Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BotF

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 No Consensus default to Keep. If anyone would like to renominate this and impose better organization, please feel free to do so. Essjay · Talk 09:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The Fray (Internet forum)

[edit]

Neologism and non-notable entry. The reference does not seem to justify it's own entry as it pertains to a relatively small group of people. - JogCon 02:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author (though it's a collaborative effort of several Fraysters), I respectfully disagree. The forum's readership is non-negligible, numbering in the thousands. It also has a number of regular contributors whose work is featured prominently alongside the articles by paid contributors.--70.33.127.116 03:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an interested observer, I beg to differ. I think it's at least of equivalent interest as the Slate entry and more than a score others also to be found on this site. I say leave it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.173.82 (talk • contribs) 03:06, August 4, 2005

  • Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a webguide. EvilPhoenix talk 03:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


"non-notable?" -- begging your pardon, but you do have other entries of similar nature and it's, at a minimum, at least as interesting.

I can't see how a 3-day internet hoax merits a Wiki yet a 10-year old site that has been an incubator for developments in the internet is somehow inherently unnoteworthy. The idea of Wiki used to be that experts could craft a summary of what something is and why it's significant. Give us 48-hours and you'll have a wiki entry equal to Greenlighting or Dracula 3000--70.33.127.116 03:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Geoff[reply]


For future reference, please sign your vote using the ~~~~ text so we know who is speaking. Also, this page is for votes only to Delete or Keep, not to argue any one with a different viewpoint. - JogCon 03:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

discussion is encouraged on VFDBorisblue 11:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And I'm arguing anyway. Reluctant as I am to give BotF any more exposure than it has (imagine Thai beaches 15 years ago), I humbly submit that you might want to give the interested parties some time to put a coherent article together in appropriate wiki style before deleting the current effort. You can always delete it later, if you judge the entry to be of little merit. It might not hurt to have a look at BotF before passing judgement on its worthiness for wiki-inclusion. And consider BTC News http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/ spawned by Fray regulars, one of whom now attends White House Press Briefings. It's not an inconsequential site. DC

