Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Kane

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Per my vote tally (laid out in detail on the talk page) post rewrite total (which I gave greater weight) = 93 keep, 21 delete; grand total = 103 keep, 53 delete. Either way, a fairly solid keep. -- BD2412 talk 06:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jamie Kane[edit]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

BBC official statement [1]: Jamie Kane Wikipedia Entries: To clarify the confusion about Jamie Kane biographical entries appearing on Wikipedia: The first posting was simply a case of a fan of the game getting into the spirit of alternative reality a little too much. The follow up posting was made by a fan of the game who happens to work in the BBC (where we've been beta-testing for the last month). This was unauthorized and made without the knowledge of anyone in the Jamie Kane Team or BBC Marketing. To confirm: the BBC would never use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. We hope you enjoy the game:-) Team Jamie

As a side issue: how on earth would "the BBC" (more exactly, "Team Jamie") know who made the initial entry? Have they provided a source for their reassurance upon this point? Most reputable news organizations are expected to verify facts with two independent sources. Are we expected to take them at their word simply because they are the BBC? Unless we've divulged our IP logs to them - which we certainly should not have done - they are in no position to state anything whatsoever about the identity of the person who created the first article - except perhaps that no one on "Team Jamie" admits to it. - Nunh-huh 04:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note MattC, the original creator of the articles, has apologised over them. They were not a part of any official BBC campaign, and simply a 'it seemed a good idea at the time' moment by an employee. Please don't write angry e-mails to the BBC over this. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to seem like a pedant here, but MattC did not originally create this article, only the Boy*d Upp one. - Aya 42 T C 01:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The original creator of these pages was Jon Hawk, who still hasn't explained his purpose in adding fake material to Wikipedia. --William Pietri 04:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the first revision of the article (supposedly created by Jon_Hawk) did contain a weak note (bottom of the page) about this being a fictional page. While the original article was bad in most (or all) aspects, I do not believe it was done as part of an advertising campaign - more likely a person who is familiar with the game and conceived the fictional character as notable created the article in much the same spirit as most "StarTrek", "Doom" or "Halo" articles which treat the material as a matter of fact and only weakly note their fictional nature. 62.90.49.87 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What note are you talking about? As far as I can tell, Jon_Hawk's material was all fake presented as real. Somebody else added a note at the bottom, but not until it was tagged as disputed.--William Pietri 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign. --Barberio 08:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Boy*d Upp - Aya 42 T C 21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retracting my original support of Deletion, and switching to Keep (of this article alone, not Boy*d Upp) since it now describes the game, not the character. And since this was not an attempt at advertising. --Barberio 12:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from registered users[edit]

  • Delete It's a marketing ploy. Doesn't belong here. --Peripathetic
  • Delete See the BoingBoing article on these entries. [2] --Barberio 08:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - Barberio later changed his vote to keep, but didn't strike out this entry Bluap 10:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fictional character. Kappa 08:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, this is not a major or notable fictional character, and the articles intent is to promote a new work of fiction, not record an established one. --Barberio 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any fictional character featured prominently in a major campaign by the BBC is notable. The article was created with the intent to promote something, but it has an "edit" button. Kappa 09:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Minus the advertising, the article is meaningless and does not provide any information of note. Since the article does not stand on its own, and is an attempt at advertising, it meets Deletion requirments. --Barberio 09:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as above. --Stereo 09:01:36, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • DELETE: Speedy deletion. If we let advertising campaigns poison Wikipedia, we might as well shut the place down. Krisjohn 09:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, emphasize it is advertising. Ad campaigns should be documented as such, especially if taking viral form, as an early disclosure to make misleading of the public with fictional "real" stuff a bit more difficult. --Shaddack 09:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. When suitably marked as "fictional : accuracy disputed", and re-written to explain the fictional use, this (a) shows how fast, intelligently and effectively Wikipedia can respond to such silly marketing tricks and remain on higher ground, by simply exposing the truth rather than getting caught up in silly games. Also, (b) it largely destroys (or at least, can be written to counter) the viral marketing goals, if that is indeed why it was created. In this sense, it can be used to explain to the exact demographic who are being taken in by the fictional game, why this conflicts with the goals of Wikipedia. Lastly (c), if other marketers see the above process, and realise playing tricks with wikipedia will run a high risk of damaging their brand, rather than creating a "cool, viral" edge, then they will be less likely to abuse it in the future. mintywalker 10:54, 14 August 2005 (BST)
    • I disagree. Keeping the article purely to point out that its fictional viral marketing and how evil it is would be a POV, and go against the principles of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge, not a source of comentary. The best thing is to simply remove viral marketing as it appears. It should be noted that keeping the marketing, but noting it as marketing, does not reduce the marketing impact. Infact, this whole debate simply gains more 'eyes' on the BBC which was the intent. So I feel it should be quickly directed to a deletion. --Barberio 10:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • a) seems weak to me. We'd have to explain that was the intention. Then it's an article about viral marketing, not this dork.
