Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep. Sheer numbers, ignoring anonymous and new voters would be "no consensus", but I hope I'm not risking my reasonably new and recallable adminship by marking it Keep from reading the arguments instead of counting votes here. There seems to be a cult following from the sheer number of Google hits, a sixth of a documentary film, and a few articles from reliable sources, such as the Washington Times, and an NBC station. (It would be nice if the Washington Times ref were added to the article.) True, the articles are primarily about the doll, but only by a narrow margin; he's the sole creator, and the articles don't just mention him in passing, they devote a noticeable part of their length to interviewing him. That's not worldwide fame, but it's enough for Wikipedia:Notability (people). AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Bob Smith[edit]

Normal Bob Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 20:06Z

The admin closing this discussion might be interested in reading this discussion, which started on November 9 and seems to have ended on November 19, the day before the article was created. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This was recreated from a previously deleted article. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith)-Deathawk 20:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a recreation -- see my comment below. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-23 00:42Z
  • Speedy Delete The old AfD is over a year old, but that doesn't mean one can just up and recreate the article. Take it to WP:DRV. Danny Lilithborne 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bob Smith is a cultural phenomenon and appeared in many media. Deleting this article looks very much like censorship. --Djudge 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Djudge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While Normal Bob Smith is controversial and reviled in many circles, he is a cultural icon. This article is valid and should be kept.--Elektrared 00:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Elektrared (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bob Smith is indeed a controversial figure. However, he is also a culturally relevant person, and so his article should be kept. This has been the accepted method taken with other internet personalities. For example, Sean Riley and George Ouzanian, AKA Seanbaby and Maddox, respectively, have Wikipedia pages. Bob Smith is as famous as either of these two. This article should not have been deleted in the first place.--Juppongatana 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Juppongatana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete recreated article. IrishGuy talk 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author and I created this article from scratch (except for the Urban Outfitters and Passion of the Christ entries) and have no personal involvement with Bob Smith, other than I think he's noteworthy. -- alienlovesong 01:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is notable and relevant. -- Chisrule 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Chisrule (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No solid assertions of notability, resposted content. To Juppongatana, note that just because there are articles on Maddox and Seanbaby does not mean NBS deserves one. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've heard of him, at least. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the primary notability criterion does apply: One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a subject is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. He has, for example, been the subject of this article in the Washington Times, or this article on the side of a catholic organisation with 60 employee. There have been other occasions when he made it to the news, but I think those two references, in addition to the high google-ranking of his page, should be enough for a keep. Sceptic Watcher 13:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Sceptic Watcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Washington Times article is not about Bob Smith, but about the Jesus Dress-up, which indeed seems notable. To draw a comparison: Barbie is notable, but not every person who has ever designed a Barbie doll is notable. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 09:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poor comparison, Jesus Dress-up has only one designer. Plus, it's hard to visit the site without noting the man behind it. It's clearly signed and very inviting to contact the designer. --Djudge 11:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Be that as it may, the references only assert the notability of that which has been designed, not of the person who has designed the Jesus dress-up. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The criteria for keeping this article has been met. I don't see why this is such an issue, unless one objects to the subject matter itself, which can be seen as disrespectful and controversial -- and deleting it on that issue would constitute censorship. Chompsillisay 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Chompsillisay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— 65.125.163.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No way sockpuppets and SPAs will make us let the page stay and rot on WP. Speedy Delete per these concerns and prior AFD. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that my account is no sockpuppet of anyone. I only now did start to work on the english wikipedia, but if you are so distrustful, you can look for my account Skeptischer Beobachter in the german wikipedia, where I work on articles about Tibetan Buddhism since about two months. I think before you make such accusations, you should have a way to verify them. With the very same right, I could assume that you are a sockpuppet. Sceptic Watcher 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noone is accusing you of anything. Slgrandson spoke of sockpuppets and SPAs (link and italics added by me). Fact of the matter is that you only have three edits, two of which are to this AfD and the other one being to the article's talk page. In such cases, it is within the discretion of the closing admin to discount such votes. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I admit that I was not aware of the meaning of that abbreviation and unfortunately did not find it. That's why I was only answering to the sockpuppet-part. It may indeed be possible that my account will be a SPA - I don't know yet if I will also work on Tibetan Buddhism and Atheism here. Sceptic Watcher 12:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the main reason for deleting this article now is not for lack of relevance but because is was deleted before. According to the rules it can't be simply recreated. The deletion can be reviewed and if there is support the admins can undelete the original article. I think this is a good point. My question for the experienced editors: can we ask for a review of the deletion and does support from ASP's for undeletion count? --Djudge 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can request a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Whether new users are in good faith or single purpose accounts has to be determined case by case. Whether their opinions are counted (AfD is not a vote) has to be determined by the closing admin. If the new users come with good arguments and make valid points, their opinions will be taken into consideration. But if they simply stuff the ballot, their votes are usually discounted. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've made several edits to philosophy/religion articles. I do not see the reason why this article is being considered "irrelevant". No reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.82.113 (talk • contribs)