I apologize to all regular wiki users for my inadequate understanding of both the mechanics of the site, and any breach of etiquette I may inadvertently commit. I am the original author of the entry, it is a collaborative product of users from the Slate forum, our goal is to ultimately create an informative and helpful article for the sake of all interested parties (we estimate this to be a non-negligible number of people), and with a few days (and help from any interested parties, whether Fray-users or not) we hope to accomplish that task. I also apologize for being argumentative, but Wiki's documentation itself claims: "If you are the author of the article, you are welcome to join in the discussion, make your case, and vote like everyone else." I am attempting to do exactly this - to make a case for the importance of this information and for preserving the page long enough for users to develop it into an objective source of useful information. I admit the first stirrings of the entry are underwhelming, but feel it would be a shame to strangle the entry in its crib.--70.33.127.116 03:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into main Slate Magazine article. May be of some note but does not merit its own article. Junkyard prince 04:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not every forum deserves an article.Geni 05:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not encyclopedic.--nixie 05:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am a part of the BoTF community and as such vote to allow us to be given sufficient time to put together a suitable wiki-formated/wiki-friendly article. Several hours is simply not enough time to put this together as we would like to represent our forum which does include, as noted by Geoff above, some very notable people and their accomplisments, certainly with more to come in the next several days. Gypsy
Preceding comment by User:Humanbeing, which is incorrectly listed in signature as User:HumanBeing, who joined Wikipedia on August 4th, and so far has made three edits. EvilPhoenix talk 08:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete any article that uses the word "blogosphere" without a trace of irony. (Oh yeah, it's also a non-notable forum.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The entry is encyclopedic regarding online forum history; somewhat arcane, sure, but Slate itself is well known and its attending forums are also well known. BotF is essentially the backbone of this entity, and therefore deserves notation. - SwingLowSweetDeej 07:41, 4 August 2005 (PST)
  • Keep: Just as notable as the parent webzine, if not more so. CosmeticIrony 15:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This was interesting. I’ve taken a little time to review wiki’s attempts to address the many issues that plague it (and other open forums like BotF), and it looks like they’ve done a good job. Still, the speed with which the wiki familiars put BotF up for deletion is evidence those guidelines are somewhat unfamiliar to, or ignored by the wiki familiars who would sooner vote for deletion then satisfy their supposed encyclopedic curiosity and learn what it is exactly they’re deeming non-notable. But although I’m a BotF regular, and the one who suggested this article, I vote for deletion. Not because BotF is non-notable, but because the wiki familiars who’ve apparently resigned their contributions to voting to delete articles they fail to appreciate have done an effective job of discouraging BotF’s authors from pursuing the endeavor. Wikifolk, you’ve wielded your power to the desired effect. Your fiefdom is safe. Have a nice life. BOTF 16:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There really is no reason why you can't present something encyclopedic on a first edit when it comes to something that has been around as long as Slate Magazine. However, if the idea was to merge all of the relevant information over to the Slate Magazine article, that would be more appropriate. I just don't see how an acronym for a sub-forum is just cause for an encyclopedia entry. And don't think that a VFD is an attempt to insult the author OR the topic of the article. It is defenitely not so. - JogCon 19:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you know, I imagine what I’m about to say will break some wiki etiquette rules, so stop reading now if you don’t want to be offended. I guess what is getting me is you really don’t know how ridiculous you sound. Honestly, I came here to write an article on BotF, not argue its merits with someone whose expertise appears to be PS2 and its accessories. Mind you, I’m not criticizing your obsession. On the contrary, mine (BotF) is as pathetic, if not more. What I’m getting at is this: I’m not going to suggest JogCon be deleted even though I feel about it the same way you apparently feel about BotF. So why am I not devoting myself to getting your article deleted? Because I’m sure it’s relevant to someone, so what business is it of mine? Other points:
        • a) You clearly don’t have any idea what BotF is. You do, however, seem to know the ins and outs of placing a VFD on an article. So, why am I not surprised you’re partial to your VFD? If I didn’t know better (and I don’t) I would guess you’ve taken to using VFDs as a means of getting attention.
        • b) The fact of the matter is, a VFD is detrimental to the article. Why would someone devote their time and effort to an article that begins with, “This article is being considered for deletion…”? That’s your doing, and you did it before you even knew what it was you deemed “Neologism”. But then, that says it all doesn’t it. You have no idea what it means, prefer it be meaningless as an excuse and for good measure, want to deny others the opportunity to recognize what is of apparent interest to its contributors.
        • c) Lastly, so I’m clear, I am an expert in not only BotF, but the vagaries of all the types of people who find their little niches in the internet. In other words, I know exactly what you are JogCon, and I’m done feeding your appetite for attention. It is sad though, that you would burden the great idea that is WikipediA with the responsibility of quenching your desire for validation. You have power here JogCon, the power to judge, and you live for it. You’re a sad spectacle and a sorry excuse for a wiki ambassador. BOTF 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • For someone criticizing another person for supposedly wanting attention, you sure went out of your way to attempt to insult me in as long of an elitist rambling as possible. I reiterate that the VFD was not an attempt to insult the author, the topic of the article, or by extension, it's user base. If that is how you feel, I am truly sorry as it was never my intention to do so. However, I do stand by my original word that an acronym for a sub-forum is not encyclopedic. I have attempted to be as civil as possible. Had it been that everyone voted to keep the article, then so be it. My opinion would be overturned and that would be the last of it. You can feel free to put a VFD on any article you want. That is your right as someone who can access the board. However, I do respectfully request that you leave personal arguments and insults toward my character out of this matter. That is rather