  • Delete. Keeping it is not a particularly intelligent response to a marketing ploy. / Peter Isotalo 10:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Is faintly notable, apparently, and NPOV-able. Sandstein 10:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Article has become notable, because its an atempt to use Wikipedia for viral marketing, but the contents are not notable information. The bar should be kept very high on what is notable for a fictional character to be recorded, Homer Simpson is a notable fictional character, Jamie Kane is not --Barberio 10:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the abstract, I concur with Barberio, although the bar need not be very high (Wikipedia is not paper). But maybe this page (or the associated "band" below) could serve as a declared example of viral marketing in Wikipedia itself. Also, if this gets actually popular in the real world, the page would have to be recreated. Sandstein 10:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any such information belongs in the viral marketing article, not in an article of its own. If in the future this character becomes so notable as that it should be created, then thats fine, however thats not the situation now. --Barberio 11:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Qwghlm 11:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for viral marketing. GraemeL 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GraemeL hits it on the head.k Nandesuka 12:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Viral marketing. --Spliced 13:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Genuine good-faith fancraft has a place in Wikipedia because it does no harm if researched to encyclopedic standards. Tolerating the use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes, even when the article contributor has no direct connection to the promoter, does real harm to Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marketing has no place in wikipedia. Pahalial 13:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. --*drew 14:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Boy*d Upp, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 14:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. -- WormRunner | Talk 15:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleete --Ben Houston 15:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - a bald faced abuse of WIkipedia for advertising. Nothing about the article is notable except that it exists here, making the "keep" logic circular. Lastly, we invite more and more of this we we do not delete this. I'd hate to see Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia become Wikipedia: The Free Viral Marketing Test Site. Tobycat (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Misuse of Wikipedia. This is just spamvertising in a different form. android79 16:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep given Uncle G's excellent rewrite. android79 12:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps it can be added back after the game is finished for historical reasons. (see end of page)70.49.185.60 16:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but the game may warrant a genuine article if it doesn't flop; it's an unusual thing for the BBC to have created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mholland (talk • contribs) 2005-08-14 16:18:14 UTC
  • Delete - If somebody were to turn this into a page about the game Jamie Kane rather than the fictional person Jamie Kane, I'd probably change my vote. Especially if the article explains that the BBC, as part of a marketing campaign, was involved in putting fradulent material in Wikipedia. --William Pietri 16:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ugh. fuzzie 16:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I like Barberio's suggestion. Malcolm Farmer 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To appease the people who want to keep, can I suggest that we redirect this, and any other attempts at Viral Marketing to the Viral marketing article. Or a new meta article 'Abuses of Wikipedia for Viral Marketing'. --Barberio 16:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Redirecting would not clarify anything for users. Someone who looks up Jamie Kane thinking he is a real person should find a straightforward explanation of his fictionality, not be required to infer from a mysterious redirect that maybe they've been duped.Craigbutz 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cleaned up the article to make it more clear that it's fictional for the interim, just to make things nice until it's fully zapped, but I agree that not to come down hard on this invites further abuse. In fact, I have no idea how to go about doing this, but I think we need to nominate advertising spam such as this to be a criteria for speedy deletion. — WCityMike (T | C) 17:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and block the offender indefinitely, including the IP address space of the BBC, until a formal apology is made. This is nothing more or less than vandalism for profit. Wikipedia should come down hard on those responsible. --FOo 17:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable advertising. If and only if this viral marketing campaign becomes notable in and of itself (like, for example, I love bees or The Subservient Chicken) give it an article. As it stands now, it is a misuse of Wikipedia. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of Uncle G's fine edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely non-notable in and of itself. Ironically, the only arguable reason it may have become notable (in the last TWO DAYS OF ITS EXISTENCE) has been its linking with Wikipedia, riding on Wikipedia's coattails. Avoid self-reference. D. G. 17:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Possibly redirect to the article on the BBC's game that this character is from, if such an article exists... though my vindictive streak would love to get back at the Beeb by blackballing info on the game. Dayv 18:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If and when this actually becomes more notable than "The Famous Teddy Z", reconsider. Ordinarily I would lean the other way, following the principle that "even a notable hoax is notable," but in this case I think a message needs to be sent that Wikipedia is not to bee abused in this way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Corporations should be prohibitted from taking advtange of a publicly administered infospace. Adam Schwabe 18:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC) ;
  • Delete. Agree with comments just above: even if a hoax, it is surely becoming notable - however, a message does need to be sent, and if this article is resurrected in an honest manner, I don't think anyone will have a problem with it. As it stands, we can't allow Wiki to become a marketing tool. --Coolhappysteve
  • Delete. This is a run-of-the-mill viral marketing incident, it did not achieve notability. Don't delete it to "send a message"; delete it because it's not noteworthy. -- Curps 19:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Noisy | Talk 19:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable.  Grue  19:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; already mentioned in viral marketing; perhaps redirect to there. Would never, ever have heard of any of this if it weren't for the fuss over it being on Wikipedia. Agree with Curps and FOo. If BBC wants a Wiki on this figment so badly, they can make their own. Oboreruhito 19:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Alterego 21:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the guerrilla marketing aspects have been explained. Zoe 21:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)Since several users keep deleting the viral marketing aspects, this makes the article no longer notable. Delete. Zoe 23:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect the current article to Boy*d Upp. If the character becomes truly famous then he can have his own article, until then I see no need. Thryduulf 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Vote superceded - see new vote below re-write marker[reply]
    • Actually, that's the reverse of the way that I suggest handling this. The primary article shouldn't be the band. The band fails WP:MUSIC utterly. It is, after all, an entirely fictional band. The game is what is the real thing in the real world. And the game is called Jamie Kane. Boy*d Upp should, if anything, redirect here, as per WP:FICT. Uncle G 00:32:17, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Following the rewrite I agree and have changed my vote on both VfDs accordingly.
