Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Achievement Hour
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 March 25. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. yandman 15:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Human Achievement Hour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- Would be better called "Ignore Earth Hour Hour". The author presumably thinks that adding a link to this at ClimateBiz.com helps to establish notability. I would say that phrases such as "entirely new level of strangeness" and "bizarre" show that ClimateBiz thinks the idea is not notable. Only fractionally above NFT level. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The commentor presumably thinks that criticism from ClimateBiz determines the event is not notable. ClimateBiz commentary will obviously be opposed to CEI or anyone that sides with their position or takes part in the event. Obviously they believe (or hope) the event is not notable. Using their sentiments to determine notability is therefore asinine. The use of the link is clearly to show a major player in the environmental movement noting the event. The observation by the of the event taking place justifies its notability. Thehondaboy (talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete It looks like a one-shot publicity stunt created by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It doesn't meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete = This is one step up from an Internet prank. As said above, even the link provided to show notability actually shows non-notability. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's a publicity stunt that didn't get any publicity. No reliable sources = no notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete A simple Google search lists over 10 separate articles, and countless retreads on the event in 3 days. Two of which are on Digg with high digg counts. The content for this holiday seems to be growing by the hour on both the pro and dissent side anchoring its notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehondaboy (talk • contribs) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete This is clearly a legitimate attempt to parody the so-called "Earth Hour" celebration (which is itself a manufactured celebration.) There are several references to it on the Internet now (over 1,900 from a Google search for "Human Achievement Hour"). Even solely as a counterprotest to "Earth Hour" the event has generated anough publicity and noteriety to be included, as Wikipedia often includes protests, pranks, and stunts (see The Chaser APEC pranks, which was a recently featured Wikipedia article. Those attempting to have the article removed have not made any real case besides blandly referencing the WP:SR (As opposed to "RS") standards. Removing this article would violate the neutrality standards for Wikipedia and damage Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable and neutral source of information. 19:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Counting Google hits doesn't giver rise to notability, nor does it establish reliable sources. Present these reliable sources and we can be convinced. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion protest was logged a day after the press release. Launching a deletion request so soon after the creation of an event and article hardly sounds like the action of someone who can be convinced. Perhaps this should be decided after the 28th.
- Articles need to be able to meet notability at the time time they are created. We don't create articles in the hopes that the subject may become notable in the future. As such it is entirely appropriate to bring this article forward for a deletion discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly sounds like the attempts of someone opposed to the event, rather than someone simply and unbiasedly concerned about whether it should or should not exist. The reasons for it's removal are weak. There are reasonable sources that have listed the event. Whpq asks for reliable sources. I don't know who Whpq is. He is some random guy on the Internet. Why would he get to decide what is or is not a "reliable source." Weak argument for deletion. Additionally, he again makes the assumption based on personal bias that the event is not notable. The argument that "We don't create articles in the hopes that the subject may become notable in the future," is not valid because it has not been agreed on that the subject is not notable. The events notability has not been agreed upon, so therefore we can't determine that it is currently or will be notable. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.Thehondaboy (talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- I suggest you read over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. The article has been brought forward specifically because one editor believes that the article fails to meet guidelines and policies as outlined in the nomination. Who is whpq? It's me, an editor on Wikipedia. All editors can review deletion discussions and weigh in with their opinions. As for what is considered a reliable source, Wikipedia:Reliable sources provides the guideance to all editors. In particular, press releases do not establish notability as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly sounds like the attempts of someone opposed to the event, rather than someone simply and unbiasedly concerned about whether it should or should not exist. The reasons for it's removal are weak. There are reasonable sources that have listed the event. Whpq asks for reliable sources. I don't know who Whpq is. He is some random guy on the Internet. Why would he get to decide what is or is not a "reliable source." Weak argument for deletion. Additionally, he again makes the assumption based on personal bias that the event is not notable. The argument that "We don't create articles in the hopes that the subject may become notable in the future," is not valid because it has not been agreed on that the subject is not notable. The events notability has not been agreed upon, so therefore we can't determine that it is currently or will be notable. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.Thehondaboy (talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Articles need to be able to meet notability at the time time they are created. We don't create articles in the hopes that the subject may become notable in the future. As such it is entirely appropriate to bring this article forward for a deletion discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion protest was logged a day after the press release. Launching a deletion request so soon after the creation of an event and article hardly sounds like the action of someone who can be convinced. Perhaps this should be decided after the 28th.
- Counting Google hits doesn't giver rise to notability, nor does it establish reliable sources. Present these reliable sources and we can be convinced. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's a stupid idea, it's a publicity stunt, but it meets WP:N there are 188 hits in Google news for it so it is getting significant coverage.--RadioFan2 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you review these results? Can you point out the significant coverage? I simply don't see it. -- Whpq (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been the subject of articles in the The National Post, USA Today, The National Review and Financial Post, these seem like reasonable 3rd party references to me. I do wonder why Google News is bringing up so many hits on "Human Achievement Hour" that are actually Earth Day articles that dont mention Human Achievement Hour at all.--RadioFan2 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a link to the Google News search that gets 188 hits. I certainly can't see them. At the time of writing Google News gives me 2 hits from the last month (a reprint of a press release written in the first person and a dead link to a blog) and nothing at all from more than a month ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you review these results? Can you point out the significant coverage? I simply don't see it. -- Whpq (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ghits do not notability make. No significant coverage in reliable sources. AngoraFish 木 10:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So the following are not reliable sources: The National Post, USA Today, The National Review and Financial Post? If that's the case, then we have clear bias present from individuals who obviously want to see the article removed for reasons outside of its worthiness to appear on Wikipedia.Thehondaboy (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a citation for these articles? Vague assertions that something was published does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The National Post picked up the Minton article The National Post - the others are news links to the Green Biz article through those services. {http://content.usatoday.com/topics/article/Competitive+Enterprise+Institute/00Ee9Wz8MPge7/1 USA Today CEI Links] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.70.83 (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a citation for these articles? Vague assertions that something was published does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So the following are not reliable sources: The National Post, USA Today, The National Review and Financial Post? If that's the case, then we have clear bias present from individuals who obviously want to see the article removed for reasons outside of its worthiness to appear on Wikipedia.Thehondaboy (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis just got picked up by Michelle Malkin. michellemalkin.com. Any further questioning of it's relevance or notoriety is at this point garbage rhetoric from individuals biased against this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehondaboy (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Please, only one !vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Apart from the fact that the Green movement's anti-science policies should be shown up for what they are, any argument for deletion is self-defeating censorship.
Is this what Wikipedia is about?
207.216.216.16 (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Ted[reply]
- Do Not Delete I read about this event in the daily paper, and naturally I wanted to know more so I went to Wikipedia. HAH is current affairs high comedy - imagine my surprise to find it up for deletion! I suspect the "deleters" have a humorless hidden agenda. Bushcutter (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling it current affairs would seem to indicate you beleive it is a news item which is actually a criterion for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2009 (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.