uncalled for. And the fact that you resort to such remarks is further proof that you do not know me as you have suggested. - JogCon 21:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • That’s not long, and certainly not as long as possible JogCon, and not by any standard much less BotF standard. And yes, I got personal, but it was called for as you effectively shut down the article without giving it a second thought. I mean, really, don’t you have anything better to do than to stomp on other people’s ideas? Sure, you’re civil, and if I had a power equal to the VFD you slapped on BotF, I’d slap civility right back at you. But I don’t. All I have are these words, and no, I’m not going to return the favor and put VFDs on all your articles. That’s your lesson in civility JogCon. You were thoughtless, and the damage is done. Live and learn JogCon, so the next time you get the urge to slam a VFD on someone’s work, think twice and consider the only reason you think it doesn’t belong is your own prejudice. And yes, you’re right, an acronym for a sub-forum is not encyclopedic. And thanks to you, you’ll never know it to be anything else. Now shove off, you won, be a good sport and let the loser have the last word. BOTF 22:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hint to JogCon: your objection - that we felt compelled to use the acronym (because an earlier stab at a clearer title was speed-deleted) has a simpler remedy than deletion. It's called "Moving the Article." You are very defensive about your VfD, despite your protestations to the contrary. Yet none of your arguments are rooted in Wikipedia's deletion criteria, and - had you not killed it - it would have been rather easy to assemble an article explaining the larger significance of this particular site that would have been relevant to those interested in the relationship between certain internet forums and political issues. Memo to the general public: The word "encyclopedic" means "comprehensive." Describing the existence of things is an "encyclopedic" endeavor. Censoring the description of things which exist is the opposite of encyclopedic.--Geoff-LA 22:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have already stated that a previous article that was previously posted was given a Speedy Deletion tag (and it seems to have gone through, although that explanation has not been explicitly confirmed). Don't you think that's justification enough? You've reduced this to a petty, childish argument. This is NOT about winning or losing. Regardless of what you may think, I take no joy in "stomping" on your or anyone else's work. It has been and still is my opinion that "BotF" on its own, is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. The reason I put the VFD tage rather than Speedy Delete tag on it was because I don't feel I need to be the sole voice on the matter. I wanted the opinions of other Wikipedians. You still seem to be speaking under the assumption that by putting a VFD on this entry that I was attempting to insult you. I don't know how many times I must explain that this is simply untrue, but if I must keep doing so, I will. So like I have been saying, if what I did came across as a personal insult to you or your user base, I am truly sorry. If the article deserves to remain on Wikipedia according to other users (and more importantly, the admins) then so be it. It won't hurt me at all to see the page remain, as I will understand that it's remaining in the view of the "greater good" so to speak. So I will ask you again, politely, keep the personal insults aside. It does nothing to benefit your argument. I did not "kill" the page, as Geoff-LA suggests. It can still be edited and improved upon (and in fact, doing so could very well re-inforce your argument of why it belongs). - JogCon 23:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • In the matter of winning and losing, you win. The speedy delete tag (if that is what happened - another user tried before I decided to help by grabbing some unused real-estate) might only indicate that someone with less restraint flagged it (i.e., the actions of wiki-users are not perfectly co-extensive with objective merit). Nobody here has claimed that the VfD tag was an insult. We've claimed that it was inappropriate (because the VfD is not grounded in the criteria for deletion that constitute Wikipedia policy), that it has a chilling effect on the development of the article (because the original authors no longer have an interest in completing the article), and that it is ludicrous in light of the pre-existing content of the Wikipedia. In all likelihood, Slate's Fray has more unique viewers per day than Dracula 3000 has had at all. This alone should make it more significant in its field (the internet) as your own entry is in its field (cinema). You did "kill" the page, as I suggest, and we are inviting you to take pride in this fact. At this point, you are not arguing the merits of creating an article describing the pheonomenon which is the Fray - but rather dodging and weaving in self-defense because you don't seem to like the fact that you've made a very negative impression. This article wasn't about you, and it still isn't about you. You'll have your way on the question of this article's lifespan. It's beyond reason to ask that the people you've censored also respect you.--Geoff-LA 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again, to me it is not (nor has it ever been) about winning or losing. That is not the view I take on Wikipedia. If that's how you choose to take it, then that is your choice. The reason it seems that some people have taken the VfD tag as an insult it comments that have been about attacking me rather than the issue at hand. I can't see how someone would just up and insult me without having previously felt offended. All that had to be done was to plead the case, and be done with it. I am not "dodging and weaving". I still stand in my original position that "BotF" on it's own seems like a weak article on it's own. My stance has not changed and I have only been returning posts because of the attacks on my person and not on my actions. Please do try and understand this. - JogCon 00:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How have you been insulted? Because we've examined your own contributions to the Wikipedia and compared it to ours? If that's an insult, it would seem you have very low self-esteem. If your previous entries are inherently more meritorious of description than the Fray, then there would be nothing insulting at all in our confusion over your standards. As for whether someone "wins" or "loses" - you've asked that this article die, and you're going to get your wish. You win. What more do you want? Why the need to keep interjecting your own emotions into the discussion.