  • Keep and expand. Page has been linked to in outside sources; for many people, this page is their first glimpse of Wikipedia. And 'viral marketing'? Frankly, my Wiki, I don't give a damn. Almafeta 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Viral marketing is not acceptable use of Wikipedia. Buy your own site, like ILoveBees did.--SarekOfVulcan 21:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the Boy*D_Upp page from inside the BBC network on Friday evening after stumbling across the Jamie Kane entry linked from the Pop Justice forums. My action was in no way part of an orchestrated marketing campaign on behalf of the Jamie Kane project team nor was it intended for my page to be attributed to the BBC, which has been implied. It was nothing more than common garden vandalism for which I am sorry. MattC 21:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and advertising. - Motor (talk) 22:15:20, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. This is a bare-faced abuse of Wikipedia which should not be tolerated. -- Arwel 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page probably reflected a clueless member (perhaps of the team that produced Jamie Kane) rather than an orchestrated attempt by the BBC to add false information to Wikipedia. A reason to keep: Potentially mutually beneficial to BBC and Wikipedia due to increased exposure AND having just signed up for an account (it does seem quite well done) - it is potentially a good article to talk about use (and misuse!) of new web technologies. A reason to delete: Not notable (outside of BBC/Wikipedia) yet: If/when 'he' becomes notable, someone (outside the BBC) will add the page back. --Mintchocicecream 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If some actual article about the campaign/project/hoax emerges, redirecting there would also be an acceptable alternative. --Michael Snow 22:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is an attribute created over time. This is clearly an attempt to create that notability by exploiting Wikipedia. Also, abuse of advertising policy. --johnd 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia's response to being hijacked (by anyone) as part of "viral marketing" should be: "No thank you". This isn't even fancruft: there aren't any fans. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with strong prejudice. As per JohnD. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--nixie 23:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited without mercy and done a complete rewrite from sources about the actual game, rather than about the eponymous character within the game, providing the "article on the BBC's game that this character is from" that Dayv (and Michael Snow, William Pietri, and Mholland) mentions above. The list of sources given in the references section indicates that this game has received some news media and other coverage over the past year. Whilst the original fake biography of a fictional character may qualify as viral marketing, the current straight summary of primary and secondary sources (some of them critical) dealing with a venture by the BBC into the world of interactive fiction does not. Furthermore, better this than a repeated succession of silly stubs about the fictional character written by players of the game over the next few months repeatedly being deleted (which, based upon past experience, is what would likely happen if the article were deleted). Keep. Uncle G 00:15:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
    • Keep. Applause for Uncle G's rewrite mholland 00:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new version. —Ashley Y 00:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-researched, balanced and impressive rewrite. --Mintchocicecream 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly weakly. This is currently nn as it has no fans and is a probably failing venture judging from the article. Although the BBC is a respectable organisation, pretty much any corporation could shuffle out a lowish quality VR game without it being notable. They might want it to "go viral" and might want it to get big, but so far it hasn't. -Splash 01:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is true that any company can create a game web site. However, the beauty of basing articles upon reliable third-party sources is that it does tend to filter out those games that don't get press coverage in national newspapers (where that coverage isn't a simple regurgitation of a press release) during their development and launch. Uncle G 03:02:22, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten version. the best way to deflate this attempt to promote a fictional character is to present the real facts, which Uncle G has done splendidly. i think this will be more effective at deterring similar stunts than deleting the article. Chieftramp 02:15 monday 15 vii (bst)
  • Delete: still not noteworthy, and we're still serving more as a means of advertising than as an encyclopedia. An ad campaign isn't in itself noteworthy. If the fact that the BBC—which ought to be concerned about its reputation for truthfulness, as a news organization—advertises by appearing to perpetrate a hoax might eventually become noteworthy, but not until and unless it bites them in the ass. - Nunh-huh 01:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jamie Kane is not an advertising campaign. It's an alternate reality game. And this article discusses the game's commissioning, creators, history of development, cost, writers, plot, and so forth. Please don't confuse other editors' comments in the preceding discussion with what is actually in the article and in the sources. Uncle G 02:12:52, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Of course it's advertising. It's a way of getting people—primarily teenaged girls with disposable income, who are desirable to website and broadcast advertisers—to sign on to BBC-run bulletin boards (bbc.co.uk) etc. Your article even links to the page for people to sign up for the game and website! - Nunh-huh 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, under this kind of definition, many things could be considered advertising. I mean, one could potentially argue that the iPod page is as much of a promotion of the iPod. As Uncle G mentions, if the page is deleted, "a repeated succession of silly stubs about the fictional character written by players of the game" would occur. Surely, this article deserved to be kept. --Mintchocicecream 02:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Our iPod article was not created from within Apple headquarters. