Talk:No Cussing Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This is not a forum for general discussion of No Cussing Club.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

[edit] Advertisement?

I dunno, it just reads that way to me. Does anyone else get that kind of tone or...?

- 75.17.10.99 (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Many types of people agree the NCCC is notable. For instance, it was notable enough to be on internaotional news. Another reason it is notable is that the governmetn like the Sherif was able to join. Lastly, the notabiltiy was esatblished by FOXNEWS which is a reputable source. In conclusion, it is notabile enough to be on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lococarlos (talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Fox News is not reputable. A "sherif" does not add to notability either. This sounds like some local club that has five members in each state. Unless you come up with something better, I will propose deletion. Also, you can't spell. --Zabadab (Talk) @ 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No, let's leave it for people to vandalise even more! It's only notable atm because "Anonymous" (those evil guys FOX11 Los Angeles can't get enough of) is currently hacking their website, youtube channels, and related hoopla. Sneakernets (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
PS : Lococarlos is probably a username specifically for vandalising, given his small contribs and 1/3 of those is of vandalism. Sneakernets (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

--I've not got much experience with Wikipedia, but find it interesting that all of these news outlets appear to have picked up a press release from this club and are reporting the story without investigating. And this article looks to be a rehash of the "human interest" story as its being run on a lot of TV stations. It looks to me (from viewing their videos and pages) that this is a moneymaking scheme. For instance, everything eventually ends up with an ad for this kid's father's book. (And, given that he wrote a book on the subject, you can't convince me this was the kid's idea.) Also, starting up chapters requires corporate sponsorship and the purchase of t-shirts directly from the club. (Not to mention that the organization provides no information about the number of chapters beyond a nebulous listing of random countries--Botswana? Huh?) Nothing I can find seems verifiable, and it all sounds a bit fishy to me. Call me nuts, but this sounds like a subtle advertising campaign for the book (How to Raise G-Rated Kids in an X-Rated World). Obviously, suspicions aren't verifiable, but I think a mention about his father's book and his rather preposterous claims about the number of "sexual predetors [sic]" on myspace would be justifiable here (not for advertising purposes, but as possible evidence that the story as presented isn't 100% true). I've never felt the need to "report" on anything for Wikipedia, but it looks like no one else is. However, I'm not sure if this would fall under "original research" and be unallowable. Snigtad flornbi (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this article still exists whatsoever lowers my faith in Wikipedia a few notches. Look at that "history" section. Synopsis: during a school activity, some children joined another child's club. Also, some people may have shouted profanity at this child. Really, do we have articles on every time a high school manages to start a chess club? Or every time Fox decides to visit said chess club to show everyone what wonderful Christian values it upholds?-ABigBlackMan (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As the references section shows, major media outlets followed the story, including FOX, as well as MSNBC, LA Times, etc etc. The criteria for Wikipedia's notability guidelines say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." These major media outlets are independent, reliable, and gave significant coverage. It fits. Additionally, it also says, "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". If you disagree with this policy, please raise the issue on Wikipedia talk:Notability Copysan (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there also a rule somewhere that goes along these lines: "Wikipedia is not for something you and your friends came up with in school one day"? Perfect example. :P TomorrowTime (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day is a guideline, not a policy. Policy such as WP:N trumps guidelines. ;) Copysan (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disabled from editing

I'm recommending that this article be disabled from editing due to excess vandalism

--Limaindia (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a better solution. Let's make the article into a redirect to Minced oath. That article pretty much sums up what this "club" is about - hell, the club even uses minced oaths in its name. And I don't think wiki would be at much of a loss without the moralising, holier-than-thou "No cussing challenge". TomorrowTime (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

that's a good idea tomorrowtime, people who disagree with you, such as limaindia, should become an hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.9.22 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)