--Geoff-LA 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Here are but some of the personal attacks that have NOTHING to do with the article on hand. "...you really don’t know how ridiculous you sound", "You clearly don’t have any idea what BotF is", "I would guess you’ve taken to using VFDs as a means of getting attention", "You have no idea what [neologism] means", "I know exactly what you are JogCon, and I’m done feeding your appetite for attention", "You’re a sad spectacle and a sorry excuse for a wiki ambassador". You mean to tell me that none of these are personal attacks? - JogCon 00:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • What makes those personal attacks? From the listener's perspective you do sound ridiculous (for the reasons elaborated). Do you have an idea of what BotF is? If you do, do you suppose you've demonstrated that fact? Have we, or have we not, been forced to discuss your sense of aesthetics instead of a phenomenon we consider of material interest to thousands of people? Do you understand what a neologism is? I always thought a personal attack was "you're a stupid fucktwit." It seems by your standard any unflattering assessment of your behavior counts as a personal attack. But your behavior has been, quite frankly, outrageous. Why should your victims pretend they've enjoyed it? Why aren't you satisfied with the fact that your objection has been acted upon, and that this article is now dead? From my perspective (and I would bet from BOTF's too) your interest in trumpeting your own opinions rather than discussing the object which we attempted to wiki indicates that this isn't about The Fray, but is in fact about you. Given that this is your apparent topical preference, it's pretty hard to discuss the matter at hand without making reference to your behavior. Nobody I've seen from the Fray has asked you to stop saying anything you're saying - despite the fact that you've significantly misrepresented both the topic which was being discussed (The Fray) and the motives of the people seeking to discuss it. --Geoff-LA 03:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I fail to see how "You’re a sad spectacle and a sorry excuse for a wiki ambassador" is not a personal attack. I never once tried to make this discussion about me. In fact, I've tried several times to re-iterate that this page is for discussion of the subject matter in the article and not of the people who edit it. In fact, as I recall, it was someone else who brought me into it in a personal matter. In fact, even after such attempts to attack my character, I have still tried to reach a resolution, only to be met with a very rude comment by BTOF about me, rather than the article in question. "Dude, get a grip and shrink your head down to size." is what I received in response to my attempt to help resolve this issue. The fact that my behavior is "outrageous" should have no bearing on the discussion. Never was it my intention to make the discussion about me in any way. I felt the information did not justify it's own entry, posted the VfD tag to allow other users to voice their opinion ABOUT THE ARTICLE, not about me. In fact, if BTOF hadn't called me a "sad spectacle", it never would have been an issue. Remember, I didn't bring myself into this discussion on a personal level, the two of you did. But if it somehow helps you justify the article's legitimacy by insulting and blaming me, then by all means continue. Remember, I didn't bring myself into this discussion on a personal level, the two of you did. Thanks and have a great night! - JogCon 03:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Well, gee. What kind of ambassadorship do you think it is to drive off new users because... what? What have your arguments been? That the thing which was trying to be discussed was a neologism? Even if the point's conceded, it's grounds or renaming, not deletion. That "There really is no reason why you can't present something encyclopedic on a first edit when it comes to something that has been around as long as Slate Magazine."? What kind of reason for deletion is that? There were half a dozen authors! How on earth were they supposed to get it write on the first edit? That it's "not notable"? Well, it's obviously "been noted" - an easy claim to refute. You haven't advanced any substantive claim that couldn't be knocked down with a flick of the little finger. So, what is this? It's your personal opinion acting as a proxy for objective merit. Given your personal assessments of what is objectively meritorious, calling your fitness to judge in this matter seems pretty damned obvious. YOU don't think it's important, so you wanted US to explain its importance to YOU. If you didn't want to get personal, you could have flagged it and come back in the morning to see whether we were describing something of importance to you. But instead, you threw a big fat red flag on the field so we'd come over here and have a chat with you. It's absolute thuggery, and it's a direct product of your behavior. If you want to understand the objective merit of the forum as a wikipedia entry, just follow all of our cites to the Wikipedia deletion policy (which you apparently are under no obligation to read or respect) or refute our explanations of its historical significance with something resembling a cogent rebuttal. All I see is a man who really wants to be talked about, and is pretending quite badly that this is somehow something else--Geoff-LA 03:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                            • But again, that is all your opinion and is not relevant to the article itself. I also see that I am not the only one holding this opinion. The discussion never should have been made about me. I've tried to turn the conversation away from me, but since you and BTOF insist on making it about me, I will concede from this discussion. I'm not sure what's worse. The fact that your best argument is that I haven't read the site and the Wikipedia policies (which I have, in both cases), or the fact that you consistently say I'm craving attention, when the only reason I am being singled out is because the two of you have chosen to do so. I still hold the same opinion I have since the very beginning. But since you refuse to discuss the point at hand, I feel I have no other choice but to end this line of conversation right here. So have a good day. Best of luck with your article. And next time you disagree with someone, make it about the points they make rather than how you feel about them as a person. - JogCon 12:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Hey, I'm feeling charitable this morning. You've been pretty dishonest throughout this discussion, but I'll give you another chance to prove your sincerity. Tell me clearly: Why are 3rd-rate horror movies more important to Wikipedia than boards with tens of thousands of unique users? Tell me clearly: Why have you kept talking so much if you haven't changed your mind? Tell me clearly: Where in the Wiki deletion policy are the grounds you've provided for deletion? Tell me clearly: Why do you insist that your interlocutors have any interest in saving this article, when they've both voted to delete it?--Geoff-LA 16:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge what may be worth with Slate. Pavel Vozenilek 19:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Opinion of the original author. The emergence of the internet is a socio-political phenomenon on par with the development of the press - and early innovators such as Slate's Fray will ultimately be recorded for their role in its permeation. Certainly, the Fray has been an engine for the dissemination of political ideas and has already begun to transform the nature of news media. It may not be a Gutenberg Bible, but it is arguably an Ottaviano Petrucci.