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since the iPod article was created by a registered user, you have no way to make that determination, and if you care to check the page history for the article we're actually voting on, there is no way to know this one was created in BBC headquarters either. - Aya 42 T C 03:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The same can't be said of the "Boy*d Upp" article, where this material originated, can it. Who knew the BBC had such rabid running dog defenders? This is a web-based game that is less than two weeks old, created to funnel web-traffic to the BBC web-site. It has no other significance. - Nunh-huh 04:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, there may be advertising effects by having this article, but so do many of the articles here. AFAIK Uncle G isn't from the BBC and even if so, the significant edits contributed by him and other users are balanced and suitable for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, apart from actually being in the UK, I have no affiliation with the BBC nor do many of the supporters on this page. Assuming you have read the discussion, it is clear this is a complete re-write and I can't see how this article originated from the Boy*d Upp article. Generally, the BBC has a massive amount of resources to wield at its disposal and would neither need to nor resort to relying on an open-content encyclopedia to funnel traffic to their website! In any case, Wikipedia is not a website frequented primarily by 14-18 year old girls and thus any advertising effects is minimal. --Mintchocicecream 09:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. It's a game, as I said. By your excessively broad definition of advertising, Wheel of Fortune is not a game but is instead a way of advertising and getting people to watch television channels. Uncle G 03:21:28, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
          • You thought maybe it was art? The BBC clearly felt that a game to entice young teenage girls to acquire a log-in to the BBC website was worth a good deal of money, as they paid for its development for exactly that purpose. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. It's a game, as I said. Twice. Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
              • And saying it three times won't make it any less of an advertising device. - Nunh-huh 22:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This kind of Wikipedia abuse should not be tolerated by any means. --Andre (talk) 01:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • An article that straightforwardly summarizes 9 cited sources is "abuse"? Uncle G 02:12:52, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep - The original article was possibly bogus, but the new one helpfully written by Uncle G is well-sourced, and deserves to remain. - Aya 42 T C 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (weak) Keep- I've gotta say, the new edits have changed my votes. I am now under the impression that the original article was, at worst, a bad choice or presentation, rather than deliberate free advertising. I feel the article as it is now is both well written and possibly notable enough to keep. And I agree that not having the article may cause people to recreate it in the future. My only current concern is how new the game is. It may well be a big flop and gone in a few weeks. Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 02:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:53
  • Delete. Advertising nonsense. Andrew pmk 02:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original was indeed advertising, but the rewritten article is a good one. I invite everyone who voted prior to seeing the new article to have a look at it now and consider if they want to change or keep their vote the way it is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm changing my vote. The article is now about the game, and the game was notable enough to have been covered in the referenced Guardian article. Kudos to User:Uncle G for the rewrite. --William Pietri 04:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The new article is notable, factual, and of encyclopedic note as to both the game and the issue of viral marketing. MCB 05:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although if having information on unreleased games is undesirable, perhaps rename it (Perhaps Prerelease:Jamie_Kane ?). I'm eagerly awaiting the game Oblivion, which isn't released yet, and was glad to find significant information about it here. Ron Johnson Ron Johnson
  • Keep, this shows the Wikipedia process at its finest. All hail UncleG!-- Visviva 06:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an important event in the development online interactive marketing. Several editors need to move beyond their petulant school yard hurt, and think in a more mature way. --ben dummett 06:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's the harm? --Rebroad 08:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. If it becomes significant at some point in the future WITHOUT basing that significance on exploitation of Wikipedia, then some article might be appropriate at THAT time. Shanen 09:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Things should get here after they are already known to people. this game thing is not even a trend at the moment, so this is pure advertisement (and even now that it gets deleted, the advertisement went thru, despite the fact the target are presumably teenager girls... how many among slashdot readers?) Jaromil
  • Keep. It's all good now. Meneth 09:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now. James F. (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that the page has been edited to refer to the game rather than the characters therein, and since the issue has gained at least a moderate level of interest on the internet, I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping it. However, pages like the one for Boy*d Upp are still viral advertising completely without merit. Even with rewrites I don't see how that page could be made relevant, so I will be voting to delete it. --Parallel or Together? 10:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because of the sensationalist and unnecesary coverage on BoingBoing and SlashDupe, what could have been simply removed as vandalism has mutated into a story which is more about Wikipedia and the way it is used than anything else. I think it has to stay now. Reluctantly, keep. --Jolyonralph 10:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following excellent rewrite. Thryduulf
  • Keep, now after rewrite, it deserves it's own article. --Thv 10:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has been edited and has substance now, why not let it live? --Wwwwolf 10:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rewrite is allowable. --Benna 10:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Current revision accurate. --P0ppe 10:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rewrite is good, and thanks to Uncle G for rewriting this and correcing Wikipedia quickly to remove advertising fake articles.--ShaunMacPherson 10:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Kizor 10:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is abuse -- Crucis 10:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a good and accurate article about a game promoted by a major broadcasting corporation. Www.wikinerds.org 10:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thanks to Uncle G's rewrite, the article is now informative in nature, rather advertising drivel --Hemsath 10:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewritten version. If this spoils anyone's enjoyment of the game, then good! It's a damn stupid idea for a game in the first place! David | Talk 10:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to excellent rewrite. Michael 10:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep new version for now, maybe re-visit this process if the BBC's ARG disappears without a trace. — PhilHibbs | talk 10:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewritten version. Nice work, Uncle G. --Jdcope 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article as now written appears to be accurate and is backed by links to non-BBC external media. It's even pretty NPOV. Thparkth 11:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest removing the external links so that this page is not part of the BBC's marketting effort. --Rcingham 11:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have things like Donald Love, afterall. -Lethe | Talk 11:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The articles surrounding this topic are good advertising for Wikipedia. It would be a shame if the people could not find out what this rumor was about. --Leopard 11:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What about entries for (esp. famous) fictional characters in books? or movies? I see this as no different. As rewritten by Uncle G, the article is very informative, and just the sort of thing I would hope to find on Wikipedia. It would be difficult to find all this information elsewhere. unsigned vote from 11:33, August 15, 2005 User:Richardbondi
