Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cicada 3301

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. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cicada 3301[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable, fails WP:ORG. Eighteither (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was covered in-depth (6pp) in the December 2012 issue of mental_floss, a national award-winning, current affairs magazine: http://www.mentalfloss.com/article/31932/chasing-cicada-exploring-darkest-corridors-internet. Has also been written about in print newspapers, blogs, etc. Angelsmashed Angelsmashed (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Angelsmashed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Vote! is by a SPA. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? Angelsmashed (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What "print newspapers"? I'm having a hard time finding more than two reliable sources: Andes Online and mental_floss. Further, we have no idea what this is, 4chan users are known for elaborate trolling (to play devils advocate). Interesting topic, but uncertain it's reached the point of Wikipedia notability. If it had more mainstream coverage would be more inclined. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Elaborate trolling from 4chan users? That is a huge jump. For generic 4chan users to get together and create extremely complex puzzles which require vast knowledge on cryptography, arts and humanities, security and networking, etc. is some big step. Seriously, that is some big leap of judgement to make on your part. This think tank/secret society has entered internet pop culture. There is no reason this should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farquezy (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the combination of a large scale, in-depth piece that's entirely focused on the group (the mental_floss article) combined with news coverage (Andes Online) not sufficient? It seems to satisfy the depth of coverage requirement; the independent/reliable requirement; and the overall notability requirement. Angelsmashed (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage per WP:GNG, one source in mental_floss and one source in Latin America is insufficient to show that this is notable. We can't even say what it is, other than a puzzle that appeared anon on the Internet. The claim that it has "entered internet pop culture" is not verifiable in reliable sources. Further the SPA's in this AfD are talking-up Cicada 3301 too much for comfort, such as claiming there are "print newspaper" sources but not providing those sources, getting overly defensive when I played devil's advocate that it might be a 4chan troll. At best the whole thing would have to be re-written as being a "series of clues posted to the internet by an anonymous entity (person or persons)" (not an organization, since there is no evidence for it). And it would be mostly based on just one source. Wait for more sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry I misspoke about the "print newspaper." I was referring to the Andes Online article. Wasn't trying to overstate it. As for "Farquezy" getting defensive, not sure how that relates here -- it's obviously unprofessional, but should not shape the outcome of the discussion at hand (not sure if it's an SPA, but it is in no way related to me...). As for WP:GNG, I disagree that it fails to meet the requirements, given that the requirements consist of:
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail" - covered by mental_floss article.
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. - covered by mental_floss and Andes Online.
- "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. - Given the high level of depth and quality in the mental_floss article, that would seem to cover it. Andes Online is, admittedly, of lower quality, but still meets all of the requirements above: depth of coverage, quality of sources, and multiple sources.
- "Independent of the subject" - Covered by both mental_floss and Andes Online.
- I'm open to whatever outcome is fair. I didn't write the article, and I have no real interest in keeping it up, other than the fact that I found the subject matter fascinating when I found my way here from the front page of reddit the other day. But I'm just not seeing where it doesn't meet these standards. I agree that a rewrite would be good, but that doesn't mean we should delete. Angelsmashed (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Green Cardamom. I see one source that's up to GNG standards, but that's not enough. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. mental_floss is an entertainment web site with no pretension to be a reliable source, and the coverage in Andes Online is just a brief news report. We don't have articles about everything that gets mentioned in the news. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. mental_floss is a current affairs magazine with an editorial staff, not an "entertainment web site." This article was published in the December 2012 print issue. Secondly, it was written by a well-regarded journalist who is a frequent contributor to mental_floss, The New York Times, Salon, Fast Company, etc. Angelsmashed (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.