It's a shame that Wikipedia has become such a failure of its own vision. The wikipedia presence of Something Awful or Slashdot clearly shows that the demotic approach to deletion is rife with hypocrisy and hostility - i.e., relevance is defined by interest to subsets of internet users, rather than by significance to the culture at-large. I was willing to try this article on the proviso that the experts would contribute, but having to waste time defending the topic's very legitimacy, when it passes every formal criteria listed on the site's guidelines for inclusion ([verfiability] included) has thrown a damper on the willingness of anyone to work on it.

So, happy trails to all of you. Closing Thoughts--Geoff-LA 21:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Slate Magazine. The Fray and BotF are a part of Slate with no notability other than their connection to that notable web magazine. Therefore, it doesn't need its own article. Now... *rolls eyes* Why must you people take VfDs as a personal insult? And why do you think everything in the world deserves its own article? I know everyone wants their place in Wikipedia, but remember that Wikipedia is an giant encyclopedia, and so topics need to be of around the same notability as would be required by an encyclopedia. Anyway, by the logic of the creators of this article, the forums of any web site listed in Wikipedia should get their own page. And yes, I'm aware of Something Awful forums and Something Awful, but there's notability outside of the main site for them (the SA forums regulars have, in the past, engaged in forum invasions, attacked other websites, etc.). That having been said, I would still say they need to be the same article. A part of something that is notable is not, in and of itself, notable. And, uh, just because notability isn't an official criterion, it's a de facto one. Entries must be important and encyclopedic. Notability is part of being encyclopedic, IMHO. I won't address the comment of bias except to say that I personally believe that SA and Slashdot are at least as recognizable as Slate's forums, if not more so. --FreelanceWizard 22:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why wouldn't it make sense to write the article first, then determine the proper way to link it back to the article on Slate magazine? The Fray is, at a root level disaggregated from the main site. It has its own search engine and its own mechanics. It also has its own history. Instapundit, for example, is a direct off-shoot of the Fray and its format largely inspired by that set out by the forum of Slate magazine. Given the horde of imitators that this website spawned, and their growing influence in the political discourse, it has a legitimate claim to some independent significance which would - if discussed directly in the Slate article, muddy the content of that article. The problem with the VfD slap is that it throws a pall over the process of authorship. A number of Fray users are prominent attorneys or involved directly in national politics and are uniquely qualified to discuss its effects. But, we've found the VfD notice kills the discussion. That's not a personal taking of offence - it's a chilling effect inherent in asking an individual to invest time and energy into writing an article that is clearly marked as "waiting for deletion"--Geoff-LA 23:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not really convinced that blogging and forums are really a solid part of the political discourse (my humble opinion, others almost assuredly don't agree ;) ), and I really don't see why mentioning the forums in the main article would disrupt the article. That having been said, I think you do have a point insofar as other web site forums get their own separate pages (I cite Something Awful as an example again -- hell, it has its own category). It seems reasonable by way of precedent that The Fray -- not BotF, but The Fray itself -- should be given similar treatment. My vote, however, is based on the fact that I don't like the precedent, and I don't really see what's added by having an article about a website, then a long article about its forums and their culture, then a long article about things the people in the forum do (Slashdot trolling phenomena), ad infinitum. If the big aspect of a site is its forums, make a discussion of them into the majority of the article. If the forums are an adjunct to the site (such as, say, the Bob and George forums), say the web site has forums and be done with it. I don't think it serves Wikipedia at all to go into vast detail on forum culture for every forum. The arrangement of a forum, the levels of users, the cost of membership -- all of these are external link material and not sufficiently important for putting in an article proper. So, my vote stands, but I hope you understand better now why I voted that way. I'm trying to change what I consider a bad precedent, even though I think you have a case for keeping the page as things are right now. I also don't think my position is a violation of WP:POINT, because my goal isn't to disrupt things but rather to provoke discussion. ;) --FreelanceWizard 23:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may be fighting the tide, but to say that an historically significant online forum (BotF is that, even as itself) is not worthy of mention in an online encyclopedia is at best hasty and at worst elitist. As a long time participant in BotF, I do not take personal offense in JogCon's initial VfD, but I think his action hasty and ill informed. The page was up for something like 30 minutes when his VfD request came up, and while the matter is not decided, that fat page header immediately gives any reader the wrong idea about the page. Also, you state recognizability as a quality for keeping the page. The Fray gets around 10,000 posts a day and is directly associate with the Washington Post. --SwingLowSweetDeej 23:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello. We’re not taking the VfD as a personal insult. Is that how it looks, or is that how you’d like to see it. Either way, it doesn’t matter. The issues with the VfD are: a) As your comments clearly demonstrate, the issue being debated in not the topic matter the authors originally intended the article to address. The VfD was issued within an hour or so of the articles inception and based on the barest of information. Clearly, if the VfD happy wikiperson had show a bit more patience, he might have found is initial objections to the entry were baseless. b) The VfD effectively killed the collaborative nature the article required if it was to be accurate, objective, and complete. You honestly have no clue as to the nature, depth and particulars of BotF and what it represents. The work that would have informed you so that you could talk about it intelligently was stifled by the VfD. For example: You suggest that forums raiding one another makes them noteworthy. Trust me in that raiding another forum is not only problematic in that it stinks of groupthink, but it’s quite frankly beneath BotF. c) This is an esthetics issue really, but the VfD block at the head of the article really does kill it. How can anyone be expected to judge the article on its merits, if it supposedly merits an obtrusive and off-putting warning at its head. Now I’m new to WikipediA, but is seems to me that the process of VfD could be done a little more subtlety. I’m sure you are familiar with all the elements of a wiki-page and don’t need a neon sign to tell you that there is a debate as to its relevance. Lastly, this whole idea that you should know something exists before it warrants entry into an encyclopedia is just absurd. Are you literally telling us that you never read an encyclopedia entry that educated you? The point being, if you knew as much about BotF as that which you find sufficient to justify the inclusion of other more well known to you forums, you’d change your tune. But then, maybe not since I see from your page that you have a penchant for merging. BOTF 23:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • BOTF, would you perhaps consider toning down your aggressive stance and dropping the personal attacks? You are the reason I mentioned the insult issue, because you very much seem to be taking it as one. ;) I'm not opposed to seeing the content in Wikipedia. I am opposed to it being its own page. There's a world of difference there. Yelling at other editors isn't going to help reach a consensus, and really doesn't help your case, IMHO. --FreelanceWizard 23:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we don't seem to be making a lot of headway in either direction (BOTF and I both seem to be stubborn in our ways), let me try a different approach. As the author, how would you feel about expanding the article to include more than just "BotF"? To merge it with the Slate Magazine article, seems more ideal. But if it were to even just expand the article (like another person suggested), to include the entire section known as "The Fray", rather than one small portion of it, would be more than satisfactory in my opinion. I'd love to resolve this issue with the author and the others involved, but would greatly appreciate doing so with being attacked on a personal level. The sooner we can get this resolved, the sooner we can retract the VfD and all be on our merry (or not so merry) ways. - JogCon 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel compelled to note that the article was working towards a description of the Fray as a general phenomenon. The authors merely felt boxed into staking a unique term applicable to the site, because - hey, we're new here and it wasn't clear how to dodge the censorship of wikipedians long enough to get the article started. Once happenstance forced the terminology on us, the introduction had to clarify the relationship between the parts and the whole (which the article as it exists does). Also, given what I know of the man going by "BOTF" on this page, your invitations to finish the article are wasted. We're not going to be able to get our authors to contribute to the page with the VfD tag at its head, anymore than we'd get a roomful of guests to sit down and stay if we had a fresh turd sitting on the coffee table. There's precious little interest in satisfying your criteria, and more than a little annoyance at having been asked to consider the merits of your interests over the merits of the topic originally envisioned.