Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheGreatHatsby

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheGreatHatsby

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}}.

No indication that this passes WP:N or any of the other notability guidelines. All references are blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom. Delete as not passing WP:N. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very interesting phenomenon, in my opinion. If you look at the article's talk page, you can see numerous comments from people who didn't want the article deleted the first time there was a possibility of it being deleted. For other sources, here's a post on the official blog of Synthesis (Magazine) (this is obviously still a blog, but I think it's more compliant with WP:SPS): [1]. And here's a post on MetaFilter (which is a high-profile community blog, and is less self-published than a normal blog, I believe): [2]. Eurleif (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Among other things, it's a sufficiently notable nuisance for an opt-out to have been published. --Philcha (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's very useful to know why your computer is randomly making friends in the middle of the night, and the $optout command actually prevented an e-fight for me this morning. --Achellios (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. All current sources may be blogs, however, several of those (8, 13, 14) are "official" sources - blog entries by someone directly associated with the project. As far as notability, the bots can affect anyone who uses AIM and any of a number of prominent online communities. A livejournal community was created specifically to discuss these bots.Rival (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The LiveJournal community is a great point. Surely a community with about 1300 members proves something about notability? Eurleif (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the nom on this one. This does not pass WP:RS in its current state. And so we beat on.... Ecoleetage (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about the behavior of bots written and operated by livejournal user "salmonmaster". I think that the article passes the 7 criteria for WP:SPS. Granted, it needs work... Rival (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The seventh criteria calls for "an independent, reliable source" -- which salmonmaster is not. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, by definition. However, there are at least 5 independent sources, and my personal opinion is that, given the nature of this subject, the various sources are sufficient enough to be considered "reliable". Yes, the article needs work (additional sources, renamed, possibly moved to a more generic article) but even in its present form, I don't believe deletion is warranted. Rival (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, "blogs ... and similar sources are largely not acceptable." (emphasis mine) - the policy is worded strongly, but not unequivocally. Rhetorically, what WOULD be a reliable source for a phenomenon that is notable due to effects exclusive to blogger communities? Rival (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. When I was accosted by "trout" bots a few months ago, this entry was by far the most succinct and accurate explanation I found, after extensive googling. I've also referred several friends to the entry, when they ran into a trout bot and, like me, had searched in vain for a clear explanation. So although perhaps it ought to be improved or merged with another page (I'm not familiar enough with the mores here to make a call on that), as an outsider/layman I definitely think the information contained is useful and ought not be erased outright. Jsmooth995 (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I just made a new friend with one, lol. Cwolfsheep (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - when I get trouted, this is the only page with enough information and links about the phenomenon that I can point the other "victim" to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.209.47 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2008 (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.