— 74.12.82.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 16:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The man behind the #1 Google result for "Jesus", as well as being a keynote speaker at some of the most important atheist conventions in America and the feature character of a nationally-recognized and reviewed movie has no reason to be deleted. He is far more influencial and popular than many of his Christian counterparts who have their own pages. See Andy Braunston, Mike MacIntosh, and Jon Courson among others. I hate to accuse and yell the word "censorship" but I don't know if it's just a coincidence the main campaigner for deletion has done a huge volume of work on christian and christianity-related topics. --Meneitherfabio 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! This person really does exist, and has achieved some notariety whether or not you like him. Shall we start deleting kidney beans and migraine entries next? What is this, Nazi Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.68.113 (talk • contribs)
— 71.237.68.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that it was recreated without a WP:DRV is enough for me. But it also seems to be a little on the unnotable side... (the bunch of SPAs don't help either). Cbrown1023 20:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metacomment. I would like to remind everyone to debate whether the article should be included from fundamentals such as notability, verifiability, media references; does the subject meet WP:BIO? Arguments about "recreation without DRV" don't apply because this article is very different from the previous version (which was 1 sentence during the previous AFD), most likely created by different users; the previous AFD was hardly a concensus at 2 delete "votes" followed by 1 keep "vote". —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-22 20:11Z
  • Delete. The multiple SPAs are not helping here, but I'd be inclined to vote "weak keep" if he had been the subject of Bob Smith, U.S.A., rather than just one of seven subjects. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (noting Quarl's comment above) notability not establihed. Pete.Hurd 20:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has been deleted twice before, and the minor improvements since are still not enough to establish notability, delete and WP:SALT.--MONGO 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find articles about NBS's product, "Jesus Dress Up," but the product is the subject of these, not him. The product would seem to be notable, but not him. JChap2007 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normal Bob Smith has made the news on a few occasions now. He made it when he was dealing with Urban Outfitters and his magnet set, he made it when his website was shut down by religious organizations, he made it when he did some work for Heavy.com and the Mel Gibson Dress-Up - how many times must someone be news before they become noteworthy? He's a major player in the atheist community and has been a topic speaker at atheist conventions. He's been part of a documentary. Controversy and infamy should be sufficient for a Wikipedia article. More specifically, the article doesn't violate any of the Wikipedia rules featured at WP:NOT (Specifically point 5 of "Indiscriminate collection of information"), since the article addresses the cultural impact of Bob's website projects, not the websites themselves. I wholeheartedly think that this article has the notability and verifiability that Wikipedia demands of its articles. As for the implied WP:SPA, the SPA also advises "to assume good faith" - this is the case where I think good faith is in order. Audiolight 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC) — Audiolight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep - I would normally cry "delete" at anything supported by so many SPA's, but I put a little more effort into reviewing this. The subject is a controversial public figure and "Normal Bob Smith" (with quotes around it) yielded approx 39,000 ghits. Those numbers, and the articles written about him (rather than by him) imply a level of notability that justifies keeping this. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - If you omit his own sites, the count drops by a few thousand, but it's still around 36,300. Is that google count enough to indicate notability by itself? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - ghits are a rule-of-thumb tool, and there is no hard and fast threshhold either way. However, the cites indicate that he was the proximate cause of multiple organized protests which were themselves newsworthy events. In other words, he generated enough controversy that independent groups around the country staged protests against him. I gave more weight to that than the ghits alone, since that level of controversy and coverage certainly seems notable. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he evidently has some notoriety per Doc Tropics and others. There is no doctrine of res judicata with AfDs, though there is a rule of thumb that running a second AfD soon after one has failed is an abuse of process. In this case, the last AfD was a successful one but a long time ago with an article in a different form. In the absence of some special reason for salting, nothing prevents the creation of a new article on the same subject matter or requires that any such article be deleted. Metamagician3000 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=normalbobsmith.com sundergod9 November 2006
    • Question - How does one read Alexa results? This appears to say that, while page views have sometimes spiked to a rank in the 40,000-60,000 range, it rarely breaks the top 100,000; never in the past 6 months. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to that link, NormalBobSmith.com has an Alexa ranking of only 294,447. That doesn't even come close to notability. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For comparison: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.skepticality.com :they rank 748,103, this site is their main means of notability, yet there's no controversy about Skepticality, 'no notability' can be dismissed --Djudge 01:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skepticality was in fact proposed for deletion at one point; it was withdrawn. And the web site is associated with a well known organization; as it happens, the magazine pictured here is on my coffee table right now. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes Derek and Swoopy rule but their main audience is the skeptic community (myself included) whereas Normal Bob Smith causes controversy in the general public. The reason for not deleting skepticality: STRONG KEEP: 110,000 google hits. Let's again compare, Skepticality now gets 204,000 hits but with doubles omitted this results in 171 links, Normal Bob Smith (with parentheses) gets 38,100 hits but doubles omitted results in 257 links. This points to a much more divers coverage. Anyway, if 110,000 gets a STRONG KEEP, 38,100 must at least be a KEEP. --Djudge 10:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO IMO. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please give a reason - what does it fail? Audiolight 13:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Passes WP:BIO IMO: 2 criteria met: subject of published works (Fox News, CNN, MSNBC) and large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. --Djudge 11:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the Normal Bob Smith fans posting to this page: You are encouraged to improve the article by adding additional references that will demonstrate his notability. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why not, there's far more stupid/irrelivent shit on the wiki thats not up for deletion. Zoift 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC) — Zoift (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep As Doc Tropic and others have found, he is the primary subject of multiple, non-trivial references at reliable sources. I could care less why he is notable, but there it is. He is notable. Now, just rewrite the article useing only facts found in those sources, and you would have a good article! --Jayron32 06:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Honestly I am not sure why there is so much controversy here. I had never heard of this guy, but after reading the article (which admittedly needs work) I am thoroughly convinced that he is notable and it seems that the reasons for deletion are getting thinner and thinner (why is the fact that a previous article about him was deleted, in and of itself, necessarily a criteria for deleting this one?) I have always found wikipedia's criteria for notability to be extremely lax anyway, so it seems like this guy makes it in by a wide margin. Dmz5 02:33, 27 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Normal_Bob_Smith_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136109269"