--Geoff-LA 00:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You actually expect me to compromise with you over an article that you have yet to read (since it hasn’t been written), on a subject matter that you willfully have no knowledge of and of which I and my co-authors are the authority? Dude, get a grip and shrink your head down to size. BOTF 23:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is the stance you wish to take, then so be it. I've tried to reach a compromise so the VfD could be removed and you would be appeased, and in the process make an article that better justifies what is in my opinion a proper encyclopedia entry. But I can't force you to cooperate. You keep bringing up the "fact" that I have no knowledge of the subject matter. I personally don't see the relevance in this argument, especially considering you have NO idea what websites I choose to browse. - JogCon 00:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I see you’ve “quoted” me in your profile. A bit disingenuous and self-serving without a link, no? BOTF 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm sure it's not a surprise to anyone here, but the keep votes all seem to be coming from people whose only edits have been to the page in question or this VfD. I suspect that's probably why we're seeing this "us versus them" mentality (short of the violation of the no personal attacks guideline); the BotF people want to see their article stay, and the Wikipedians don't seem to. I want to make a plea for sanity here -- given the way the admins work, I think it's unlikely this article will stay if the discussion continues how it's going. So, could we start discussing compromise and consensus, as opposed to aggressively demanding that the article stay? Historically, votes from users who have a vested interest in the article, or who are new to Wikipedia except for the article in question or the VfD, are discounted. If you want the content to stay, let's talk about how we can make it stay. --FreelanceWizard 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd recommend envisioning it as an opportunity to have some useful dialogue with people coming from a different point of view. The votes of several BotF users has been to "delete" and the intention to finish the article is pretty much dead. Your suggestion of a compromise is welcome, but at this point it's largely irrelevant, because there are widely differing levels of commitment to Wikipedia itself between Wiki-users and Fray-users. From the perspective of the Fray, it is in no way diminished by not being included within the Wiki, whereas the Wiki is diminished by failing to include a socially significant phenomenon (recognizing you'd disagree about its significance). Thus, the discussion is taking place at a more meta-level. Why would the users of a site dedicated to developing an "encyclopedic" repository of knowledge (in the word's sense, not in the Wiki-neologism sense) have such a vested interest in preventing the description of things which exist? Also, I think closer attention to distinguishing between "argument" and "attack" would be appreciated by the Fraysters. --Geoff-LA 00:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, Geoff-LA, BOTF is in fact engaging in personal attacks, and seems to be, in my opinion, taking this VfD as a personal attack. However, I agree that that's probably not a distinction worth making at this point. ;) In any event, the current stance of Wikipedia, as far as I've been able to discover, is that things must be more than just extant to fit in here. Everything2, for instance, is a great example of a Wiki-like system whose goal is to cover everything that it possibly can; Wikipedia wants to cover things that it considers, by consensus, of great import. I don't entirely agree with everything it does, certainly. I don't think Something Awful deserves its own category, as I've stated, nor do I think, say, every anime series ever made should gets its own page. In that sense, I'm what one would call an exclusionist. I try to avoid taking POV (in the Wikipedia sense) positions on the significance of things, though. My vote was based on my opinion that web sites in general need to be very notable to make it here, and that their components have to be just as if not more important if they're to get their own pages. Since that doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion and I'm comparatively new here, I don't try to pick fights on these issues, but when the perspective of the community is requested (as on, say, a VfD), I try to make my position known.
        That having been said, let me suggest a few things here. It's clear the Fraysters want the article to stay, and I think it could be useful information if it's as notable as is claimed -- and I think you do have a good case for that, for reasons I've already stated. After stepping away from the computer for a bit, I think the best compromise here is to go the way of the precedent. The BotF article should be turned into The Fray, expanded to talk about the forum and BotF, and linked from Slate Magazine, possibly while adding a category for the magazine itself. As a second option, we can let this go down as it is, in which case everyone loses -- you don't get the notability of being in Wikipedia (not that you may care, but let's say you might ;) ), and Wikipedia loses out on some information content. I'd hate to see sour grapes over what amounts to a technical "where should this go" issue end like that. Finally, of course, the VfD could be retracted, but I doubt that's going to happen.
        Out of curiosity, does my first compromise idea seem feasible? I don't like it, but I'm willing to compromise to improve the quality of the site. --FreelanceWizard 00:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel you've been quite reasonable, and it's an excellent suggestion of a compromise. It's looking like Deej might have an interest in salvaging the article, which could very well be the beginning of some beautiful peacemaking between two obvious peacemakers. My own guess is that even that article will be slapped by its own VfD tag - which is to say I have a pretty dismal view of Wikipedia in general. I do think you're wrong about the Wikipedia's purpose, in that my own encounters with your founder's arguments on the standards of inclusiveness seem to suggest that his only considerations are verifiability and NPOV, the first of which the Fray possesses, and the second of which we were certainly trying to get to. My impression from what I've seen of the debate is that "notability" in the Wiki-jargon is a pretty ugly concept - masking either impressions that Wiki's job is to emulate the encyclopedias it was designed to revolutionize or (as in JogCon's case) that "notability" is a function not of inherent significance, but of the personal aesthetic preference of individual Wiki users. I'd urge you to consider a less-exclusionist stance on the grounds that people who know about an awful lot of things aren't going to contribute, if their first encounter is anything like this--Geoff-LA 03:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • BOTF, Geoff-LA, I concur with turning this into The Fray and I will committ to expanding the entry. I will only do this if you both agree, please respond here.--SwingLowSweetDeej 02:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nn forum. The keepability of an article is in inverse proportion to the length of comment required to defend it on VfD. -Splash 02:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is changed to Rename to The Fray, which will be linked to Slate Magazine and will cover a larger area about this forum, in keeping with the compromise and consensus reached above, as well as the precedent set by Category:Something Awful and other such things. Further commentary is welcome, but please, admins, take our good faith negotiation into account and let's see if we can get a good page here. --FreelanceWizard 04:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we see the article before deciding? It can just be written straight over the top of this one (retaining the VfD tag). I'd like to know what the new article says before deciding to keep/delete it. -Splash 04:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN forum. The less articles about petty internet communities I see every time I click Special:Random the better. --Dv 11:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic forum. Wikipedia isn't a listing for every community on the web. KevinGovaerts 13:58:31, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- not notable/spam. Incognito 14:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonsensical 'blogspam'. There are (unfortunately) thousands of blog communities that nobody cares about. --Timecop 14:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to state for the record that I have edited articles marked for VFD more than once, and have even edited such articles after I voted to merge them into another article. If an article that I had a personal interest in was marked for VFD, it would make me work harder on the article to prove its worth. --Pagrashtak 14:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to state for the record how impressive that is, and how proud of yourself you should be.--Geoff-LA 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geoff-LA, I offered that comment not as a statement of pride, but as an opinion to counter BOTF's opinion that a VFD effectively kills an article. However, I thank you for the compliment, undeserved though it may be. BOTF, I do take your point about the scarlet A, by the way. --Pagrashtak 20:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • With specific reference to Pagrashtak’s comment: I don’t doubt that wikivets are a bit more accustomed to the wiki-idiosyncrasies in that they recognize a VfD, not as a scarlet letter, but rather a hurdle/challenge. I’ll grant that, but WikipediA should take note that wikinovices do see it as the equivalent of a red letter “A”. As I mentioned elsewhere, perhaps it could be noted a bit more subtlety, and as this experience suggests, new articles could benefit from a two week to one month grace period during which an article can be refined in order to ensure any subsequent VfD vote/debate is properly informed. In general, and as Geoff has noted, the “debate” from our perspective is no longer about whether or not BotF belongs in WikipediA, but rather a discussion about WikipediA’s narrowing standards as a consequence of the ever-increasing idiosyncrasies of its aging community (broadly speaking). As FreelanceWizard notes, there is an “us” verses “them” dynamic to this debate. I submit however that it is the WikipediA community that lacks objectivity in this matter. To that end, I’ve gone ahead and copied this debate into a post in BotF. Assuming the topic garners debate, I think that in the BotF community you’ll find a variety of opinions as opposed to the WikipediA community’s apparent unanimity. BOTF 17:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A month is unlikely to make your forum more notable, unless you all decide to commit group suicide or somesuch. — Dv 18:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
We tried that but couldn’t get everyone onboard. Of course, your very presence here makes your “personal insult” more than a bit hypocritical. Unless, of course, you’ve somehow managed to excuse yourself from the reasoning that finds members of online communities like WikipediA worthy of your scorn. BOTF 18:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A great big thank you to Wikipedia for their notable contribution to the study of Belly button fluff--Geoff-LA 18:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. DragonTat2

