Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unusual eBay listings

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. While strong arguments have been advanced for deletion, the arguments for keeping are defensible based on past practice, and consequently we have no consensus to delete the article. Sandstein 06:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual eBay listings[edit]

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

Amusing, but it seems to me like list of mostly random information, trivia even. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" comes to mind. Who determines what's "unusual", anyway? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability for the concept underlying this list can be provided. I'm no kneejerk deleter of weird lists; in fact, I've been an outspoken defender of several weird lists here. In order to defend such a list, it is necessary to show reliable sourced coverage for the concept underlying the list -- ideally mainstream reliably source coverage. The article does not show evidence that the concept has obtained such coverage, and my Google searches find only non-RS interest in this topic. Additionally, there's no indication yet of a defensible set of inclusion criteria (tickling somebody's funnybone doesn't qualify). --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the vast majority, if not all, of these items are covered in reliable secondary sources makes this a valid list spinout of eBay. GNG is met. Prose and ordering could be cleaned up a bit, but for such a wide-open list (like, you know, the actual variety of eBay auctions...) this is actually pretty coherent and well sourced. WP:IINFO does not cover auction listings, and no policy-based rationale for deletion has yet been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the individual items are covered by reliable sources, but where is the reliably sourced coverage indicating that the concept of unusual listings on eBay -- or even better the assembling of lists of such items -- is notable? I can create any number of lists of related items found in reliable sources (for example, people with weirdly dyed hair, to name one in the current news), but the fact that the individual items were documented in reliable sources doesn't make the compilation notable. --Orlady (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strongly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...You've got it backwards. If there are a series of reliable sources documenting a discrete topic, that topic is notable. The coverage of the list items is the notability of the list. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, "Notability of lists is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". That each entry in the list has been verified doesn't change the fact that the topic "unusual ebay listings" in itself has to have received coverage. Coverage focusing on the event (the ebay sale itself) does not discuss the overall topic. There must be some sources acknowledging first the concept of an "unusual" ebay listing, then asserting that several instance of it exist ("listings"). I'm not denying that this coverage exist, just that your contention that lists are made notable by individual coverage on entries is incorrect.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article is actually well-sourced with reliable sources. The criteria for things being included on the list can be improved through basic copy editing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I think your understanding of "Basic copy editing" is quite different from mine. Do tell how would you do it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens, as a legitimate spinoff of the eBay article, properly sourced material about notable listings that is too long to fit in the main article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jclemens' claim that individual coverage on entries make the overall topic notable is in direct opposition with the established consensus on stand-alone lists.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic of the weirdest things being sold on ebay (considered as a group or category) is obviously notable, with many publications producing lists[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. There are numerous websites devoted solely or principally to the topic.[15][16][17][18][19][20] If this is the only issue surrounding the article, you have to keep it, but just because something's written about doesn't necessarily mean there has to be an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability as a group clearly established by Colapeninsula's comment, along with references for the individual entries within the article itself. KTC (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator offers no policy based rationale for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly said that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Which makes your only argument clearly false, thus you offer no policy (or any other) rationale for your vote having any merit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fascinating, noteworthy, good coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you like it. How does that establish the meaning of "unusual"? Carrite (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a sucker for these type of lists as WP:ILIKEIT, but non policy, personal opinion aside, this clearly fails our guidelines for an article. What contributes to be "unusual" in this case? As far as it stands this fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as unusual is as vague of a term as it can get. Someone random news website thinking that an ebay auction is "unusual" doesn't mean it is as in almost all of these cases, the auctions are created by people trying to make a quick buck by attracting attention to themselves, which WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS applies for this. News sources love covering that stuff, but that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic, and thinking something is unusual is original research at it's finest. If anything using that term makes the list unmaintainable as well. The secondary sources argument is badly misapplied here, and the rest is I like it/interesting comments. Secret ^account 08:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. Though "unusual" is a subjective term that could do with clarification there are certainly sufficient valid external sources that have such lists. This article was obviously made to reduce such content in the main eBay article and does a good job while still being valid in and of itself. Each entry is sourced and gives sufficient indication of it being unusual (out of the billions that happen the few sales that are reported in the media automatically introduce them as being unusual). violet/riga _^[talk] 09:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing and entertainment value does not make an encyclopedic topic. There is no way to define "unusual" as it means different things to different people. What we are left with is a junk drawer full of entertaining oddities and WP:ILIKEIT ain't enough... List of funny things printed in the ''New York Times'' and List of unusual clothing wouldn't be encyclopedic either, for the same reasons. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to ebay. A standalone article isn't appropriate but we should mention a few of these on the ebay article to demonstrate the site's wide scope of listings. The hindrance to a standalone article is the subjective criterion of "unusual" and the indiscriminate nature of such an openended list. Creating a list of "unusual" subjects is nearly impossible to do without using original research, especially with this particular topic. Them From Space 04:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. A list of "stuff that is unusual on eBay" clearly falls under Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. WP:ILIKEIT and it's WP:INTERESTING, but also WP:ROUTINE and WP:SENSATIONAL and thus not encyclopedic. If it is to be kept someone should try to wikify it using Colapeninsula's comment to generate a psuedo-notable list ala List of songs considered the best or List of films considered the worst. (But please don't. I like going to cracked.com for dumb lists and Auction Humor gives a more complete list of weird stuff on ebay). --Joshuaism (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2012 (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.