  • Keep: looks good now. --WS 11:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reason to keep. Noted in Viral Marketing article... unsigned vote from 11:39, August 15, 2005 User:Parkylondon
  • Keep: thanks, Uncle G, for the excellent rewrite. FreplySpang (talk) 11:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Speedy Delete. Marketting/Advertisement/Abuse. Completely undermines the credibility and purpose of Wikipedia. This game is barely a week old. At best, it is a news story, and belongs on a news site, not an encycolpedia. DeWayneLehman 11:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • How does replacing fictional rubbish with proper articles undermine the credibility of Wikipedia? Surely the opposite is the case? How does writing fully-referenced articles with cited sources undermine the purpose of Wikipedia? Is that not what we are supposed to be doing? Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • The article does not belong here, regardless of how well you rewrite it. This topic's only impact outside of wikipedia is the press it has gotten for exploiting Wikipedia for Viral Marketting. Are you now going to edit articles for every game every created within days of its release? Is Wikipedia now a news magainze, or a game review site? You did a good job editting, but the topic does not belong here, no matter how well written. No amount of changes to the article will make the topic more relevant for Wikipedia. This belongs here no more than copying game reviews from CNN does. DeWayneLehman 14:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's been rewritten, why bother deleting it? --Jambalaya 12:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: but emphasize the vandalism and viral marketing attempt (in themselves as notable as the game) with links to each. If notable articles warranted deletion because they involved unethical behavior or people, we'd lose most historical articles. The entire point of having an electronic encyclopedia is null and void if it is artificially time-delayed. Unigolyn 12:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: don't need this on wikipedia. Elfguy 12:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an example of how wiki allows us to rapidly change what was an attempt at free advertising to a factual article about the game. There is no need to dismiss this out of hand because of the original content of the article. --h3l1x 12:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten version. Looks good to me. --TexasDex 12:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: rewriting it for NPOV and spelling everything correctly doesn't change the fact that it isn't notable (yet) and shouldn't be here. Anyone who argues that it's notable because of this fuss has, to be brutally frank, completely lost it. - Motor (talk) 12:27:09, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
    • You're missing the fact that it wasn't rewritten solely in order to render the neutral point of view and to correct spelling. It was rewritten using information from cited sources. Several of those sources are press coverage of the subject matter in national newspapers, which date from 2004, pre-dating "this fuss" by 9 months. Uncle G 15:51:53, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • From what I can tell, the References section is a collection of links to blogs and a couple of PR stories in the Guardian. Hardly notability... if the game takes off the article can be recreated. Until then, it should be binned. - Motor (talk) 17:08:19, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
        • If your argument is that the fact that newspapers cover something, and that people discuss it, does not indicate notability at all, then I disagree. If your argument is simply about what level of discussion is necessary, then I agree that this subject is at the low end of the spectrum. However, as I stated above, an additional factor to take into account is that were this article to be deleted, we'd quite probably (as has happened in other cases in the past) have a succession of silly "Jamie Kane is a pop star" articles continually re-created in its place by players of the game over the coming months. Better an encyclopaedia with a proper article about a subject at the low end of the notability spectrum than an encyclopaedia with a succession of silly articles. Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
          • I got a mention in two of my local newspapers last week. Wikipedia article here I come! If I trawl google I can find people have been discussing any old cruft and rubbish. The Guardian entries are PR stories... ten-a-penny. I simply don't understand your point about how there will be lots of "Jamie Kane" new pages -- you don't and can't know that. If that starts to happen then people are playing it and it's becoming more notable, in which case my position might change. Your speculation is hardly a good reason for keeping it... isn't Wikipedia supposed to catalogue notable things rather than predict them? - Motor (talk) 18:47:38, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Delete: If you allow this, then prepare for every company to spam their products on wikipedia. "Acme Widget 4.2-- this is a great product blah blah blah. You wouldn't find this in a normal encyclopedia. Perhaps after it was out for a while and became popular, but not as a PR gimmick. Scovetta 09:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's too long for such a non-notable program, but Wikipedia is not paper and can handle it. There is nothing wrong with factual articles about products per se. But it should be shortened, if possible. Paranoid 13:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Current edit perfectly acceptable. Chris 13:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (WP:NOT paper!) Thank you for rewriting. While it's quite annoying of someone to make hoax articles, especially for advertising, it's not really the spirit of Wikipedia to delete this revised article out of retaliation. I feel like a lot of the delete votes are designed for punishment. Brighterorange 13:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would have stayed marketing if no complaints, changed only under threat of deletion. Keep this, others will follow. Brewder