Delete. as a BOTF regular, i beseech you wikigods, please, in the name of all that is holy and just, delete the BOTF entry. as i perused your six-part pikachu tractate or your even more elaborate explorations of the rim job and the Mandalorian War, i became increasingly convinced that not only is this probably not the best showcase for BOTF, but that no sane person would voluntarily come within 100 furlongs of you freaks or anything you consider "notable." --locdog

I'd wager that more people play Pokemon, are fans of Star Wars, or engage in unusual sexual practices than visit this forum. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, some of us may (or may not - I'm not telling) do all four. DemonFromHell 19:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. World's longest VFD vote in history. Keep, rename to The Fray and ensure NPOV sanity rules. The first Google hits for "BOTF" have nothing to do whatsoever with any Slate forums, thus it's unlikely anyone's going to search for that. FCYTravis 21:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And in agreement with Travis Strong Keep as per compromise above. Even if the final article were non-notable when rewritten, it should at least be a redirect to Slate Magazine Septentrionalis 22:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The BOTF is but one small forum in a much larger venue. It is more filled with personal attacks and social chit chat than with serious commentary. JConnor 23:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rename to "The Fray".--JPotter 16:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Renaming it, 'The BOTF,' will carry no insurance that the article will actually be about The Fray. The author will still feature only one or two forums. JConnor 24:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep? – Changing my vote from Delete, but really, I shouldn’t get a vote since I’m hardly objective. Change to “The Fray” seems fine to me. Curious, but what is the policy on “case in point” examples? It seems to me that “The Fray” would be a worthwhile “example” in a number of articles (1., 2., …, 6., …). Wouldn’t WikipediA’s “The Fray” article be a good pointer to the actual topic being referenced in these other articles. Another note: this VfD being a good example of what makes The Fray (BOTF) unique, especially if FCYTravis is correct, “Wow. World's longest VFD vote in history.” BOTF 18:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you shouldn't get to vote, then why are you voting? Isn't that basically admitting to a bad faith vote? —Dv 19:35:27, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
Well, I initially voted to delete, so the keep was in part designed to nullify my original vote. You’ll also note I qualified my keep with a question mark (“?”). I did this to show that it was more of a question than a vote. Finally, I said nothing about having no right to try and influence the vote, which is what I was doing. Please understand, my thinking on the subject has evolved over time. Initially, I was excited. That excitement was met with a VfD. Knowing BotF as I do, I assumed the VfD was enough of a deterrent to my hoped-for co-authors, that there was little point in pursuing the article. As far as I was concerned, the VfD then turned into a debate about WikipediA’s policies and procedures, and in particular for me, how those can become tools of abuse by juvenile wikifolk in pursuit of quasi-celebrity. However, the article has progressed (albeit slowly thanks to the VfD) enough that I’m now revising my initial assessment of the VfD. Suffice it to say, I now believe if “The Fray” article survives this VfD, it will ultimately become a highly cross-referenced and constructive addition to WikipediA. p.s. I know we’re not supposed to engage in personal attacks, but I find your petty comments in this VfD rather counterproductive, so if there is any question as to why I am responding to you at such length, it is so I can attempt turn the net negative of your pithily remarks into something constructive. BOTF 20:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop your view of mental and moral superiority over everyone else. You possess neither. Only your last vote is counted, so this keep vote of yours does not "nullify" the delete vote. You will also note thatthe first GNAA vfd is larger than this one, hence invalidating your initial point, which, indeed, wasn't valid in the first place. One of these days I shall also inquire why you choose to write WikipediA instead of Wikipedia, but this is not that day. —Dv 09:19:23, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
Look, someone else mentioned the VfD being the longest bit, not BOTF. Also, I bet you would be surprised at his/her intelligence, by the looks of things. Also, how long have you been around here (re the WikipediA thing)--SwingLowSweetDeej 13:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a Fray regular I can tell you that BOTF is not representative of the "best" of anything let alone the Fray, maybe at one time but no longer. Imo, it is unworthy of a mention on Wikipedia.--Frayette 21:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep.

