears to have moved beyond Tsombikos to a group that identifies as the "Borf Brigade". How would those opposing rectify leaving the title on John Tsombikos, while the movement which is Borf seems to have moved beyond him? SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone thinks we need an article at 'Borf', moving some of this article's content there would, of course, be appropriate. I wouldn't oppose a new article at 'Borf,' but I do oppose moving this article when that move would require a change in subject. This article, as it is now, should not be located at 'Borf' because it's about the guy who created the graffiti originally, not about the graffiti itself or its inspiration. -- Vary | Talk 02:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article would certainly need to be adjusted to shift some of the focus onto the Borf campaign rather than on Tsombikos. Looking at the article, though, the only major adjustments would be to the introduction, and maybe a little reframing of the section on Tsombikos's arrest, trial, and sentencing. By and large, it wouldn't require that much work, since it already is more Borf than Tsombikos.

Now I would oppose splitting out a second article for Borf specifically. As Freechild mentioned, John Tsombikos is not particularly notable outside of his Borf work. To separate Tsombikos from Borf in Wikipedia would, in my opinion, make a strange, unnatural split. I could also see it getting merged back together in the future because one is so entwined with the other. Depending on how it would go back together, it could comprise an "illegal" page move.

Otherwise, though, by shifting to the Borf title, I see a greater creative potential. It would allow us to expound further on Borf without veering off the topic of Tsombikos specifically, especially since Tsombikos is banned from DC, and the announcement that Tsombikos was "purged" from the Borf movement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Many people with wiki bios are notable for one thing and only one thing, so saying he's not notable- other than for the thing that makes him notable - is a little silly. And we're not here to be 'creative,' remember. The fact that someone somewhere announced that Tsombikos was 'purged' from the 'movement' doesn't change the fact that he - and not whoever decided to throw him out - has recived a respectable amount of press coverage.

Do we have any reliable sources citing the 'movement,' other than the pictures from other cities posted on the DCist? This article, on John Tsombikos, has survived two AFD's already, based on the coverage of him and his actions, not on the actions of others who may or may not be copying his tags. If someone feels that they can properly cite and support an article on a 'borf movement,' then they should do so, but if the plan is to move this reasonably good article to a new location to prop up a weaker article, that's not a good idea. If we can create a good article on Borf right now, we should do it. If we can't, we should wait until we can. -- Vary | Talk 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, some clarification. When I said "creative", I was referring to expanding the article, as in creating content, not so much as "getting creative" as that term is usually used. Now, as for the rest, it all kind of falls in line. With the article on the Tsombikos title, the Borf Brigade and such is veering off topic - a big tangent, so to speak. Thus technically it shouldn't be in there at all with Tsombikos on the title. Under "Borf", it fits right in as a continuation of the concept beyond Tsombikos. I'm sure that with a little digging, we can locate a reliable source for the Borf Brigade. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If the 'brigade' can be sourced, then source it and find a place to put it. If it can't be sourced, it shouldn't be in any article. But just because the unsourced content is out of place at its current location, it does not follow that the sourced content should be moved. The content about the movement needs to be sourced before it can be used to support a move that is effectively overruling past consensus.

And, once again, many people who have articles on wikipedia are only notable for one reason. "He's only notable because of Borf" is not a valid argument. He was found notable enough for an article at two separate AFDs. Not only that, but all of the cited content currently in this article is about him. What exactly would be the harm in moving any properly cited off-topic material to its own article? -- Vary | Talk 05:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Borfyou.com site mentions the Borf brigade, as do some DCist posts and various DC blog posts. I realize blogs aren't always reliable sources though. This one seems to be the most legit [1]. --AW 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Associated Content is not considered a reliable source, either. It's user-generated, so it would be on about the same level as a blog. -- Vary | Talk 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And, in fact, the article does not cover the 'concept' more than it does Tsombikos, especially if you discount the quotes from the 'comuniques' (the first of which in particular is plenty long enough to be a copyright violation.) The actual original content that's not directly about Tsombikos totals about five sentences. Not nearly enough to justify a change in topic.

I've put 'unsourced' templates at the top of the last two sections, neither of which cites a single source, reliable or no. This guy was big news here in DC not to long ago; some DC-focused columnist somewhere has to have done a follow-up if the 'movement' is still so active.

I do think that registering borfyou.com in Bernardine Dohrn's name is a little over the top. -- Vary | Talk 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.