  • Keep. Current version is fine. ed g2s • talk 13:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: New version describes the game in a neutral fashion. Knobunc 13:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Yeah, it was a pile of crap earlier on, but it's certainly acceptable now. -- phrawzty 14:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no problem with articles about Star Trek and well known video game characters. If this game lasts for a long time, then maybe it will be worth an article. I would have no problem with an entry for this game within some larger article dealing with online video games, however if people think it is worth mentioning within Wikipedia. We should be working for quality of articles, not quantity, and creating a page for every thing people think up can get ridiculous. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Commercial advertising. rwilsonjr
  • Weak Delete: Spam, but others have edited the article to properly expose the scam. STrRedWolf 14:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With the rewrite it's a decent factual article. Moreover, it now seems to be a *popular* article, so we might as well have some good text there! Mark Williamson 14:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whatever the aftermath, the intent was to promote a commercial product - a game. Wikipedia is not a marketing medium. Shoot 'em down! --getkashyap 14:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seem to be numerous delete votes whose only reasoning is that the article's original version may have been a marketing ploy. These people should note that the article has since been fixed, and this claim no longer holds any water. Just because you think this is somehow "bad for Wikipedia" doesn't mean you get to bypass Wikipedia policy and invoke nonsense deletion rationale. Of course, this comment will never stop the simple-minded contrarians out there, so feel free to vote delete by definition! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 14:59
  • Strong Keep gtiven outrageous accusations against the BBC, SqueakBox 15:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Current article is fine. --ElKevbo 15:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rewrite is fine. Anomaly1 15:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well done to Uncle G on the rewrite. johnSLADE (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rewrite is informative and not misleading. Lionheart 16:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the article stands right now, it's very clear that this is a fictional character. I see no problem with the article in its current state. --Doradus 15:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I note that people are still voting for deletion based on the notion that the BBC or its minions were behind this. Apparently that is not the case. Were this intentional, I'd be tempted to delete as a warning, but I don't see any reason to punish the BBC for something a couple of fans did. --William Pietri 15:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "pour décourager les autres". Otherwise we send the message "come put in all the fake entries you want and we'll polish them up for you." A lot of good work on the new version wasted, but it's gotta go.
    • Why is "If you put a fake entry in Wikipedia we will mercilessly edit it, replacing it with a real encyclopaedia article." not a messsage that you want to send? Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Why is "If you put a fake entry in Wikipedia we will expand it, cross-link it, increase its Google-rank, and publicize your otherwise ephemeral unnoteworthy advertising device, hosting it and enshrining it for eternity" a message that you want to send? - Nunh-huh 22:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rewritten version is appropriate, as it's about the game, not the "singer". It's now in the same spirit is the many other entries on fictional elements. We shouldn't degrade the quality of WP to "send a message". AnthonySorace 15:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia cannot abandon its responsibilities as an encyclopaedia even in order to punish those who act to harm it. — ciphergoth 15:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: New article is good. DenisMoskowitz 15:57, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • Keep: Looks like it's been fixed to me. -- Skyfaller 16:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep*; New version is very imformative
  • Keep Cleduc 16:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* -- Current version makes deletion needless, addresses issues behind original VfD. Also notable. -- Adrian 16:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The whole matter sets a bad precedent, delete it. If necessary, create a new article for the game. -- 66.159.216.215 16:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now, new revision practically is a new article. Turn the other cheek despite the intentions of the OP and the avoid self-ref rule. We fix misuse and move on. -Eisnel 16:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks fine now to me. Go Slashdot! Explodicle 16:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks great now! Nick Catalano (Talk) 16:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Lucien 16:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Gamaliel 17:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there was never any reason to remove this, editing it slightly was enough. (This was never even viral marketing) --Sindri 17:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current page is NPOV and valuable --Lpm 18:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As currently written, it is a NPOV discussion of a notable internet issue --Hedgeman 17:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Original article was poorly written but not spam or an attempt at viral marketing. BBC gets no income from the game and current article is well-written and NPOV. RichW 18:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current version is good and the precedent that it sets is that bad articles will be corrected. -- billatq 1806, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some of y'all are just mad because you got hoaxed. Hooper_X
  • Keep Article appears to be factual and corrent now. These sorts of things will happen, and they will get sorted out. mcdavis42 19:33 UTC 15-AUG-05
  • Keep. Kudos to Uncle_G for fixing the article up. I hadn't even realised that the game was eponymous to the character. Or is that the other way around? Whatever. Dayv 18:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm annoyed that someone originally added false information to Wikipedia, but I believe this is the best response...convert it to a well-sourced, factual, NPOV, encyclopedic article. Thanks, Uncle_G. -- MikeJ9919 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the original article was intended to deceive. It sounds to me more like it was a poorly written article that was taken in the wrong context. Never underestimate the likelyhood of human error :).RichW 19:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article seems to have been properly redone to fit the wiki standards. SF2K1 19:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like articles such as Haunted Apiary, ARG coverage is pretty important on Wikipedia. Jal.