Delete. We have enough useless, non-encyclopedic articles about internet forums already. Recury 02:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good luck with that Lil' Penny article, Recury, and good show on open mindedness; <facetiousness>you're a fine Wiki frontpiece.</facetiousness>--SwingLowSweetDeej 02:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. but i don't like the botf title -- "The Fray (Internet forum)" is better. Fufthmin 02:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Good god, it is less of a strain on the servers to keep it, and besides plastic.com, slashdot, or M11 Music !!!? As for the argument that it makes sense to delete something because you haven't heard of it, well that would rather defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia. Or should we delete say Ghazal because someone hasn't heard of it? Yasth 04:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What? —Dv 16:52:13, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

Keep. I really don't care how it's kept or where, though I prefer a Fray entry rather than the narrower BoTF, for there are several frays as notable - though more focused - for fine writing and insight as BoTF. Say I'm a little too imaginative, but to me Wikipedia is akin to the genesis of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Local Earth Edition. There's something fundamentally important about this encyclopedia beyond what I see the "deleters" recognizing: accuracy and legitimacy are crucial, yes, but so are interest and utility, and so all-inclusiveness should be its raison d'etre. The objections to inclusion of this article are notable for their personal subjectivity and narrownesss of vision. Narrow is most assuredly not what Wikipedia is designed to be, which is why the whole world is writing it, and why I expect Wikipedia to eventually contain an entry for everything on the planet that can be known. -- Montfort — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.22.126 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-09 08:46:29

Please, for future reference, read the article before offering your vote, because you clearly did not do so this time.--SwingLowSweetDeej 13:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering some of the entries that make it into this publication, I find this VfD page to be just about the most hysterical thing I've ever read in my life. Kinda what we might expect to see in the Vogon equivalent of Wikipedia.DemonFromHell 16:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This VFD is not meant to be perceived with hysteria. Perhaps you are experiencing the effects of psychoactive drugs —Dv 16:52:13, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • My friend, if you miss the humour in all of this, you might need to take some of those yourself. I'm having a hard time believing it's not a brilliant parody of two online communities posturing before a declaration of all-out war.DemonFromHell 17:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Florida (see Fark) The fact that a patently self-serving page, from a non-entity (Cyrus Farivar) gets a keep result - twice, and the length of this thread over what should be a no-brainer (using CV's vanity page VfD as a good example for comparison) make it clear that while a noble endeavour with good intentions, Wiki is more suitable as an example of how to kill a good idea with endless revisions and marginal thinking. Time can die a slow death in so many interesting ways on the internet, but this verbal volleyball aint one of 'em...m1key 14:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deej is to be commended for taking the time to define BOTF, which is a worthwhile organ as far as its inclusion in an entry for Slate (and Slate Fray) --Splendid_IREny
  • Merge with Slate (magazine). --Michael Snow 18:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No different than the articles for Portal Of Evil and Something Awful, imho. Hooper_X
  • Delete&Merge. Doesn't merit entry of its own, but summary should be merged with Slate entry, imho User:Mark Madsen
  • Merge with Slate (magazine). Notable enough for inlusion in article about parent site, no more. Alphax τεχ 09:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Slate (magazine). Neither article is overly long, and both are more complete with the other, so a merged article would be a better one. Jonathunder 14:46, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
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/BotF&oldid=1080148880"