  • Strong Keep. Now that the article has been restored to its proper state their is no reason for deletion. I often reffered to wikipidea for info during Haunted Apiary and OurColony Phoenix9
  • Delete. There's no need for Wikipedia to become someone's advertising recepticle. -- LGagnon 20:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has become something more then the original post/intention and is worth preserving (especially after this level of interest). --Nycmstar 20:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In its present form it is informative, and innocuous.--Shoka 20:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting the article now that it has been rewritten fairly would look like petty vindictiveness. Keeping it in its present form shows WPs strengths. It says to the would be abusers "Sure you can TRY to subvert our encyclopedia, but we won't let that happen. We will take your biased ad and turn it into a real article which may or may not help you out. Spam us at your own risk." Keeping this article isn't giving our stamp of approval to either the (supposed) viral marketing tactics or the game itself anymore than the afore mentioned Haunted Apiary article does. Brian Schlosser42 21:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current version is usefully informative. --Wanion 21:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maintaining my pre-rewrite vote. Even with the rewrite, this should be a Wikinews article, not a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is the place for notable, successful, and completed ARGs; Wikinews is the place for current events. This writeup is good, just post it up when the game is over. As an aside, if I had been a Wikipedian in the age of ilovebees and ourcolony, I would have voted for deletion of them as well, for the same reasons. obo 21:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say this is a notable ARG - it is the first aimed at a 'normal' user (14-18yr old girls are outside of the typical market for such games), it is the first ARG done by an institution as well respected as the BBC and it is complete in that many people have played the game to completion. 84.9.20.203 22:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's an entry for Doctor_who another BBC character, why not Jamie Kane DougieLawson 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be because Doctor Who is an international sensation spanning something like 40 years. -Splash 22:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
  • Merge with Gay Nigger Association of America into topic "Things that Wikipedians think are notable because they affected Wikipedia" --66.101.59.18 00:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is now factual. Bryan 00:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I said in the main Talk page, what the BBC does is interesting - even their new work. The rewrite makes the article better, but I would have voted to keep it even in the old form. ---NathanO 01:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as long as there is a page for Majestic, another ARG. An ARG released and promoted by the BBC seem infinitely more encyclopedia-worthy than an EA stillbirth. Whether or not the article was originally caused by vandalism is irrelevant to the importance of its current content. Lachek, 21:23 Aug 15th
  • Delete This kind of usage should be discouraged. Britannica wouldn't allow it. ;)
  • Keep - A Reality Computer game like this is quite interesting. Just reading about the AI interactions and the amount of work being put into this game by the BBC warrants an article I think. - Hahnchen 03:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It is not referencing a historical event nor a well established phenomenon. Citation in the Wikipedia pre-empts its importance as something worth knowing / being referenced; thus it remains advertising. 203.4.163.7
  • Weak Keep Nice rewrite. Given this has made news elsewhere and is no longer misleading worth keeping. Wikipedia really does answer any question, even ones I would never be interested in. Interesting that this controversy could be counted part of the viral marketing of the game itself. Augustz 22:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An abuse of wikipedia by a very minor game, which has little claim to be listed in even the most enclyclopedic encyclopedia. Moreover - although I believe the BBC that this was not done with their official approval - it was committed by people involved in this game for their own advantage. Winterstein 21:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is just false. The original author of the article has no connection to the BBC except that he probably pays for a TV license. 84.9.20.203 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting Pg133 20:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fascinating discussion and it would be a shame to loose it.
  • Keep As long as it is edited to contain factual information, then there is no reason to actually kill it, IMHO.
  • Keep In it's current state I do not find anything to be wrong with the article. It is a legitimate entry about an actual game, it has both positive and negative information in the entry, making it seem much less like an advertising effort than a source of an answer for a legitimate question. tadpole256[[User talk:Tadpole256| *** ]
  • Keep Regardless of what the original article may have been, it's been rewritten now, and deleting it out of spite would reflect badly on wikipedia. It's no less notable than some of the other articles out there --Random|832 05:36, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
  • Delete An mo 15:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The re-written version looks very encyclopedic. Whether or not the character is notable as fancruft for the computer game, it is notable for the advertising campaign, and the wikipedia controversy. In fact, it might be worth adding a section on the wikipedia history. (In a way, it's a pity that votes from before the re-write still count. And what happens if 1000 people think it should be kept, but 1001 people think it should be removed?) Bluap 09:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written article, no difference then an article other games or game characters. 84.153.25.225 15:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, Current article is well-written, however it tends to play into the whole viral marketing theme. Would rather see it as a sub-entry on a viral-marketing page than an entire entry on its own. Kemkerj 16:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable subject - regardless of how the original article came into being. Secretlondon 00:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Here today, gone tomorrow premise, marketing does not belong in an encylopedia. Delete post-haste.

Unsigned votes, votes from unregistered or very new users[edit]

  • Keep The re-write is excellent. Just fact.
  • Speedy delete Blatant abuse of the anti-spam rules here, exists exclusively to promote a product and is no intrest to anyone
  • Speedy delete If I wanted to see a commercial I'd turn on the TV
  • Speedy delete Useless blatent advertising AviN456 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junk. Useless Advertising. damiandamiandamian
  • Delete It's marketing mbrewer
  • Delete Commercial Advertising rthorntn
  • Delete Commercial Advertising Qolume 09:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know that the BBC is not a commercial organisation? ed g2s • talk 13:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising Baffledexpert 13:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Instead of deletion, wouldn't it be more valuable to make an article about the whole thing and redirect all related entries to this unique article ? The article could present the fake facts and a discussion on the use by the BBC of the Wikipedia as part of a viral marketing campaign. --81.245.143.84 17:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To do so would be to play into the hands of the vandals. Exactly what they're trying to do is to generate "buzz" -- to make something seem notable which was not notable before, and to abuse Wikipedia to do it. That's basically the definition of Wikispam. This isn't an interesting case of "viral marketing" -- it is simply the abuse of Wikipedia. It needs to be deleted, and the offenders made incapable of doing it again, by blocking and banning. --FOo 17:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "buzz" has been around for over a year. See the references in the rewritten article. Uncle G 00:15:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • keep Uncle G's rewrite is good. AdamJacobMuller T@lk Fri Aug 19 16:08:51 GMT 2005


  • Delete. Would set a precedent.
  • keep Rewrite, but keep. The person who created this maybe a marketing scum, but its fairly well written. It should be subjected to intense fack checking & rewrite, though. pamri 09:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep new version. Good information for people who want to know who that Jamie Kane everybody talks about is.
  • Delete:marketing/abuse
  • Keep Current version is encyclopedic, talks about the show, not about the fictional character
  • N.BThe article could be seen as advertising BUT the BBC is not a commercial entity (for the time being at least). The BBC is not allowed to use commercial ads for revenue; if you look at the BBC site, you'll notice they only ever advertise their other free services, programmes, or radio. It can be argued that their TV service isn't free, but even that is changing (I'm not even gonna think about pointing to the relevant link! ^_^). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theharker (talk • contribs) 2005-08-15 12:51:00 UTC
  • Keep: While the past versions were questionable, the current version seems perfectly acceptable.
  • Keep: But keep the current article, which is really about a fictional character.
  • Delete: Organizations that abuse Wikipedia in order to promote their own agenda need to be completely removed and blocked from the system. Merely editing the entry, even if it is a complete re-write, still continues to promote their original agenda, and does not hurt them in any way.
  • Keep: The article now acurately reflects the fictional nature. 131.81.200.154 14:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Same reason as Mark Williamson 165.21.154.15 14:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Original references to Kane, which could be morphed into cyberterminology Kaning, or the abuse of metamedia for marketing purposes. Useful origin in the matter, especially in the advent of these tactics.
  • Strong Keep': would have been a strong delete, but with Uncle G's rewrite the article should now be kept.
  • Keep: Keep the current rewritten article, is it's informational and not advertising. Also see the I Love Bees entry for an accepted article on a similar topic.
  • Keep, as long as there is a page for Majestic, another ARG. An ARG released and promoted by the BBC seem infinitely more encyclopedia-worthy than an EA stillbirth. Whether or not the article was originally caused by vandalism is irrelevant to the importance of its current content. Lachek, 21:23 Aug 15th
  • Delete This kind of usage should be discouraged. Britannica wouldn't allow it. ;)
  • Delete
  • Merge with Gay Nigger Association of America into topic "Things that Wikipedians think are notable because they affected Wikipedia" --66.101.59.18 00:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It is not referencing a historical event nor a well established phenomenon. Citation in the Wikipedia pre-empts its importance as something worth knowing / being referenced; thus it remains advertising. 203.4.163.7
  • Keep interesting Pg133 20:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fascinating discussion and it would be a shame to loose it.
  • Keep As long as it is edited to contain factual information, then there is no reason to actually kill it, IMHO.
  • Keep, deletion proposal predates Uncle_G's edits. The article is about the game, hence properly titled. External links point to it. It is not vandalism. An article like this one -- factual, accurate, with references -- should not be deleted just because the original version was controversial. --EJHuff 04:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete marketing campaign plain and simple. And it's not because it is a controversy now that it deserves to live.
  • Delete Better Wikipedia leave commercial product information to other websites, than it become Wikispameteria. 70.19.59.94 05:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The apology is irrelevant, what is important is the intent, which was to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium. This is unacceptable however you look at it. StuartCarter 06:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you actually read the BBC statement or Jon and MattC's post? The BBC's wasn't an apology, it was a categorical denial and neither Jon or MattC indended it as advertising. 129.169.154.82 13:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current page is informational, and given that it has been mentioned on slashdot and boingboing it is now part of Wikipedia lore. Meta though it may be, the history of Wikipedia itself is worth considering. Right now it is clearly marked as fictional and NPOV, so I see no reason at all to delete it other than petty revenge. MasterDirk 06:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fine to me... Gowdy 06:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First edit.
  • Keep It is not a marketing ploy it is just a reference to delete would be censorship - there is nothing that is not fact based in tha article now. -- grouchal
  • Keep It's the same idea as the James Bond article. 12.73.246.156 12:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current page is a notable online game and deserves to stay on wikipedia.
  • Keep edited version fine DerekLaw 16:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepthe edited version is just fine. I understand the concern for commercial products on Wiki, but Wiki is in fact not advertising Jamie Kane or the BBC. The article (the just-the-facts, ma'am article) is fine, and in the spirit of free info about everything, I think it should stay. -kelly
  • Keep It's a game just like any other and deserves a spot in wikipedia, you'd have to remove A.I web quest and many others too.
  • Keep Following the rewrite by Uncle G and the inclusion of a note about all the mess, this is now a real article about a game (like, say, the Doom3 article.) Boris SDC 13:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete" Typical BBC whitewash, why does Hutton spring to mind? Wiki was used for the wrong purpose 84.13.141.203 04:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rewritten article is fine 80.44.248.166 13:01, 19 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamie_Kane&oldid=1087669106"